Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 07	July 09 >

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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, no clear Delete arguments. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of people with non-binary gender identities

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

While I'm sure this list seemed like a good idea when it was started in 2015, it is no longer practical to keep it updated. According to Wikidata, there are about 1000 non-binary people with Wikipedia articles. This list only includes about 200 of them (including some that probably don't belong, like Prince). The number of notable non-binary people is growing at a rapid rate and I think this information is better handled via Wikidata and categories (the same as we handle other genders). By only listing a small fraction, we are giving the false impression that there are a much smaller number of notable non-binary people than there really are. If you disagree, please elaborate on how you think this list can be realistically kept up-to-date into the future. Nosferattus (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support: Seems reasonable to handle the same as other gender identities. Is it possible to redirect to Category:Non-binary people (even though it's out of the article namespace)? The downside would be that there's no central list: categories organize things as trees, and it's impossible to view an actual list of all the people. But that may be inevitable. If wikidata gives a list view, maybe it's possible to link to wikidata somehow? Mrfoogles (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Need a second opinion though Mrfoogles (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wanted to make a comment first before voting. I am going to throw this out there; we have list articles like Lists of women, Lists of men, List of gay, lesbian or bisexual people, Lists of LGBT people, List of transgender people. Honestly I don't understand the arguement behind this at all.CycoMa1 (talk) 17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like can any of you please provide a link to a policy page to back up your arguments?CycoMa1 (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like are any of the arguments backed up by Wikipedia:DEL-REASON?CycoMa1 (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway I think I said everything I needed to say right now. Just going to wait for others to comment.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CycoMa1: How about we change it to Lists of non-binary people, similar to Lists of women and Lists of men? This would include lists like List of non-binary writers, and other more manageable sub-lists. Nosferattus (talk) 23:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be in support of that. But this discussion is more about whether or not the article should be deleted.CycoMa1 (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Actually let me reword myself. I won't be against it.CycoMa1 (talk) 23:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

As far as the policy reasons for deleting, it would be WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:DEL-REASON #14: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". It is not appropriate for an encyclopedia to have constantly-changing unmanagably-long lists such as this one. There is precedent for deleting lists that are too long and unmanagable: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lists of Salticidae species (2nd nomination), although that case also involved redundancy. Nosferattus (talk) 00:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Under that same logic, there are a lot of lists that should then be deleted. There are plenty of lists on Wikipedia that I would consider to meet the logic laid out in your standards, such as the ones other users have already mentioned.

And, yes, we have category listings but those are really a difference of formatting. One is a list on a singular page and the other is a directory that leads to a list. See, Lists of Women (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_women) which leads to several sub lists with a formatting that exactly matches the list whose deletion is being proposed. Annabelledempsey97 (talk) 19:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no reason to delete the article per the things I said earlier.CycoMa1 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We maintain a list of the 1,025 Pokémon, so why not the roughly 900 pages in Category:Non-binary people? That's a large but not intractable number of entries, and not even close to the largest stand-alone list on Wikipedia (I've personally touched List of women authors which includes over 8000 entries). Updating the article to include all current English Wikipedia biography subjects in that cat (excluding the dozen which are fictional, like Toad) is a perfectly feasible task for a motivated volunteer with a spreadsheet. There is no deadline. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 19:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If it's helpful at all, I got an LLM to spit out a SPARQL query, which retrieves the relevant data for whatever set of article subjects are correctly tagged as being non-binary humans in Wikidata (875, at time of writing). –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (💬 • 📝) 20:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoxySaunders: That's a good start, although there are also 46 gender identities in Wikidata that are subclasses of non-binary. Plus we need references for all of them (or at least the living ones, which is most of them). Nosferattus (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw proposal - Based on the feedback so far, I'm going to withdraw this proposal and suggest some fixes on the list's talk page. @Mrfoogles, CycoMa1, and RoxySaunders: Thank you for the helpful ideas and feedback! Nosferattus (talk) 15:48, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) asilvering (talk) 04:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Rashid, Baghdad

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

I couldn't find reliable sources to confirm any of this information. Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Also could not find sources Mrfoogles (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iraq. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Administrative districts in Baghdad. Reywas92^Talk 18:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have articles on all the administrative districts of Baghdad. It makes no sense to just delete this one. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The nomination was regarding failure of WP:V. Do you have a rebuttal to that? Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It can clearly be verified that it exists. Anything else is cleanup, and AfD is not cleanup. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:42, 15 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!} 18:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it’s verifiably a municipality of Baghdad 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra (talk) 20:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. BilletsMauves^€500 14:17, 21 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. Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hafiz Baxish

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

Zero references to establish notability. After searching, found other people of same name, but no comprehensive, in-depth coverage of this specific person. PROD removed 27 June 2024; PROD reverted 27 October 2022; PROD on 27 October 2022; Created on 27 August 2014. JoeNMLC (talk) 14:59, 1 July 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 July 1. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I mistakenly put a PROD on it last week without checking that it hadn't already had one. I agree with delete per nom. SomeoneDreaming (talk) 18:45, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Azerbajani article gives 1 reference: "Tamxil Ziyəddinoğlu, "Hafiz Baxış-80". Bütöv Azərbaycan qəzeti, №36(168), 17-23 oktyabr 2012-ci il." This appears to be an article in a reasonable news source. I can't find it but I think he may have significant coverage. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep. Found a few Azeri sources ([1], [2], [3]) that I think are just over the line of WP:SIGCOV. Reviewing with machine translation though, so could be wrong -- happy to be convinced either way. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:56, 15 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. ^Complex/_Rational 14:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vuelamex

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. None of the reference links work. The airlines never commenced operations. This has been tagged for notability since 2011. Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Aviation, and Mexico. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Airline that never took off. Literally or figuratively. gidonb (talk) 03:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because of lack of notability. ‹hamster717🐉› ^{(discuss anything!🐹✈️ • my contribs🌌🌠)} 23:09, 12 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 Demoscene#List of demoparties. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarden (demoparty)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Digi.no article, but it consists of telling what one of the organizers said. Other than that, I was only able to find mentions and short descriptions, such as "The two pure demo parties in Norway are Solskogen, which is organised in July every year, and Kindergarden, which is held in November. Kindergarden can boast that it is the world's oldest demo party that is still organised."

A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to Demoscene#List of demoparties. toweli (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Computing, and Norway. toweli (talk) 14:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: All the sources are self-published or that Digi.no article which is pretty much just an event announcement. Could not find anything on google for it either. Probably sufficient to put "Amiga-focused demoparty which began in a kindergarden in YEAR and ended in YEAR, reaching 200 attendees in YEAR". Mrfoogles (talk) 15:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. just write what is possible based off those sources and maybe their website Mrfoogles (talk) 15:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:30, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:56, 23 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 Volta River Authority#Subsidiary companies. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Volta Hotels Limited

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The only reference link provided doesn’t exist anymore. As an ATD, can be merged into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volta_River_Authority Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Volta River Authority#Subsidiary companies (with the history preserved under the redirect), where this subsidiary company is already mentioned, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage about the book in my searches for sources.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 05:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Volta River Authority#Subsidiary companies : Subject does not have the requisite sourcing to meet the WP:GNG. The only source is primary, and a cursory search didn't come up with anything better. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 01:15, 15 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) 13:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Wimbledon

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

There’s a shortage of independent reliable sources on the page about the topic which show that the standards of inclusion per the WP:GNG. There’s nothing much I can find otherwise. JMWt (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and England. JMWt (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

as an ATD we could redirect to Wimbledon Championships where much of the content is replicated. My difficulty is that this could be misleading (Wimbledon is a place outside of the tennis championship) and it seems an unlikely search term. JMWt (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is a lot here and this was a very popular radio broadcast. I listened to it in the evening for years and years. Perhaps it should be an all-encompassing article on Wimbledon on the radio? Now it's handled by "Wimbledon Radio." Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:ILIKEIT, the decision to keep is based on coverage in independent reliable sources per the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are sufficient independent references although the article probably needs to be reduced in length to remove some of the unsourced material which is more than a decade out of date. Rillington (talk) 10:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources 2&3 in the article seem to meet the WP:GNG with multiple paragraphs of independent coverage in each, combined with [[4]] I think there is enough to meet the notability guidelines. Some cleanup is needed but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Let'srun (talk) 18:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This was a huge deal back in the day. The topic is pretty significant and well-covered, but it could use some cleanup to bring it up to date. Waqar💬 17:05, 14 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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn with no remaining deletion proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Walk Among the Tombstones (novel)

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

Could not find any reliable coverage of the book. Only sources here are Goodreads (see WP:GOODREADS) and an article about the film. Nothing of value to save here. I say redirect to the film's page where more info about the novel could be added as I'm sure it is at least mentioned in some detail in articles about the film. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Film. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 13:10, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added four reviews to the article from the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Arizona Daily Star, the Cincinnati Enquirer and the Muncie Indiana Star-Press. Toughpigs (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's also reviews by Bangor Daily News: [5], by an Associated Press reviewer in various papers: [6], Publishers Weekly: [7], Kirkus Reviews: [8]. --Mika1h (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That all works, so I am withdrawing. Thanks to both of you. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The reviews given above are more than enough for book notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 00:41, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:40, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dinis Lopes

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

Dinis Lopes never played in a professional league match and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. After many searches, I was able to find some routine coverage but no WP:SIGCOV. Sapo was probably the best source but it only really confirms that he signed a two-year contract and that he used to play for Pedras Rubras. Record is basically the same as Sapo above. Mais Futebol has a transfer announcement, this time about him signing for Salgueiros, but it contains no significant coverage. Lastly, Labor is another transfer announcement with only minimal coverage of Lopes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - claim to notability is insufficient to meet the notability guideline. C 679 14:20, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiago Leão

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

This had been tagged for notability since 2014 but I removed it based on the fact that he meets the now-defunct WP:FOOTYN. I was not able to find any evidence of being able to pass WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC, though. Diário de Santo Tirso was the best source but it's a basic transfer announcement other than for the very brief quote, Record is another source but is way too brief and Gazeta Paços de Ferreira is only a squad list mention. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: significant coverage does not appear to exist and fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Both portuguese and english sources have been searched for Mrfoogles (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unable to establish notability. C 679 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it lacks sufficient verifiable sources to establish notability, making it difficult to confirm the significance of his contributions or achievements. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 17:57, 10 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 12:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

João Van Zeller

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

Van Zeller played 84 mins of professional football before a brief career at the semi-pro level. I can't find any WP:SIGCOV. The closest that I could find was a squad list mention at Espinho TV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources do not seem to be findable and the current article is only sourced to databases, and also doesn't really say anything. Oddly enough, there's an identically named man on the portuguese Wikipedia who is entirely unrelated here. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that there is also a Dutch-Portuguese winemaking family with a guy with this name in it as well. Probably more notable than the footballer. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this footballer. JTtheOG (talk) 16:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:44, 8 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 12:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedrinho Rodrigues

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

Pedrinho Rodrigues never participated in a professional league match and seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC as far as I can tell. I've searched his common name and full name, including in conjunction with clubs that he played for, and can find nothing other than database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Also cannot find sources, current article sourced to databases only. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't seem to find any fitting criteria in WP:GNG or WP:SPORTSBASIC at all. No coverage as well Vorann Gencov (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to not meeting WP:GNG. C 679 07:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article is based on nothing. There's no proof that this person is notable. I looked everywhere for info and came up empty-handed. Waqar💬 17:16, 14 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. ✗plicit 12:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Magnani

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

Not particularly relevant as an essayist, nor as a lecturer. Excellent career, no doubt, but rather in the normal range. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, Singapore, Italy, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:
- Fatti non foste a viver come robot: [9] (access via WP:LIBRARY) [10] [11] [12] [13]
- Il grande scollamento. Timori e speranze dopo gli eccessi della globalizzazione: [14] [15] [16]

Broc (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [17][18] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [19] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep also : Not sure why there are profiles, but there appear to be Il Sole 24 Ore covering his return from America, il Fatto Quotidiano covering Italy 2030, what appears to be a book review I'm not sure of the independence of. Along with another book review, these are the only independent reliable sources the book has. Given a couple news stories about him and a number of sources on his books, it seems reasonable to write a short article. He seems to be notable for maybe the Italy 2030 project and his popular books?

Given the large number of sources, I wonder if it's possible to show they pass Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? That would pretty much resolve this debate, because this article would obviously contain the books. And given he has his own news sources, it seems reasonable to also discuss him.

I'm not 100% sure if the book sources transfer over to his notability, but he's still got a case either way. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:10, 8 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 Thrissur#Education. ✗plicit 12:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Thrissur district

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

Non notable list per WP:LIST. WP:DIRECTORY applies too with no WP:SIGCOV. Can be merged to Thrissur. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to Thrissur#Education. Changed my vote to redirect because I do not think it makes any better to merge the list that fails significant coverage with no reliable secondary independent sources and fails WP:NLIST. RangersRus (talk) 12:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Orientls (talk) 17:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Thrissur#Education.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:18, 12 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 North Paravur#Educational organisations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:10, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational organisations in North Paravur

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

Non notable list per WP:LIST. WP:DIRECTORY applies too with no WP:SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect to North_Paravur#Educational_organisations. Changed my vote to redirect because I do not think it makes any better to merge the list that fails significant coverage with no reliable secondary independent sources and fails WP:NLIST. RangersRus (talk) 12:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to North Paravur: As nominator, I won't mind a redirect to the parent town article either. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:56, 15 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 List of schools in Selangor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoke Kuan High School

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

Does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG,) not an important school in Malaysia, and no reliable and independent sources cited or significant coverage. N niyaz (talk) 10:18, 8 July 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 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of schools in Selangor. I suggests to refer to the redirected version of Anglo-Chinese School, Melaka despite of the recent discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bukit Jalil National Secondary School. I would like to apply my suggestion to the other 19 schools under proposed deletion in [20]. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Argh! 17 of them have just got deleted. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, this school along with the 19 other schools should not be exempt from the deletion similarly subjected to the article you cited. N niyaz (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested above due to lack of standalone notability, failure to meet WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:40, 15 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. The Delete views carry more P&G weight than the Keeps. But even after four weeks, the Delete views failed to achieve quorum, let alone consensus. Owen× ☎ 16:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Seri Kembangan

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

Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines ; most of the secondary sources cited are paid materials by Multimedia University (see WP:SPIP.) N niyaz (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 8 July 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 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I cited most of the secondary sources in the article. I would like to ask the nominator for deletion N niyaz, is it possible to list some of the secondary sources that you claimed are paid materials by Asia Pacific University? KjjjKjjj (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay @KjjjKjjj I made a little mistake there, what I meant was Multimedia University. Also the school receives no significant coverage and most of the sources are just mentions. Unfortunately what's best is to make it a redirect.

https://www.wilayahku.com.my/smk-seri-permaisuri-antara-13-sekolah-angkat-mmu/

https://sinarbestari.sinarharian.com.my/ipt/sekolah-angkat-mmu-persiapkan-pelajar-ke-arah-digitalisasi N niyaz (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@N niyaz: If I'm not mistaken and correct me If I'm wrong, both of the sources you said have no mention of being paid. KjjjKjjj (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KjjjKjjj You could already tell by the topic and style of the writing that it is a press release/paid article. Trying to find a paid article disclaimer in the sources is just stupid. N niyaz (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple secondary sources, passes WP:NOTABILITY at it's barest. KjjjKjjj (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Checked the sources listed in English. None of them provide significant coverage, just mentions or sponsored content/press releases. Cannot check sources in Malay, hence weak. Tried to find some more coverage for this article, but failed. Vorann Gencov (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I disagree that "Trying to find a paid article disclaimer in the sources is just stupid", online content often includes a statement when it is sponsored content.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:38, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Although often it's not mandatory for them to declare it. The article

https://www.wilayahku.com.my/smk-seri-permaisuri-antara-13-sekolah-angkat-mmu/

https://sinarbestari.sinarharian.com.my/ipt/sekolah-angkat-mmu-persiapkan-pelajar-ke-arah-digitalisasi

is obviously a press release and not a reliable source. N niyaz (talk) 10:16, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The school has high Chinese student number which is special as this school is unacknowledged by Chinese association.^[1]^[2] A search of "史里肯邦安国中" on Google showed some Chinese newspapers. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How does that even make it special? LIKE I STRESSED, there is no significant coverage on the school, it isn't notable, and most of the sources cited is a press release/paid article. N niyaz (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "【暖势力】放下藤条感化"坏学生"．戴庆义改变问题国巾". Sin Chew Daily (in Chinese). Retrieved July 7, 2024.
^ "筹建多元化讲堂史中盼华社援手". 东方日报 [Oriental Daily News (Malaysia)] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2017-06-23. Retrieved 2024-08-04.

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bubble theory

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

This appears to be a novel theory that has seen close to zero uptake in the field so far. I can only find a single reference to the concept and/or paper [21], and that is a passing mention in an unreviewed preprint. This is not at all surprising because the paper was only published a month ago. Someone is trying to use WP as a publicizing platform here. There is as yet no notability basis for this topic. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paper from 2019 there is a whole section titled Bubble Theory. Jedzwarzywa (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... the second paper from the same author... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an hypothesis by one author and it has not gained any consensus by the scientific community. The two papers are primary sources and should not be used alone. Graham Beards (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One guy's idea with no discernible influence (in other words, not even noteworthy as an idea people have taken the trouble to explicitly reject). Not what Wikipedia is for. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Work by a single author. Independent of whether the 2024 work is going to end up as notable, to date there is no evidence that it is. The second 2019 paper has been cited 9 times and is already in Living systems and Life, perhaps others. Move anything useful to one of those. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was added to Life, and then part of it was moved over to Living systems during a cleanup attempt. It doesn't belong in any of those places, for the same fundamental reasons as why this article shouldn't exist. XOR'easter (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I deliberately used anything useful to not make a judgement here about the validity of the work. I see that you have removed the 2nd paper from those pages -- it was there when I voted. I must abstain on what useful aspects go into other pages as it is well into my incompetence. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Special:Contributions/Jedzwarzywa is pretty illuminating. Looks like the bubble theory of scant uptake has been busily inserted wherever it would go by this editor. I have just removed an entirely overblown presentation of it from Individual. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:12, 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 12:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency

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

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [22] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The vast majority of sources in the article are primary or affiliated, or they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS that discuss LADA in passing. However, we have a bare minimum pass of WP:NORG with Chatzichristodoulou et al., Martin and Keidan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:54, 15 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 11:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willie XO

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

Non notable musician. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Majority of the references are just from mere blog talking about his music. It is also clearly written by the creator the subject paid for billboard advertising. This doesn’t even sound like a biography but a promotional work and majority of the contribution are from the creator suck puppet account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mark_Yung_Chukwuebuka user:MarkIblog for reference. Gabriel (talk to me ) 09:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Gabriel (talk to me ) 09:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don’t see how this passes WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Looks very promotional too without imparting any useful information. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMUSIC. No chart activity or notable label work, the usual namedropping of famous artists in attempt to establish notability, and promotional-sounding sources. Never mind the horribly written article with all proper names in lowercase. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 09:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't see how his music comfort you made itself notable before raising the artist to prominence, promotionally raising a music to stream 20m views on YouTube. The sources sounds advertorial —announcement of new album/release. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:48, 10 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 11:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Oke

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

Non notable chef. All sources in the article are primary and the only credible source which is a BBC report mentions the subject in passing. Before search did not yield anything useful. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Food and drink. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BASIC - Nothing notable. Tells us his background, but only three sentences on his career. — Maile (talk) 13:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage to meet notability.... I found this [23], but it's an interview. Just not enough out there we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 00:43, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Chef? Barely sourced BLP that doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources are all unreliable per WP:RS. Are chefs notable? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:45, 10 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 11:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keji Giwa

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

Business person not eligible for an article. Media sources used in the article are from blogs which are unreliable. A before search brought press statements issued by their business entities with passing mention of them. others found are interviews written in news article formats which extensively quoted their onw words Ednabrenze (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see anything to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Promotional and blog sourced BLP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:42, 10 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. ✗plicit 11:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kheibar Shekan

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

This article is about an Iranian ballistic missile. The article is clearly written from a fan or someone with a pecuniary or otherwise disallowed interest in the matter, which violates WP:NPOV. Alongside this, the article relies on Persian sources, which would challenge WP:MOS. These sources are biased and the majority are from Iranian state-sponsored news sources and agencies, and the author had designed it this way. The article also has a large amount of grammatical and otherwise errors. I would have liked for the article to remain with a NPOV and grammatically correct form, however at this point I believe that it is too far gone. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article's tone is a little odd, but it's okay to like missiles. Also, googling the subject immediately gives a number of reliable sources, which are also in English:

Current article may be bad but if it's bad enough to delete the article can honestly just be blanked and restarted as a stub. Maybe delete everything cited to state-sponsored news, condense the rest, and leave it at that? Mrfoogles (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be OK to like missiles, I do myself, however that isn't a justification for failing WP:NPOV? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are plenty of sources. It’s daft to object to Iranian sources about an Iranian missile. Deletion is not cleanup so if the tone and language need to be improved, anyone can go ahead and improve them. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The concerns above are not relevant to deletion. The state of the article is not WP:TNT-worthy. Aintabli (talk) 10:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article's a bit rough around the edges, but deleting it seems excessive. We can probably salvage it with some careful editing and better sources. Waqar💬 17:20, 14 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. ✗plicit 11:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Object Basic

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Available sources appear to be primary documentation, press releases, or copies of this article. It doesn't seem significant enough to pass WP:NSOFT. Ligaturama (talk) 09:36, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwize

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a non-notable rapper. Sources are passing mentions and nothing indepth on the subject. I don't see it satisfies WP:NMUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NMUSIC. His only claim to fame is attached to Eminem, and that was 27 years ago. No notable discography or chart activity, and the titles of the citations in the article don't even mention the subject, but other rappers. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 20:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NMUSIC. WP:NMUSIC states "Musicians ... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." Otherwize clearly meets 3 of the criteria: #1, #7, and #9.
1. He has been featured in multiple documentaries (Where We're From and Freestyle: The Art of Rhyme), books (Words from Wize, The Come Up, The Way I Am, King Khule, Born a Villain), and articles (HipHopDX, Eminem.Pro, etc.). His prominence in the documentaries have nothing to do with Eminem, so they are not inherited notability.

7. In Where We're From, Otherwize is cited as the most prominent battle rapper in his region (LA) during this era. That has nothing to do with Eminem, so it's not inherited notability.

9. Otherwize won 1st Place and 3rd Place in major national music competitions (Rap Olympics '97 and Scribble Jam '99). Granted, one of those was defeating Eminem, but the other one was not, and they are still placings in national music competitions regardless of who he defeated. So this is not inherited notability.
He is also part of a notable crew called Project Blowed, which is also a subject of documentaries (This is the Life and Hip-Hop Evolution). He featured on the important Los Angeles underground albums Beneath the Surface and Cater to the DJ. Hierarchitectitiptitoploftical (talk) 20:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that the general guidelines regarding notability and verifiability must still be met. To address your points:
1. For the sake of being thorough, I had a look at a selection of these references. I find fault with a number of them.
Words from Wize is a non-independent work.

The Come Up, as best I can tell, mentions Otherwize by name only once outside of a footnote. Am I wrong? This is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION.

In The Way I Am, I again find his name mentioned only once. (In fairness, I'm dealing with a non-searchable PDF, so I may have missed something; the reference lacks page number(s) — are you able to provide any?)

Three of the books you cite — King Khule, Born a Villain and Words from Wize — appear to be published by the same obscure, 'indie' publisher (Parker Pubs). None of the three books have ISBNs, and Parker Pubs doesn't even have a website. A Google search for "Words from Wize" Parker Pubs returns only 4 results, and one of them is this Wikipedia article. Looking at Parker Pubs's Linktree, it appears the only platform Parker Pubs makes these books available on is Lulu.com, which is a self-publishing house. Note WP:SELFPUBLISH says: "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer." Now, in fairness, it may be inaccurate to label these works as 'self-published'. But regardless, I can't help but somewhat question their value as sources in light of the above, even ignoring the fact Words from Wize is a non-independent work.

HipHopDX would appear to be a reliable source; I'm not particularly confident in saying the same of Eminem.Pro.
7. Can you find any other reliable sources that describe him in similar terms, e.g. "most prominent rapper (in LA)" or similar? Was this level of status sustained? If it were true (that he's "the most prominent battle rapper in [LA] during this era"), it's hard to imagine this fact wouldn't make its way into other reliable sources.

9. Fair enough. I accept those events meet criteria #9.

Overall, I still feel WP:NMUSICBIO and WP:GNG are not sufficiently met. GhostOfNoMeme 07:35, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per HopalongCasualty. Looking at the article's existing references, and searching for others, I don't believe this figure meets WP:NOTABILITY. Many of the references, some from sources that do not seem reliable, are good examples of WP:NOTINHERITED — his attachment to Eminem does not establish his own notability, and almost enters WP:BLP1E territory as well. GhostOfNoMeme 14:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to address the fact that he meets 3 of the criteria in WP:NMUSIC? Hierarchitectitiptitoploftical (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I replied to your original message above re WP:NMUSIC. GhostOfNoMeme 07:40, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gsearch goes to a Reddit thread, then Discogs, neither of which is a good sign. Defeating Eminem is fine, but that's more of a trivial item than notable to get an entire article. Oaktree b (talk) 23:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to address the fact that he meets 3 of the criteria in WP:NMUSIC? Hierarchitectitiptitoploftical (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hierarch, please keep in mind WP:BLUDGEON. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:56, 19 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 merge‎ to The Blues Brothers. ✗plicit 11:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blues Brothers: Private

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

Fails WP:NOTBOOK with no independent third-party coverage. Article has been nothing but unsourced fancruft since its 2006 creation. If not deletion, then a redirect to The Blues Brothers will do. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: if sources are found content can be added to Blues Brothers Mrfoogles (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unreferenced and failing Wikipedia:Notability for 17.97 years. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Blues Brothers. Doing a search, there is some newspaper coverage but I didn't find enought to convince me that the subject meets GNG. I'll add a source or two so there will be some cited content. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 23:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Blues Brothers per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. I did not find significant coverage about the book in my searches for sources.
A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow editors to selectively merge any content that can be reliably sourced to the target article. A redirect with the history preserved under the redirect will allow the redirect to be undone if significant coverage in reliable sources is found in the future. Cunard (talk) 05:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:58, 14 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. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 04:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia

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

Non-notable encyclopedia. --Viennese Waltz 07:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: can't find any sources either Mrfoogles (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: created in 2006 with probably original research analysis, still unsourced (except to the book itself) today Mrfoogles (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several reviews on ProQuest: One in Library Journal (ProQuest ID 196790216), one in Choice magazine (PQ 225716546), possibly reviewed (I can't see if it's an actual review or just saying This Book Was Published, but it says it was a review) in College & Research Libraries News (PQ 203713400), full review in the New York Review of Science Fiction (PQ 2152382677). And that was just a light search on ProQuest, I would guess a few more if I was more thorough, but this is enough for GNG and NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. The sources found by PARAKANYAA in Library Journal, Choice, College & Research Libraries News, and The New York Review of Science Fiction.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough reliable sources proving notability.--SouthernNights (talk) 14:39, 14 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 moot‎ as the page was merged. ✗plicit 12:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sul Ross State University Lobos

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

Merge with Sul Ross State Lobos. This page was created with an unconventional name when the target page already existed as a redirect. It should be merged with the target page to comply with naming standards on these types of articles (see New Mexico Lobos or Ohio State Buckeyes). JTtheOG (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JTtheOG: I don't see this as a matter requiring AfD. You could just simply move "Sul Ross State University Lobos" over the redirect "Sul Ross State Lobos". BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I completely agree with this recommendation and approach (I created this article, now a redirect, in the first place). ElKevbo (talk) 22:33, 8 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. If an editor wants to work on a version of this article in Draft space, contact me or WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wall (entrepreneur)

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

WP:BLP of a crypto entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of companies are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to establish that they pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own company's press releases and his own self-created YouTube videos and a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and one more is an unreliable source crypto-news forum. And what's left for reliable sources is one Forbes article that just briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite and one Forbes article that completely fails to contain even a glancing namecheck of Peter Wall at all, and instead is just here to tangentially verify stray facts about a company without providing any evidence that any of those facts have anything in particular to do with Peter Wall.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative for tech entrepreneurs, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I complete understand your reservations about Peter Wall, and it was never my intention to sound like a Linkedin profile. Maybe I did not do due negligence when sourcing my references but the entire of the article was becuase he is a notable man both in Canadian media and in bitcoin. Can I nominate that we move the article to a draft while I source for other sources which do exist on the individual concerned and am sure when you searched online you will find that Peter Wall is extensively covered. LynnEditor.Nam (talk) 14:03, 1 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!} 05:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: current sourcing is Canada C3 Coast to Coast describing him as a team member (non-independent), a coworking space review mentioning his company but not him, two sources by him (non-independent), and two sources mentioning him joining and leaving as CEO without saying much about (providing significant coverage of) him, one short source about an IPO not mentioning him, and the bitcoin mining rush source which includes a quote from him and says basically nothing else. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as suggested: nominator is being unnecessarily harsh by calling it "not a free linkedin alternative" but I cannot find sources googling that are not associated with him, by him, or coverage that does not go into detail of him being in various positions.

Per Wikipedia:Notability, significant coverage (at least a paragraph specifically talking about him and who he is) from at least two reliable, independent (not affiliated with, employing, employed by, working together with him) sources is necessary for an article so that it can be written sufficiently independently and in-depth. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This isn't a notable person. This is about the best [24] and it's a PR item. A video journalist is just a "grunt behind the camera", to be blunt, and isn't notable. He's reported on things that happened, which is what videographers do. The crypto connection isn't helping notability. There is a real estate person in Vancouver that has coverage (with the same name), but it's not this person. Oaktree b (talk) 00:48, 9 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!} 07:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Best source about this person I found is [25], and although it's reliable it's hardly WP:SIGCOV. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:40, 15 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. Clear consensus against deletion, but no consensus to merge. Discussion about a merger may continue on the relevant Talk page. Owen× ☎ 19:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Rodgers

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

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede 66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. PamD 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on this article. It's a bit of case of WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less). KoA (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or maybe Merge: it's a borderline case, but I think there's enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the content, if not to have a standalone article. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 22 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 speedy deleted and salted‎ by User:Explicit and User:Lectonar respectively (forgot to close). (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 01:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Amparo Santana

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

Fails WP:NBIO - I'm not seeing third party SIGCOV.

Previous Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Santana KH-1 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Dominican Republic, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 and G5, see also:

... etc. Wikishovel (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I was the nominator for the first creation and my review still stands. No coverage since that time can be considered reliable enough to show notability. Based on the willingness to push this down Wikipedia's throat, would recommend SALTING or we will likely wind right back here in a few months. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and SALT per G4. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:24, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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!} 02:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch Mountain (ski area)

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

Written like an advertisement, no references cited, no indication of notability. These are long-standing issues (5+ years) with no attempts made by other editors to fix. Ultimately, this could probably be deleted and merged into Monarch Pass. GSK (talk • edits) 04:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems right. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame (2023). Skiing in Colorado. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4671-6055-1. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Monarch Pass, c. 1936. People have been skiing the mountains surrounding the valley of Monarch Mountain since 1914. Monarch's first unofficial winter season was in 1936, when James Kane and the Salida Winter Sports Club brought a Chevy truck engine up Monarch Pass highway. Other skiers instrumental in the initial opening of the area were Thor Groswold, Sven Wiik, and Charlie Vail. By 1939, the club applied to the US Forest Service for a permit to cut trails, construct a lodge, and erect a lift. The first run cut at Monarch was Gunbarrel, an expert trail with a 30 percent slope. During the first official ski season of 1939–1940, season passes cost $1. Rope tow revenues netted over $50, with 25¢ day tickets. Ownership of the resort changed multiple times, with each change resulting in additional lifts, more terrain, and a base lodge. Stability returned to Monarch in the 1990s after a turbulent decade throughout the 1980s when the area filed for bankruptcy. In 2006, the Mirkwood Basin opened to skiers and riders willing to hike."
2. Mait, Sandy (2021-01-11). "Monarch Mountain: One of Colorado's Best- Kept—and Snowy—Secrets". Ski. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The review notes: "Monarch is rare in the ski-resort world, running on 100 percent natural snow (about 350 inches annually) leading to the resort’s motto “We don’t make snow. Mother Nature does.” The resort’s base elevation of nearly 11,000 feet helps keep the snow fluffy and frequent. And most of the more difficult trails remain un-groomed, providing a true backcountry feel with the ease of chairlift access. And for anyone looking for more than a backcountry feel, there are 130 acres of hike-to terrain."
3. Scoville, Peter (January–February 2012). "Monarch Mountain". Skiing. EBSCOhost 70248700.
  The review notes: "I first discovered Monarch Mountain in the winter of 1995. I was on my annual pilgrimage from the Front Range to Crested Butte for its ski-for-free weekend when we pulled our old Subaru Outback, bottoming out under five ski buddies and gear, off U.S. Highway 50 into the area's dirt parking lot for a pee break. ... Somewhere between cheap lift tickets, nine inches of fresh pow, nonexistent lift lines, and steep shots like Gunbarrel and High Anxiety that filled back in after every lap, I fell in love with Monarch Mountain. We ended the day in the Sidewinder Saloon, Monarch's only bar, for an après-ski scene that embodied all of the comfort and camaraderie a down-home, slopeside watering hole should. Though I didn't realize it then, that chance stop sold me on the beauty of Monarch and reminded me why I love skiing. Fast-forward 16 years, and nothing much has changed at Monarch. It now sports a terrain park and new steep lines and tree runs that came with the 130-acre expansion into Mirkwood Basin, but those improvements only built upon the fundamentals: deep snow, few crowds, and an unpretentious group of hardcore skiers and beginners alike."
  The review provides more information: "Average Snowfall: 350 inches. Skiable Acres: 800. Vertical Feet: 1,162. Advanced/Expert Terrain: 58%. Lift Ticket Price: $57."
4. Osberger, Madeleine (2017-02-10). "Monarch Mountain Keeps it Real". Aspen Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "For this special occasion, deep-winter getaway, a retro theme seemed apropos, with “most snow” and “funky factor” used as criteria for mountain selection. Monarch Mountain, circa 1939, which has been getting hammered by storms all season, won out. Modest in vertical rise — just 1,162 feet of elevation gain between its 10,790-foot base and the 11,952-foot peak – Monarch packs a lot of punch and fall-line skiing into an area slightly larger than Aspen Mountain. At the start of an early January storm that would drop 35 inches in less than 24 hours, we set out from Aspen for a deceptively long drive given Monarch’s close-as-the-crow-flies location (like Crested Butte) in the central Rockies."
5. Blevins, Jason (2023-10-02). "Monarch Mountain plans new terrain as visitation, pass sales soar". The Colorado Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "Monarch ski area is busy. Pass sales more than doubled in the past three seasons. Skiers have flocked to the Chaffee County ski area, with visitation reaching more than 210,000 in 2022-23, up from 140,000 when Bob Nicolls led his investment group to buy the 800-acre ski area in 2002. "
6. Willard, Heather (2024-03-04). "Monarch Mountain's 377-acre expansion clears environmental assessment". KDVR. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "This project has been years in the making. PowderMonarch LLC, which owns Monarch Mountain ski area, filed its application for the expansion on Oct. 6, 2021. Monarch is also one of the oldest ski areas in the state, having first opened to the public in 1939, according to the Forest Service’s environmental assessment of the project."
7. Boster, Seth (2019-12-16). "In 80th year, party rolls on at Monarch Ski Area". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "The ski area had built itself on grit. Locals in 1936 formed a sports club on the mountain, powering a shoddy rope tow with a six-cylinder truck engine. The pass was finished over the next few years, spelling greater access and higher popularity. ... All the while, Monarch has resisted the industry trend of glitz and conglomeration. Possibly on deck for the future: a terrain expansion on the mountain’s backside, along with another lift."
8. Harmon, Tracy (2014-12-21). "Monarch celebrates 75 happy holidays". The Pueblo Chieftain. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "Monarch Mountain has come a long way from a one-run wonder to the 75-year-old beauty it is today. When Monarch opened in 1939, it was constructed by Works Project Administration workers and featured a 500-foot rope tow driven by a gear box from an old oil derrick. Today, Monarch features six chair lifts and 54 runs plus nearly 1,000 acres of back country skiing opportunities."
9. LeBlanc, Pam (March 2021). "Colorado Ski Gems". Austin Travels Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "I’ve always bypassed Monarch, assuming it didn’t have enough terrain to keep me interested. I was wrong. The cozy, 800-acre ski area doesn’t have any on-mountain lodging. The closest is the no-frills Monarch Mountain Lodge a few miles away, where you can get a room for about $100 and a free shuttle to the ski resort. Nearby, you can explore restaurants and shops in town, swim laps at the Salida Hot Springs Aquatic Center downtown, or detour over to Mount Princeton Hot Springs Resort after a day of skiing and plop yourself into a pool of steamy water right along a riverbank. Monarch Mountain officially opened as a ski area in 1939, but its off-the-beaten path location means it’s less crowded."
10. Hirschfeld, Cindy (2020-11-25). "7 Places Where the Slopes Are Less Skied". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-11-25. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "For more than 80 years, this central Colorado ski area along the Continental Divide has drawn powderhounds. Its fairly modest size — 800 acres and a 1,100-foot vertical drop — is counterbalanced by 350 inches of average annual snowfall that can stay untracked for several days past a storm, plus guided snowcat skiing on 1,600 additional acres of advanced terrain. Experts also love the hike-to, backcountry-style runs in Mirkwood Basin. Recent required thinning of pine-beetle-stricken trees has opened up more gladed skiing across the mountain. (Denver-based Meier Skis sells custom Monarch models using some of that harvested wood.) Many guests opt to stay in the artsy, riverside town of Salida, 20 miles east."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Monarch Mountain to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's fine research. Sadly we have many articles needing editing improvement for 5+ or even 10+ years, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Cunard's large number of sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:49, 8 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. Malinaccier (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: closure amended per consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 July 30 to delete. Daniel (talk) 04:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Storm (webtoon)

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

Fails significant coverage. The little commentary I found is in this CBR listicle, others are just plot summary and mention in other listicles. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could there be Korean sources we're missing? Not to say it might not be non-notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? Maybe you can find them? I can't read Korean. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, before you nominate articles for deletion, you really should search in the native language of the topic. As you're the one making the proposal, I'd argue the burden of proof is on you to follow through with it. With machine translation it's really not that hard, as you only need a high-level understanding of what each source says. Almost every day I see deletion nominations like these.

That said, I'm leaning delete. I'm a Korean speaker and didn't find much convincing sigcov. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – I am not an expert at Korean sources and cannot quite tell you which of these sources are reliable right now, but this is what I'm finding:

gameca.com, three paragraphs as part of a list.
techm.kr, three paragraphs as part of a list.
news.nate.com, listed entry, basically nothing.
news.nate.com, listed entry, basically nothing.
mk.co.kr, listed entry, basically nothing.
yna.co.kr, listed entry, basically nothing.
chosun.com, author quote, basically nothing.
sisaprime.co.kr, listed entry that is given ridiculously high praise (Google Translate gives me Kakao Webtoon, which has created major action/martial arts/fantasy masterpieces that will leave a lasting mark in webtoon history, such as .. Red Storm. Segye.com might be a copy, extremely similar text)

I currently have no idea which of these are reliable, but sourcing is fairly weak either way. If someone can find better sources I haven't found yet, I'd be happy to see them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korean here-- of the ones you've listed, the only widespread sources I can see are Nate News, Yonhap News (YNA), and Chosun Ilbo, none of which have coverage focused on said Webtoon. Though the KakaoPage website indicates that there's about 4 million subscribers to the Webtoon, I'd still argue delete here since I can't find any significant coverage that would warrant an article. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 02:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Coverage in a newspaper from Uganda [26], doesn't appear to be a "pay to publish" article, I suppose Ugandans watch South Korean online manga-type stories? Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or a redirect to Kakao [27], the publisher? Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Observer.ug article is a coverage of a different comic. Red Storm is only mentioned. The second source is just a single-sentence announcement. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this source I would probably support an article on the author, but it doesn't help much for this specific work. A redirect to a listing at Kakao Webtoon would be appropriate, yes. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I saw incorrectly, we do not have a list of Daum/Kakau webtoons. Probably for the best, as the Naver equivalent list is a mess. Deletion still feels like the correct choice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:47, 22 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!} 02:35, 15 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!} 03:23, 22 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too Lost (company)

AfDs for this article:

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

Still unclear if there's enough independent coverage for WP:NCORP.

Previous AfD was speedied per the author's request. Also speedied for copyvio Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Lost, also deleted under G12 KH-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails the NCORP sourcing criteria as most of the sources are routine announcements, trade publications or brief mentions. S0091 (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, two previous AFDs, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources fail WP:NCORP as WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, WP:TRADES publications or WP:ORGTRIV mentions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Just to add, the primary difference in sourcing between this version and the previously deleted version is the addition of several PR announcements, none of which can be used to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 10:03, 16 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 1989–90 Arsenal F.C. season#Results. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy

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

Non-notable individual pre-season friendly club match. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, England, Argentina, and Florida. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – with 1989–90 Arsenal F.C. season#Results as WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would help to add to the Arsenal season, however that would negate any redirect to Club Atlético Independiente the other team in it. Maybe adding a sponsorship section on Zenith Data Systems with a snippet there? I am still not sure of a redirect. But there are sources, a few on the article, one Guardian source in the external link. Maybe some other sources out there. It could be possible for some basic GNG pass here. Not sure know. Guess I am running at an abstain vote here. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Doesn't merit a redirect. Giant Snowman 19:59, 3 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!} 01:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – to 1989–90 Arsenal F.C. season#Results. Lacks standalone notability as sources which provide significant coverage have not been established. Frank Anchor 03:26, 13 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. I see a consensus to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost

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

I'm not seeing much third party coverage, likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unclear how much weight should be given to those awards. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as per WP:CORPDEPTH there a couple more recent references made even before this listing, https://von.gov.ng/website-hosting-firm-advocates-enhanced-data-protection-measures/ , https://dailytrust.com/cybersecurity-firm-urges-nigerians-to-guide-their-data-online/ . This nomination for deletion should be rescinded in my opinon 4555hhm (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 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!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are verifiable especially those from NIRA, the Authority Domain Registry in Nigeria. The information on the awards is stated on NIRA website as per https://www.nira.org.ng and that has a lot of weight. 4555hhm (talk) 13:06, 11 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!} 01:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are a clearly denegrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. This nomination should be rescinded and article kept. 4555hhm (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 4555hhm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sourcing is the usual regurgitation or company PR and the "awards" may be verifiable but they are not sufficiently significant to meet notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are clearly denigrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Even though GNG/WP:GNG as regards sources clearly states, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. WP:ORGSIG"However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." This nomination should be rescinded and article kept.@HighKing 4555hhm (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
- Comment OK 4555hhm, notwithstanding your request to apply different standards to small African companies, you've said that winning an award should be counted towards notability. WP:ORGTRIV says that non-notable awards aren't counted towards notability and if this award were notable, I'd expect it to have significant coverage or discussion, be recognised internationally, or even have its own WP page. This doesn't appear to be the case and in my experience, most "industry" awards are not notable. You also say you can identify more than 4 sources which meet the criteria - but you didn't list even one such source. Not sure if you're including the article about the award by the ADR, but that article's content fails to include in-depth "Independent Content" - for example, it is easily proven not to be "Independent" since it is a word for word copy of an article in Nairaland (can't link to it because WP doesn't allow it) nairaland.com/4816995/tfhost-awarded-hosting-provider-year this article published on the same date (without an accredited journalist) and this in Nigeria Communications Week. In addition, this copy relies entirely on information provided by the company including quotes from a company officer. Also, to complete your quote from ORGSIG you must also remember that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear from more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Literally nothing to establish WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Entry is sourced to primary or non-independent or unreliable sources. There is no significant coverage seen from a search for more sources. Best, Reading Beans 00:51, 28 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. ✗plicit 03:42, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile

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

This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 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!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The few existing sources:

Are anyone of these affiliated? Have google searches been done? Mrfoogles (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are barely-rehashed product release announcements – textbook trivial coverage that doesn't contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 14:31, 8 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oggcast

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

There are no sources establishing WP:N. The definition is based on a 2016 blog entry apparently by the main contributor to the article. The rest of the sources appear to discuss the Ogg and MP3 codecs, their history and merits - but not the topic of the article (the link for the last source that might have contained some information does not work, but the site does not appear to be a good WP:RS). The article was WP:BLARed in January of the 2016, but restored per the Articlefy (without prejudice) result of an RfD WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_31#Oggcast. The article was WP:PRODded in January 2012, so going the AfD route. Викидим (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article lacked notability at the time of creation and the passage of time has only made that more clear. Brandon (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no non-blog available sources other than things used for original research; even if the term was notable it could easily and more appropriately be under OGG. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not a notable concept, unable to find reliable sources. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 14:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This feels like more of a snobby and complex WP:HOWTO about how to listen to non-notable podcasts made that way on purpose because of a bizarre hate of an industry standard file format, and only one of them has a bluelink (and moved onto acceptance of MP3 long ago). I'm not saying Ogg is a bad format at all, just that this is a niche that nobody for a high-quality open audio format is searching for (people talking about the format they're listening to when MP3 serves that purpose just fine and plays on anything). Nate • (chatter) 20:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nonsensical article thinly veiled as a promotion for non-notable podcasts. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 08:56, 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.

[1] "【暖势力】放下藤条感化"坏学生"．戴庆义改变问题国巾". Sin Chew Daily (in Chinese). Retrieved July 7, 2024.

[2] "筹建多元化讲堂史中盼华社援手". 东方日报 [Oriental Daily News (Malaysia)] (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2017-06-23. Retrieved 2024-08-04.

[1]

[2]