Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 24

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 23	July 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elsie M. Frost

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

Fails to pass the general notability guidelines. Zero coverage online beyond a couple of related obituaries. Article is mostly cited to her husband's book. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of notability. Given the article creator's tendency for posting AI-produced garbage I don't think a closer examination is necessary. Note that in such cases you can make a WP:BUNDLE nomination. Tercer (talk) 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Athel cb (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be the standard story of that time of a woman who became a schoolteacher, got married, and then vanished from the public record. I can't read the supposedly archived newspaper.com links, but [1] and [9] appear to be about her husband, [2] is a paid family death notice, [3-8] are neither independent nor reliably published, and [10] appears to be a brief marriage announcement. That is far from enough for GNG, the only relevant notability guideline. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to indicate that this subject is notable. The strongest ref is a likely non-notable book written by her husband. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Much as I will agree that being a schoolteacher is a worthwhile thing to do with one's life, that and that alone isn't enough for an article. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 30 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. Owen× ☎ 12:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Frost

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

Fails to pass the notability guidelines for academics. While the article says that she was a 'Distinguished Professor', none of the sources nor the Capital Community College website match that. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Biology. Sgubaldo (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For further context, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Pervasive,_deliberate_falsification_of_sources_in_hoax_articles_from_COI_editor; this article is part of a series from the same author. jp×g 🗯️ 11:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Zero evidence of notability. The only source that could potentially indicate that turned out to be just a press release. Given the article creator's tendency for posting AI-produced garbage I don't think a closer examination is necessary. Tercer (talk) 12:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All sources are either published by the subject or close relatives. A cursory google search did not turn up more either. JackTheSecond (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A few minutes ago I indicated in the discussion of two dissertations why I didn't think she was notable enough for an article. Athel cb (talk) 13:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think distinguished professor at a community college should count for WP:PROF#C5 and we have no documentation of that title, nor evidence of any other form of notability. Searching Google Scholar for her publications found nothing of note, instead mostly finding publications by some five other people named Janet Frost (themselves not cited heavily enough for WP:PROF). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Connecticut, New York, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per above at this point, tbdesu. jp×g 🗯️ 16:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not substantiate the "Distinguished Professor" title, or indeed find any evidence that the college in question even awards that title. That claim may well have been "AI" bullshitting. None of the other WP:PROF criteria appear to be met, either. XOR'easter (talk) 22:02, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the sentiments of everyone above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:20, 29 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) Toadette^Edit! 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SpaceX Starship integrated flight test 6

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

No reliable sources [osunpokeh/talk/contributions] 09:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Spaceflight, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. It's very likely to become an article with many reliable sources closer to the flight. --mfb (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, IFT-5 will likely launch in August and testing on the proposed ship/booster for 6 has already begun Thistheyear2023 (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Creation was premature, but information with reliable sources is already being added. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:50, 30 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 List of Buffyverse novels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buffy the Vampire Slayer Magazine incorporating Angel Magazine

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

Run-off-the-mill merchandise without impact (WP:N). It has the same problems as List of Buffyverse guidebooks. Its existence is already summarized in one sentence in the TV show's main article. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Journalism. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment without doing a search for this, I think this could be safely merged to an appropriate article cataloguing such things. I don't see how it needs its own article. Having said that, Buffy merchandise and fandom is definitely a topic that's been covered in RS'es, so deletion is not warranted even if merging clearly is. Jclemens (talk) 04:12, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, although I am not completely sure about the best target, or keep. The Buffyverse Catalog as a serious independent source has an extended chapter on the magazine(s), The Whedonverse Catalog has a shorter section. So the sparse sentence at Buffy the Vampire Slayer should at least be expanded somewhat. Not an ideal, but my preferred target would be List of Buffy the Vampire Slayer novels, and then possibly change the title to account for the somewhat expanded scope. Titan Magazines would be another possibility, but even less ideal. Daranios (talk) 10:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Buffyverse novels and rename it List of Buffyverse literature. More appropriate merge target. --Mika1h (talk) 15:45, 26 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!} 07:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial intelligence in education

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

Very likely AI generated, with manually added citations. User has uploaded AI generated text to multiple articles before. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Technology. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sample text: "potential to revolutionize learning processes, personalize instruction, and improve educational outcomes...improve student engagement, provide customized learning experiences, and streamline administrative tasks." Oh boy, I just won LLM bingo. As for sources, references 4 and 7 are real, but 7 never mentions AI at all, making it a case of SYNTH. Reference 13 also looks legit, though I don't have access to the full text to check its relevance. The others I didn't check but don't trust. AI in education is obviously a notable concept, but if the author can't put in the effort to write the article themself, why should the rest of us put in the effort to clean it up? Delete and let someone who actually wants to write an article write the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all of the referenced articles and books exist, but it seems unlikely that the sources are actually being used and accurately reflect the text. For one, [12] is referencing a 112 page book, but doesn't have page numbers for this list of 6 vague bullet points. Recon rabbit 19:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This user has made multiple LLM generated edits to articles, and has only added sources when they've been reverted, with no changes to the text. Sources are likely randomly picked from a cursory google search of random keywords. Explodingcreepsr (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems to be what happened here too. Cirations added later, seperately, and with no changes to the text. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Artificial_intelligence_in_education&diff=1225283548&oldid=1225276997 Explodingcreepsr (talk) 22:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, AI-generated slop with citations retroactively added but not necessarily supporting the text. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 11:27, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there's no way this AI-generated garbage can form the basis of a useful article. There's nothing worth keeping here. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:50, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is broadly accurate, although some subsections of "Applications" look redundant and the sourcing is pretty bad (notably as a result of writing the article backwards). It would probably be easier to make a good article from there by only deleting the most problematic content than from scratch. But since the consensus seems to be to delete the article, I have no problem with it. Alenoach (talk) 19:34, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for being actively misleading to the reader and a detriment to the encyclopedia. XOR'easter (talk) 19:36, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I recently editted WP:TNT to describe scenarios like this, where large portions/entire article is made of AI.

Better to start clean then try to double check every reference for hallucination. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 03:41, 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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:55, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan Congress

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

Fails to meet WP:NORG in meaningful ways. No sign of lasting impact or import beyond the less-than-twenty-sentence Georgia Straight piece and the old radio interview, both from early 2014, I find no real coverage. The only thing I can find from anywhere but the archives of their own website that suggests the group did anything beyond a single cooking demonstration in 2014 was a line in a 2019 blog post about Vegan Congress being an annual event at Emily Carr University. Google and Duck-Duck-Go searches were based on searching for "Vegan Congress" "Emily Carr" to avoid references to an early organization that had Vegan Congress in their name. newspapers.com search from the group's founding date in 2013 to today (for just "vegan congress") found nada. Group's YouTube page delivered 4 videos to its 11 subscribers, all marked as a decade old. Group's web page has been blank for several years now, last non-blank archived version has a single blog post from 2019, and before that, all activity is 2015 or earlier. This is a grou[p that was briefly active, did little of visibility and impact. Nat Gertler (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 07:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Environment, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. I also looked on ProQuest and there's zilch. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:50, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I concur with nominator's source analysis. The only real stab at WP:SIGCOV is a WP:INTERVIEW-based piece in a local news blog. That's not nearly enough to pass WP:NORG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:58, 7 August 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. Sandstein 11:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uruguayans in Germany

AfDs for this article:

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

Tiny diaspora group, a couple thousand in a country of 80 million. Wikipedia is not for every thinkable cross-national immigrant group in the world. I cannot fathom how this passes GNG either. Furthermore, Notability is not inherited by a group by virtue of a couple of notable individuals holding this ethnicity. The fact that Germany accepted some communists is better conveyed by a sentence in Germany–Uruguay relations. Geschichte (talk) 06:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Uruguay. CptViraj (talk) 07:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:42, 24 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!} 07:02, 31 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!} 06:29, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. NLIST also applied, in my opinion. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 04:34, 14 August 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) Toadette^Edit! 11:15, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Coliseum (West Georgia)

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete: The page is a very short stub. While it does have a full table, there is nowhere near enough information on the page due to the lack of history and, presumably, lack of coverage on the construction and events at the venue. I actually considered constructing a Wikipedia article for The Coliseum back in November 2023, but I chose Halenbeck Hall instead due to the former's lack of resources. Centennial Center (Georgia College & State) would have certainly been a better choice for making a Wikipedia article. Wjenkins96 (talk)

Comment This page was created without the {{afd2}} tag and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now—I am neutral at this time. @Wjenkins96: For future nominations, please follow the instructions at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 06:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Basketball, Volleyball, and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now per WP:DONOTDEMOLISH. Nominator does not cite any policies, and it is a notable venue given its status as a Division I arena and as the region's premier concert and special events venue. This is the Wolves' first season in Division I; if it was deleted, it would be the only Division I arena not to have its own article. Let's leave it up for a bit to give other editors a chance to improve it and fix what's lacking. Tom Danson (talk) 17:52, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thank you for helping User:Wjenkins96 with this AFD, please follow all of the instructions to the letter next time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete the article, now that they are a Division I school. The article should be expanded. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 11:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I previously studied the arena/facility and I’m not sure this article can really be expanded aside from filler content (i.e. top attended games). The arena is a victim of circumstance if you compare it to another arena like O'Reilly Family Event Center, which opened at around the same time as The Coliseum, yet its construction had far more coverage by the city newspaper. I’m of the opinion that just because a school is Division I doesn’t necessarily mean their arena is entitled to a Wikipedia page. @Tom Danson states that deleting the page would make UWG the only school without a Wikipedia page for their basketball arena, but Queens (NC) does not have one. There are probably close to seventy-five arena articles, perhaps more, that should be deleted because they are stubs and, for whatever reason, cannot be expanded upon. The same goes for most Division II arenas that aren’t of at least a “Start” rating. Wjenkins96 (talk) 17:35, 30 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 Draftify‎. If editors want to create a redirect from this page title, feel free to do so. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's That Girl (upcoming film)

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

Per WP:TOOSOON, this film should not have an article yet. This article has been draftified by KingArti twice despite the guidelines at WP:DRAFTIFY, and the draftification has been reverted. GTrang (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cultural_impact_of_Madonna#Cultural_depictions: and addd a line there; until filming starts and more is known, maybe. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 07:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:TOOSOON would be the wisest choice. TH1980 (talk) 02:13, 21 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!} 06:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - It looks like there is consensus that the article should not remain in main space. I think that the previous attempts to send it to draft were made in good faith knowing that filming has not happened, they just didn't follow the guidelines, perhaps unaware of them. That said, I think going to draft space is the best WP:ATD option, mostly because there has now been a slight bit of news that the production might get back on track with some casting. The work that has gone into this article thus far can be built upon in draft space. I think an outright delete would not be the best option because its likely to be further developed in draft space. I do not think a redirect is the best option for the history of this article because the work would likely get buried behind the redirect, and a new draft would be started over, losing the work thus far. Not a problem per WP:PARALLEL per se; just a bit dissapointing to the previous authors. However, I would recommend that a redirect be left behind targeting Cultural_impact_of_Madonna#Cultural_depictions that could be tagged {{R with possibilities}} so that people can find info and at the same time, have a path to develop the draft. (Or target Madonna filmography instead since the mention is already there and wouldn't need to be added.) -2pou (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify The article stating that the project has re-started has the air of a rumor rather than a fact. It is pretty clear that this isn't well into production or post-production. The article should wait until there is something more concrete to show. Yes, there are lots of sources but most of them are just the Madonna-adjacent hype. Lamona (talk) 23:56, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Agree it's too soon and the article should wait until something has actually happened. No need to have an article on this ahead of time.Editing84 (talk) 19:11, 5 August 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!} 22:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasios Tsakalidis

AfDs for this article:

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

Article reads as a resume, or a professor bio than that of an encyclopedic article. I really question WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as there just aren't very many sources coming up for him. I am also rather leery that 70% of the 10 references currently existing on the page are of works he (co)wrote. I see that there was a split decision on the AFD back in 2006 for this page, and the page does not seem to have improved in quality since then. Longer, yes, but quality... hmm. We seem to still be in the same state of, and I'll quote Melaen from that AFD here, "Looks very unpolished, could be cleaned up extensively. Seems NN, but I could be wrong.". I'm all for keeping articles of scientists, but basic criteria such as GNG must be met, and I'm just not seeing potential at this time. Opening up this discussion in the hopes I am wrong, and IF notability could be met, to shine some light on a page that needs a real overhaul. Currently though my vote is Delete. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Science, Computing, and Greece. Zinnober9 (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is no notability. I've looked at the Greek-language sources and there's nothing beyond the trivial there either. An academic like millions of others. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment? Millions? How did you arrive at that figure? Nom seems to be unaware that WP:Prof may also be met. Subject has high GS citations, but in a very high cited field. Not sure. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
When I say there are millions of other academics, I mean that there's nothing special about his career that makes it stand out. If you could take a moment to clarify your position, it would be much appreciated. Now you're disrupting the consensus process just to disrupt it. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:06, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be helpful to other editors if you were more precise in your use of language so that there is no need for further explanation. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:22, 27 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

~~Week keep~~ There's a decent case for a WP:PROF#C1 by way of a sufficiently strong citation profile. (Computer science is a comparatively high-citation field, but a fair amount of his publication record is from decades ago, meaning that it dates to an era when citation rates were lower overall and it has had more time to be indirectly influential.) However, there doesn't seem to be much to say. After a round of cleanup, the article doesn't besmirch the dignity of the encyclopedia with egregious promotionalism, but it doesn't appear that removing the article would leave a critical gap in our coverage of computer science. Overall, keeping it seems justifiable but not obligatory. XOR'easter (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:33, 26 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Weak delete. The only case seems to be WP:PROF#C1 and the closer one looks the less impressive the record seems to be. His early work was in data structures (one of my primary areas of research); among his higher-cited publications he has coauthorship on a textbook by the much more notable Kurt Mehlhorn and one paper on the order-maintenance problem which is neither the first word on the subject (see Dietz STOC 1982) nor the last. It's hard to see much pattern in his more recent works except for a series of papers on using machine learning techniques in recruitment; compared to data structures, machine learning is a much higher citation subfield and his citation numbers in this area are ok but nothing special. He doesn't appear to have published at all since 2021. And although I suspect that the basic career milestones in the article could be sourced, almost none of it actually is adequately sourced. XOR'easter already removed a large chunk of "puffery, glurge, and inline external URLs" and I removed more, but it would need to be stubbed down much more if kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per David Eppstein. For machine learning, I would expect higher citation numbers for satisfying WP:PROF#C1, and there does not appear to be evidence of passing WP:PROF on any other grounds. Nsk92 (talk) 14:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see more of a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 31 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!} 06:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm convinced by the more careful analysis of the citation profile done after my earlier !vote, so I am changing my position. XOR'easter (talk) 20:54, 11 August 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 03:49, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mister World countries

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

Insufficient sourcing. The single source here is Pageantopolis, a personal website described by consensus at WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants/Sources as not suitable for establishing notability. It's been tagged as under-referenced for a decade without any improvement and is unlikely to change. ☆ Bri (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whatever. Admins always do what they please, so just delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcetw (talk • contribs) 05:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 07:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion. If admins did what they please, they wouldn't be admins for long. I'd like to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:25, 31 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 Valencia, Bukidnon#Barangays. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bagontaas, Bukidnon

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

This does not satisfy WP:NPLACE as sources I found are either WP:PRIMARY or WP:TRIVIAL Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Philippines. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 04:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valencia,_Bukidnon#Barangays per WP:ATD --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valencia, Bukidnon. Fails WP:NPLACE per nom. SBKSPP (talk) 02:18, 27 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. Nominator was blocked and I can't assume this was good-faith to begin with per their ANI adventures; the fact that the subject was found after six years only solidifies the case's N/GNG bonafides. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 16:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Alex Batty

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

Not really notable enough person for an article, i've seen lots of missing person and children articles but Alex Batty only became relevant again once he was found. Missing children are always being reported and I don't see how this stands out to others. BasketballDog21 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, and Spain. BasketballDog21 (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nominator has been blocked as a sock. Borgenland (talk) 14:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are enough citations to pass WP:GNG. Wikiexplorationandhelping (talk) 15:08, 24 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!} 03:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skyler Milne

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. A few sentences here, a pair of sentences here, but nothing significant. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Utah. JTtheOG (talk) 04:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't see enough WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:41, 27 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!} 00:11, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Habari

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. Per the articles talk page this article has had two substantive nominations for deletion and the main advocate for keeping this article - User:Morydd - is hardly an unbiased source, considering that they're also a member of the Habari project on Github: https://github.com/morydd I find the original nominators arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Habari (2nd nomination) to be valid, more so now that the project has been now abandoned for ~10 years. Furthermore, the last afd was more than 15 years ago.

The sources provided are not of sufficient quality to establish notability:

"2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project". All this seems to have amounted to was inclusion in a list of other projects, near as I can tell. That's hardly significant coverage.

Smashing Magazine. Habari got a two sentence mention in that article and altho that's more than Habari got as a result of its inclusion in the 2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project it's not enough to constitute significant coverage.

Matt Mullenweg's blog. Two sentences and that's it.

TerraFrost (talk) 03:18, 24 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 04:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough RSes, seems to be a byproduct of contemporary recentism. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Dead project, I could find no sources about it. Badbluebus (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, given that this is the 5th time this article has been brought to AFD, I would like to see more support from experienced editors before deleting as it survived earlier AFDs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz The 3rd and 4th nominations were brought forth by a disruptive editor who did not have any valid reason for deletion, and thus the AfDs were speedily closed. I think, in essence, the article has only survived 1 AfD; the first nomination resulted in a delete. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:13, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Habari was a finalist in the 2008 SourceForge Community Choice Awards in the category of Best New Project. Together with the other references, I think that adds up to notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:38, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See TerraFrost's bullet points. Part of the reason we require SIGCOV is so that we can actually cite and cover the subject. Not all awards are notable, and a community choice awards, especially for Best New Project, even within SourceForge, doesn't seem very notable. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blogs, download sites... that's about all I can find in my searches. Nothing we can use for notability. Sourcing now in the article isn't really helpful either. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing enough for WP:GNG here; attempts to find academic or industry press discussion came up short. No obvious redirect targets. Suriname0 (talk) 00:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Durian Industries

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources here and what I find in a WP:BEFORE are unreliable and not in-depth. CNMall41 (talk) 03:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Products, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like promotional article with 2 sources clearly promoting the opening of stores in new locations and it's Furniture & Decor. It does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:59, 30 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!} 03:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikio Group

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. The references are mostly PR and the company website also draws a blank. Searches also don’t show any significant coverage. Wikilover3509 (talk) 3:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Companies. CptViraj (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Sources from PR campaigns and searches did not yield any useful result that could sustain the page. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 12:41, 30 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 Viacom18#Owned channels. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Colors Gujarati

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

Lot's of churnalism and unreliable sources, including a lot of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Previously tagged but still cannot find anything in a WP:BEFORE. If anything, recommending a redirect to Viacom18 as an WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 03:21, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "only Gujarati general entertainment channel in the market", as says a bylined article in the TOI. Also see: https://www.afaqs.com/news/media/55161_viacom18-launches-colors-gujarati-cinema-regional-cluster-revenue-grew-by-22-sudhanshu-vats ; https://www.agencyreporter.com/viacom18-launches-colors-gujarati-cinema-2/ or Books : Regional Language Television in India: Profiles and Perspectives (2021); Indian Silver Screen (2021), for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two links are just regurgitation of announcements that the channel is going to launch. Anyone can put out a press release that gets picked up by the media and re-run in different news outlets. This is not something that would count towards notability. I also do not put much stock in TOI, especially since it looks like it will not be considered towards notability based on current WP:RSN discussion (to be determined of course). --CNMall41 (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect but to Colors TV. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:47, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think redirect to Viacom18#Owned_channels is better. RangersRus (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Viacom18#Owned_channels. Poor sources on the page to establish significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus and two different redirect target articles suggested,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Viacom18: Per RR. Doesn't validate a standalone article for the channel since I couldn't find any sources establishing GNG The Herald (Benison) (talk) 03:19, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Riceville, Indiana

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

Indications are that this is a rail point which someone hoped would grow into a town, but which never did. Searching was not helped by Google's insistence on giving me hits about people named Rice and about Riceville, Iowa, but I got nothing solid. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can find a passing mention in a history book: [1], and the place appears on USGS maps, but never as more than a couple of houses, which is what it is today. If sources appear I could be persuaded to change to keep, but not with what we have now. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Note there is a Riceville in Crawford County, Pennsylvania, making it a lot harder to find relevant info. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:16, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selected Manifestations

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

Appears to fail WP:NBOOK. Could not find any significant independent coverage of this book in ProQuest or Google. The current article is a mess of WP:OR with (broken) citations including Amazon, auction websites, and library catalogs. Astaire (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Religion, Christianity, and Latter Day Saints. Astaire (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The book does appear to be regarded as a rare book, per this bookseller, with an intriguing history of suppression, which could plausibly have resulted in (print) newspaper coverage in the 80s. However, I couldn't find any such coverage in ProQuest or NewspaperARCHIVE.com . I wish Newspapers.com was currently available because that's where I typically have the best luck for this type of thing. But in the absence of any proper RS, there's no good rationale for a keep. No good merge target either, since the authors do not have articles. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 04:29, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the Newspapers.com tip, I ran a search and there are 23 hits, but none have to do with the book. I agree it seems interesting but with no RS to support it I think it's a delete unfortunately. Astaire (talk) 13:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wild & Bare

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG. Searching throws up articles about the Founder, but trivial coverage about the organisation. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Wikilover3509 (talk) 2:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. CptViraj (talk) 04:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the only salvageable information is related to the founder, since sources related to Wild & Bare are trivial/daily news with no lasting impact. Maybe an article could be created on Jean Alberti and the content here merged and redirected. Recon rabbit 20:29, 24 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!} 02:49, 31 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 of the company. As it stands, the article reads like a promotional leaflet and as mentioned above, most of the content concerns the "founder", not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:41, 31 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. Consensus is that sourcing is insufficient Star Mississippi 01:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiona Krautil

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

I don't see how she meets WP:BIO or WP:AUTHOR. Most of the sources merely confirm facts about her and I found nothing in a google news search. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have already added more references to this article to show notability. She has been written about in the Australian press with some brief bios in those articles. She advised the Federal Government and argued for innovative labour policies for women long before they were legislated by government such as paid maternity leave, flexible working hours, better access to child care. I will add more to her article later.LPascal (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment- Also she has brief bios in Who's Who in Australia 2002 and 2009 and is listed in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation https://www.eoas.info/biogs/P004276b.htm LPascal (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: A short bio and interview is here and shows some of her impact on government policy. https://aclw.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Leadership-Interviews-alphabetical.pdf by Australian Centre for Leadership for Women https://aclw.org/research-and-publications/leadership-interviews/leadership-interviews/LPascal (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if an interview would be a primary source. ACLW invited her for an interview. LibStar (talk) 03:42, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as sources are either not reliable or not providing sufficient support to meet WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources do you think are not reliable?LPascal (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the available sources don't demonstrate GNG here. LusikSnusik (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors (one of the participants here has just been indefinitely blocked).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 24 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) 03:17, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is important enough. Also there are more good references available to add to this article. Here is one: "Fiona Krautil produced a discussion pack on ‘What gets in the way of Women’s Advancement?’ for discussion at the Talent Council and the Succession Council, both of which exist to identify and develop high potential people." [2] Rockycape (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link doesn't establish notability and is not WP:SIGCOV. The fact that she produced a discussion pack doesn't really advance notability. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is important but needs more improvements with references and details. my opinion is to keep the article. Yakov-kobi (talk) 07:22, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO with a lack of WP:SIGCOV. Several sources exist but they are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS (e.g. Sydney Morning Herald), WP:TRADES publications (e.g. Lawyer's Weekly) and WP:PRIMARYSOURCES (e.g. official bios). At first I thought her entry in the Encyclopedia of Australian Science and Innovation might qualify her, but it does not appear to be a "dictionary of national biography" (which would be the Australian Dictionary of Biography, where Krautil does not appear) per WP:ANYBIO criterion 3; not only is it not the national biographical dictionary, it appears to be a bullet-point listing of a few posts and articles by her -- not an encyclopedic entry on her life and significance. (The EASI also appears to accept user-submitted content, potentially making it WP:USERGENERATED). All told, an apparently accomplished individual who does *not* pass notability guidelines. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:10, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971, your final comment, an apparently accomplished individual who does pass notability guidelines., is in conflict with your argument to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz thanks for flagging, that was a typo—now fixed! Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:49, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The WP:BURDEN of proof is on those wishing to insert or keep material. Here we have an article about a BLP subject, sourced to interviews, passing mentions, and user-generated content. Only keep assertions in this process so far appear as applicable as personal opinions. Burden is not met. My reasonable BEFORE finds nothing useful. Fails ANYBIO, GNG, and AUTHOR. I thank User:Dclemens1971 for their source analysis. BusterD (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - head of government department is sufficient notability, in addition to the sources cited above should be sufficient to keep the article for now. Cavepavonem (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no inherent notability with being head of a government department. LibStar (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion above has already challenged the sources. Can you rebut the analysis showing they do not qualify instead of just asserting they are sufficient? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited assertions of notability which are solely personal opinions aren't usually compelling. A lot of them have been made here. These opinions are neither sourced nor policy-based. BusterD (talk) 20:20, 11 August 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. I have to also note the absence of a policy-based deletion rationale. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Das Kapital, Volume I

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

Don't see why each separate volume of Das Kapital would need its own article. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Economics. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs trimming, but seems to be a valid page split overall. Each volume is quite different from the other, so including detailed analyses (as would be expected with a foundational work) of all three into one article would bloat it beyond compare. Curbon7 (talk) 03:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. For one, it differs from the others in that it was the only volume that was published before Marx died. The volumes came years apart and are obviously standalone works in addition to bearing an overarching title. The book had almost two decades of reception before the second volume came out. Its bearing on world history has not been commented by the nominator, who has not provided a real reason for deletion either. Geschichte (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Philosophy, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge I'm not sure we have such a lengthy summary of many other books besides the Bible. The main article should include a better more concise summary and the two short sections at the bottom. Reywas92^Talk 13:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Many, many scholarly studies have been written about volume I of Capital. For example (titles I pulled from two minutes of Googling...) there's Fredric Jameson's Representing Capital: A Reading of Volume One and Riccardo Bellofiore/Nicola Taylor's collection The Constitution of Capital: Essays on Volume I of Marx's Capital. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as sole spinout of a series of three volumes covered at the WP:SS parent topic. I'm not seeing any issue with the way this is logically organized, and notability is not seriously in question. Jclemens (talk) 05:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep "Absence of delete rationale." Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article could use some work, but the sources from Josh Milburn are sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:34, 30 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. Strong arguments presented by both sides, but after three weeks, no consensus either way. Owen× ☎ 13:58, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Group (Ghana)

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

This company does not meet any notability requirement. In the article's current form, all sources are primary and there is nothing out there to indicate notability per before search Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Ghana. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References are purely promotional. Unlikely notability could ever be established. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 12:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The company is a member of the GSE Composite Index, so WP:LISTED probably applies here. A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company. Brandon (talk) 16:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search result you presented all come from a single source which is News Ghana and seems to be unreliable news website. At the bottom of all their articles they ask people to send in their news stories to a Gmail address. Which reliable media organisation uses such an email server? Besides, some of the articles about the subject published by the source (News Ghana) you presented are also attributed to GNA (Ghana News Agency) indicating that the articles are syndicated sponsored posts. Over all, the source you presented is not reliable and lacking in editorial oversight as it seems incapable to source its own news stories. Ednabrenze (talk) 06:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You will have to forgive me as I am not an expert on media in Ghana. A similar search on the Daily Graphic (Ghana) returns similar results. Same with Business and Financial Times. Are there specific Ghanaian news sources you'd consider reliable? Brandon (talk) 07:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though the sources are promotional, that does not mean it is notable. You say you did a before search, but somehow when I search it up I am able to find numerous different sources establishing notability. — 48 JCL 23:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please present the sources that establish notability. Before search only brings sponsored or paid for articles and those can't be used to prove notability. Please see my response to the claim of " A search on a News Ghana returns a few dozen articles about the company" above. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:36, 22 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, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep may look not sourced well but it meets Listed rule and I see it does have some sufficient reliable sources. Dirubii Olchoglu (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The people suggesting keep need to explain how it meets the expectations for corporations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:04, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the vast majority of the third-party content about this company is ineligible to be considered for notability under WP:ORGTRIV, and while WP:LISTED is not a presumption of notability but rather an indication that sources likely exist, I did find a handful of independent, reliable examples of WP:SIGCOV (Modern Ghana here, here, here plus GhanaWeb) that clear the bar of WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:07, 24 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. ~~Looking at the sources provided by Dclemens above, this is an article reporting on residents complaints about a totally different company so I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article.~~ This is about the rebranding and name change, totally relies on the company announcements and "launch", no in-depth "Independent Content". This, the third article from Modern Ghana is about the opening of new offices and what was said by the CEO at the ribbon-cutting ceremony, ending with a two sentence description about the company, not in-depth "Independent Content", fails NCORP. Finally, the GhanaWeb article has nothing to do with this company, ~~again begging the question was this article actually read~~. I'm unable to locate any analyst reports containing sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet our criteria. Finally, more than one editor has used reasoning that WP:LISTED applies therefore it meets our notability criteria - except LISTED clearly says a listing doesn't mean the company is automatically notable - we still require sourcing that meets our criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HighKing I would appreciate it if you would withdraw your comments above, "I doubt if Dclemens even bothered to read this article" and "again begging the question was this article actually read" per WP:AGF. I did indeed read the articles. They are not about a totally different company. The headline in Modern Ghana says: "Ayimensah-Kweiman residents bare teeth at Ken Ofori-Atta's Enterprise Group for snatching land to construct commercial cemetery, mortuary." Ofori-Atta was a director of the Enterprise Group until 2015, according to page 7 of the annual report on the website of the same Enterprise Group that is the subject of this AfD, thus, unless you believe ModernGhana to be an entirely unreliable source, the article is talking about the correct company. The GhanaWeb article also discusses allegations about the influence of the same Enterprise Group (see reference to Ofori-Atta starting in the sixth paragraph). I don't !vote in an AfD unless I have reviewed the sources and done a WP:BEFORE search, and it is not WP:CIVIL for an editor to accuse another of lying about reading the sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:21, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct and I've withdrawn the comments which say the articles refer to a different company and any reference or implication that you may not have read the articles. I also accept that my comments were personal and entirely unnecessary and for that I apologise. In the interests of completeness, this does not mean that because those articles mention the company that they meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The first article relating to the residents' protest is a mention in passing only which provides no information about the company. I would be interested to hear why you believe this meets the criteria, specifically, what content within that article is in-depth "Independent Content" about the company. Similarly with the GhanaWeb article, it mentions the company in passing, no other information, so I'm interested to understand what specific content makes you say it goes towards notability? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:28, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the apology. Quick reply on the substance: Modern Ghana #1 has SIGCOV of the company for criticism of its development plans. (It may not look like it references the company but the story doesn't capitalize its name to make it as easily identifiable. There are several references to it and the protests are specifically against the company.) Modern Ghana #2 is an article about the company's rebranding, and rebranding is not excluded as "routine coverage" under WP:ORGTRIV. Unless it's a reprint of a press release or an interview, I'm not in the business of identifying how much independent reporting did or didn't go into it. It doesn't solely quote from the company's officials, though. Modern Ghana #3 might initially appear to be disqualified under ORGTRIV, but that only excludes routine coverage of "openings and closings of local branches, franchises and shops," and this is coverage of its corporate headquarters. The GhanaWeb piece is the weakest but it provides coverage of the role of Enterprise Group executives in influencing Ghanaian finance policy. YMMV, and I don't think your assessment is unreasonable, but I also think mine is reasonable based on the applicable criteria as discussed above. In borderline cases like this one I generally let the balance tip toward interpreting the sources to qualify rather than be excluded. (P.S. I'll be offline most of the rest of the week, at least away from my laptop, so won't be able to chime in further.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per the arguments given by User:HighKing which have convinced me that this does not pass WP:GNG/WP:NCORP TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ju Kyong-shik

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 02:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 24 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 here to Delete this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Malta destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, and plain old common sense.

Let's start with common sense: why on earth do we have an article listing destinations that Air Malta DOES NOT FLY TO! Every destination here is listed as "terminated" or "Airport Closed"!

WP:NOT is failed under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is a straight forward listing of services that Air Malta possibly provided at some point but now no longer does.

WP:NCORP is failed because there is no evidence at all that the services offered by Air Malta are a notable topic based on reliable, independent, third-party sources that would meet WP:ORGIND. I could go through every single one of the sources cited but there is little point in repeating the same statement over and over - these are all either company announcements, or reports in local/industry press based entirely on company press-releases and statements. For example the Malta Today story is based entirely on a statement by a company spokesman.

This is also original research. None of these sources show that these flights were offered (or terminated) in January 2023. This can be said because none of the sources are dated to January 2023 - some are later, some are anything up to a decade or more earlier.

This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company that can change from one week to the next. It is the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings in August 1987 or all Pizza Huts in December 1998. Simply the worst kind of indiscriminate information. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Transportation, Lists, and Malta. FOARP (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't believe the debate over airline destinations is still ongoing. Listings of every single place every airline has ever run a service to ever is textbook WP:INDISCRIMINATE, it's just bizarre. Commercial developments should be folded into main article prose, line changes that aren't part of a wider commercial development just aren't encyclopaedic. BrigadierG (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indiscriminate list of services possibly provided at some point in time, per nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:

–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments at List of Vietnam Airlines destinations. First of all Air Malta is no longer an extant business, so many of the points don't apply. I also have no idea what anyone here believes INDISCRIMINATE means, as there's a clear finite limit to what could possibly be on this list. SportingFlyer T·C 16:30, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You want to keep a list.... of places... that Air Malta... doesn't fly to...? FOARP (talk) 07:47, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, because where Air Malta operated is encyclopedic information, and a verb tense is easily edited. SportingFlyer T·C 07:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where... they don't fly to ... is encyclopaedic? A listing of destinations served on a random date of no actual significance, largely copied off a defunct company website, each listed as "terminated" with no other context, is "a summary of knowledge"? FOARP (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It summarises where they flew shortly before they ceased trading. SportingFlyer T·C 11:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
January 2023 was more than a year before they stopped trading in March 2024. In a business where flights change from week to week that's hardly that close to that date. Even worse, this doesn't "[summarise] where they flew shortly before they ceased trading" because these are the destinations they may have flown to at any point up to ten years or more before they ceased trading (one is sourced to a 404 link visited in 2011) and plainly weren't flying to either in January 2023 or in March 2024.

The real point you're trying to make here is that any destination an airline ever flew to is, to you, automatically of encyclopaedic value. I don't think that's a position anyone on Wikipedia outside of airline fandom would endorse. FOARP (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Flights don't necessarily change weekly, and almost every flight change will be noted in at least some publication somewhere. Whenever there's a new flight to where I live it's generally news. There are airlines which wouldn't be notable enough for this information to be kept, but I am not making the argument you think I am making. The only thing we're looking at is if this is notable, and they're clearly of note: [3] [4] [5] [6] and an older [7] Most of your concerns can be solved through editing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to cover off these sources:
Air Service One is industry press excluded under WP:ORGIND. The article is also entirely based on output from Cirium which is an aggregator of data from airlines. Ultimately everything in this piece comes direct from the Airline and is not independent.

Simple Flying is industry press excluded under WP:ORGIND. The article is entirely based on statements from the airline, again, not independent of the source.

Aviation Week is, again, industry press excluded under WP:ORGIND. The Central Bank of Malta (another branch of the Maltese government that owns the airlines) whose report is quoted is not independent of the subject, and anyway discusses the new airline KM Malta, and not the old airline.

Live and Let's Fly is a industry blog. The piece is based on a press-release from KM Malta.

Another Aviation Week piece based on a press-release.

Every single thing here is exactly the kind of run-of-the-mill reportage that WP:NORG clearly tells us doesn't count towards establishing notability - see particular WP:TRADES. FOARP (talk) 10:35, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it comes from the airline, the airline publishes its schedules and then it gets reported on in trade publications and in normal media: [8] It's not a good reason for excluding perfectly encyclopedic information. SportingFlyer T·C 16:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of which counts for NCORP. JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since the airline is no longer operating I would suggest a reorganization so it's not just a table full of "Terminated", but my points at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Vietnam Airlines destinations apply here as well. Reywas92^Talk 17:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject lacks the needed seondary sourcing to meet the WP:NLIST and WP:NCORP. The aviation sources would seemingly help little for establishing notability per WP:AUD. Let'srun (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Air Malta#Destinations. Even if this table were notable, WP:PAGEDECIDE notes that there times when it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. This is one of those times; the target for the merge is not too big as to not be able to handle the table, and it makes sense to keep these two together in one article so as to present the information on the destinations within the broader context of the article on the airline. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per @Reywas92 and @SportingFlyer

_Signed, Pichemist ^{( Contribs | Talk )} 15:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:IINFO. We shouldn't be hosting a list of every single place that Air Malta flew to in history. This is an indiscriminate collection of information because no careful judgment or selectivity was involved in making the list. Even if the airline flew to some random city for a couple months in the 1980s, it gets added to the list. Sunnya343 (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Egregious failure of IINFO/NCORP. The entries in this list are primary/non-independently-sourced and have no evidence of ever having been encyclopedic, so I would object to a merge. If any given destination is actually BALASP then it can be discussed in the main article, but nothing in this list is worth retaining. JoelleJay (talk) 01:43, 29 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!} 02:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Shultz

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

I am unable to find enough independent coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was this interview. JTtheOG (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ohio. JTtheOG (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:20, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG here. Let'srun (talk) 01:42, 26 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 List of schools in Selangor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK TTDI Jaya

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

Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG.) The school already has an article in Malay Wikipedia so an English one would be unnecessary. N niyaz (talk) 07:34, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:41, 9 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!} 06:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: We should not delete the article on SMK TTDI Jaya. Yes, there is a parallel in another Wikipedia edition. Yet, each language edition has distinct readers and needs. The English version fails WP:GNG due to a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. In that case, it may be suitable to merge the English content into a broader article about schools in the region. Or, we can draftify it until we find more sources. This approach respects the need for information on other language Wikipedias. It also maintains the quality and notability standards of English Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AstridMitch (talk • contribs) 07:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: see concerns at ANI that the AFD !votes by AstridMitch, now blocked, are LLM-aided. Abecedare (talk) 20:24, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 07:28, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ms:Sekolah Menengah Kebangsaan TTDI Jaya is the other article; unfortunately it is completely unsourced. Walsh90210 (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are arguing for a Merge or Redirect, you have to identify an existing article in the English Wikipedia that it can be a viable target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are 11 thousand schools in Malaysia, schools like SMK TTDI Jaya, SMK Seri Kembangan and SMJK Yoke Kuan that lacks notability shouldn't be merged. If the outcome of these schools are merged or keep, it would mean 8-9 thousand schools are also eligible to have an article of its own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N niyaz (talk • contribs) 00:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge, where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of schools in Selangor. N niyaz (talk) 07:13, 24 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!} 05:39, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senarath Liyana Arachchi

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Astrology, and Sri Lanka. Dan arndt (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom lacks indepth coverage fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:12, 31 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 2015 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ju Kwang-min

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to 2015 AFC Asian Cup squads#North Korea. Lâm (talk) 08:39, 25 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!} 02:29, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White Lotus Conglomerate

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

Article created as WP:NPOVFACT violation to disparage a WP:BLP [9]. Looks multiple unconnected companies listed under the same umbrella tied together to create an elaborate WP:HOAX and many sections unrelated to company. For actual company, WP:RECENT focus on a single event from the 5 years back, see talk page for details. Previous points removed, I believe remaining actual subject of article does not meet WP:NOTABILITY criteria. Hence, recommend for deletion.Hibiscus192255 (talk) 01:13, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Finance, Companies, Education, Sports, India, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have been editing related articles from many months and I agree with above arguments made. This article’s creation seems a clear [WP:NPOVFACT], there are several unrelated sections and content in the article, minus which it doesn’t meet [WP:NOTABILITY] Rainbowpassion (talk) 11:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does look like article scope is bloated, then per WP:SBST, seems an otherwise minor organization that has received news coverage for only 1 event. Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY. The US website reference link provided seems like an unrelated organization. Wikilover3509 (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As mentioned on the talk page, this article lacks proper referencing. It cites several irrelevant sources that do not mention the company. The article talks about two different companies: one based in Nebraska, USA, and another in Dubai, but there is insufficient evidence linking either to Kalki Bhagwan, his son NKV Krishna, or daughter-in-law Preetha Krishna. Additionally, some sections of the article are unrelated to the company. Notably, all sources referring to the company are from 2019, and there is no relevant information available about the company beyond that period.Moonlight2006 (talk) 05:21, 24 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. With no comments after a second relist, I don't want to relist it again. I don't see a consensus here with a strong Keep opinion expressed. But editors interested in a possible Redirect can discuss this outside of an AFD discussion on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khais Millen

AfDs for this article:

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

Immediately refunded after soft deletion in 2023 but no change to address concerns in first AfD. Film writer/director who does not pass WP:GNG, WP:NCREATIVE, WP:NBIO. Most sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS if they mention him at all; there's an interview that's a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and a single example of WP:SIGCOV that exhibits all the hallmarks of unreliable content of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Not enough to pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: fairly meets WP:DIRECTOR AND WP:CREATIVE with at least 3 2 notable films directed and 3 2 written (not mentioning the fact he produced. 2); the said films are notable creations that received independent and in-depth coverage mentioning him. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What part of WP:DIRECTOR are you referring to with "three notable films"? (Only two films he has been involved in even have en-wiki pages and only one of those he directed.) The only criterion I could plausibly see cited is "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work," but there's no evidence that any of his works are "significant or well-known." Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider his debut film as director notable enough. See coverage about it online. It has no page yet on WP, true. Added 2 links to the article. Writer: my bad, I had counted Lipstick, which is a short. Even if it's only two or even if it it was only one, he would pass both SNGs because these works can be considered significant, as coverage shows. I'll leave it at that as he is a really clear pass imv.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC) (number of significant films; clarification: 3 or 4 films including 2 directed (Thala; and I count Aakashvani), 2 written (Adithattu and Thala, to which one can add again Aakashvani)); the 1st has received a significant award and is clearly significant imv).-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on the opening assertion in the nomination: sorry but no change to address concerns in first AfD is an inaccurate statement.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, no substantive change. The addition of WP:TRIVIALMENTION citations does not address the concerns in the AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ. If those mentions (trivial or not) allow to verify he had an essential role in notable productions they do address the concerns, especially as one mentioned the award for Best Second film that was not mentioned before, unless I am mistaken. I remember checking them (or even adding some) myself back then. I should leave it at that that, as I had said, sorry. Thanks, anyway. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. As I noted in the previous AFD, a film he wrote won a second-place regional film award, and for another of his films a child actor won a regional award. Per nomination and subsequent comments by nominator, coverage of the director himself is insufficient per WP:NFILMMAKER. Wikishovel (talk) 04:50, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A redirect (presumably to Thala (film)) would be acceptable to me as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either to Thala (the apparently better known film) or to Adithattu (the film that won an award) would be fine by me. Wikishovel (talk) 17:34, 25 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!} 02:27, 31 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!} 01:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civic technology companies

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

Largely redundant of civic technology and dubious sources throughout. The list is largely non-notable organizations. Anything useful here could be merged into civic technology. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Entirely redundant article and the list is stuffed full of things that fail notability. CoconutOctopus talk 06:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subjects of the list are themselves mostly non-notable and nothing that's not already covered at civic technology. Fails WP:NLIST, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:54, 24 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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:03, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank A. Barnhart

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

I couldn't find any other sources besides the self-published theatre link. Does not meet notability criteria. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 21:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed, it's not clear (from the article) that the subject is notable according to WP:CREATIVE. If he is, then work needs doing to the article to demonstrate that notability. (Given the article has been tagged with Template:Notability and Template:BLP sources for over 10 years and has not really been edited since then, it feels unlikely that work will be done.) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk) 14:42, 23 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 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject is mentioned in this local newspaper review but I wouldn't describe it as WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:19, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Theatre, Sexuality and gender, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete local director. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:25, 24 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.