Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

20 June 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< June 19 June 21 >

Purge server cache

Guillaume Besse (entrepreneur)[edit]

Guillaume Besse (entrepreneur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think the notability criteria has been met. The article was created and primarily written by an apparent pair of sockpuppet COI editors: Shoushanne and Santa monique. They were focused mainly on Carole Bienaimé, whose article identifies her as married to Besse. Santa monique also uploaded the photos of Bienaimé. Risedemise (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:24, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Falah Party[edit]

Pakistan Falah Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think this party has ever won any provincial or federal-level elections, nor has it received sig/in-depth coverage in RS, thus it fails to meet the WP:GNG. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:48, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This party meets most of the criteria to be on Wikipedia Namat ullah samore (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2024 (UTC) — Namat ullah samore (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Keep, coverage in articles dedicated solely to PFP encountered in multiple media outlets, Daily Pakistan, Jang, Jang, Mustafai News, Abna, Dunya, Daily Pakistan, etc., --Soman (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Soman, But the references/coverage provided fall short of establishing WP:N according to GNG, because the provided coverage is either consist of WP:ROTM or news articles derived from press releases issued by PFP. However, for GNG, coverage needs to be sig. and in-depth, and from RS. Moreover, some of the sources cited, such as Daily Pakistan, Mustafai News, and Abna, aren't even considered RS. For instance, an interview with a PR agency owner suggests that Daily Pakistan accepts press releases as part of their content strategy. In-fact Daily Pakistan also disclosed that they accept submissions and even news articles. While these references may be used to WP:V but they do not meet the high threshold required for WP:N under GNG. — Saqib (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem here is, if you discard virtually all Pakistani media outlets as unreliable then you'll open the way to mass deletions to remove general coverage of the country, and as such reinforce systematic bias. I find it non-constructive to push for deletions on technicalities whilst ignoring that such deletions make no improvement to Wikipedia as encyclopedia. The PFP appears sufficiently notable to warrant an article. --Soman (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Soman, I'm surprised by your assumption that I'm labelling all Pakistani sources as unreliable. I've clearly explained above why these particular coverage is not acceptable for GNG. You're welcome to use them for WP:V, but we shouldn't relying on these questionable sources to establish GNG, where the standard for sourcing is quite high and requires strong coverage from RS. With around 200 political parties in Pakistan, virtually of all of them receive some form of WP:ROTM coverage, similar to PFP. However, this doesn't automatically means we should allow articles for each of them based solely on this questionable coverage. Instead, we should adhere to the GNG. At the very least, a party should have some representation in parliament to justify an article. — Saqib (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NORG requires stronger demonstration of source independence and more substantial SIGCOV than can be achieved with the coverage here, which mostly relies on PR and/or is not in RS. JoelleJay (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Homenetmen[edit]

Homenetmen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scouts-in-Exteris; I don't know why it was undeleted. Since then (May 2020) there has been no improvement, and the article consists of unverified text/OR (which, surprisingly, spends very little time on the actual organization and fails to say much that indicates notability) and a long, long, and unencyclopedic collection of linkspam. Drmies (talk) 21:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and improve. Clarification is in order for the nomination statement above. Homenetmen was created in 2016 and was never deleted. The discussion from 2020 saw just 1 other editor vote on your original nom, which was in regards to a different article. It was your recommendation that Homenetmen be deleted as well, but the article was never officially deleted. Now, back to content, this is a pretty notable scouting organization with active chapters across the world. A simple google search yielded 419,000 results; WP:RS confirming WP:N is indeed there. There are several wiki articles which are integrated to this parent article like Homenetmen Beirut and Homenetmen Antelias, which makes the deletion of this parent article seem odd to me. With that being said, I do agree that a lot of work is needed to improve the article and remove 'spammy' content. With a bit of tough love, the article can be saved. Archives908 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I concur with the above. This seems to pass WP:SIGCOV and should stay. Garsh (talk) 03:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Ayoub[edit]

Liam Ayoub (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a Lebanese rugby league player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Another Australian second tier player who's article needs actually writing. Looks like it can be expanded upon but of not delete. Mn1548 (talk) 16:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. As a minimum we would expect league players to have played first grade rugby league which this player hasn't. LibStar (talk) 18:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are you arguing then to Keep this article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relentless Studios[edit]

Relentless Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not sufficiently notable. Could be replaced by a category, redirect to Amazon Games? IgelRM (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the only division under [[Amazon Games#:~:text=33][34]-,Divisions,-[edit]|Amazon Games]] given a distinctive name. It's also the division that released Amazon Games' first major original title and their first foray into Windows gaming, Crucible, which notably had matchmaking ended and all servers taken down only six months after release. Askaqp (talk) 02:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just labeling something doesn't give notability for an article. But maybe merging into Crucible (video game) would be better? IgelRM (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Amazon Games. Even if enough to meet GNG is found, this appears to be a NOPAGE situation where there's plenty of room to cover this in the main article. Jclemens (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Student Movements of Greece[edit]

Independent Student Movements of Greece (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have notability and original research concerns with this article.

I am unable to identify where the collective subject of the page is discussed sufficiently to meet the GNG. This part makes up the introduction of the page. In this section, the article cites to a primary research paper and a master's thesis and then a bunch of primary sources of student organization websites or interviews with organization members about upcoming elections.

Then the article moves to a list of student organizations by section. I doubt this would pass as a WP:NLIST. It variously fails to cite specific things about each student organization from primary sources. It cites at one point the view count from a YouTube video.

The final section is a timeline specific to the "Youth Communist Liberation" organization, not the subject of the page itself.

I want to be clear here, I'm not making an WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP argument here. I'm saying that the contents of this page don't meet the threshold of encyclopedic, it's just WP:SYNTH style OR and that the purported subject of the page, i.e. the topic of Independent Student Movements of Greece, presently fails collective notability and is dressed up by the OR and does not presently meet WP:N

I was in the process of maintenance tagging the article, but combined with the NPOV concerns and the above, I don't presently believe this article is siutable for mainspace. This page has a history of being draftified. I'm not opposed to a draftify ATD. But an approved article should ensure that the contents of the article represent the subject of the article, and that it meets our WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR policies. microbiologyMarcus [petri dish·growths] 14:43, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Author’s explanations:
Addressing misunderstandings regarding sources:
-Sources 1-2 are indeed research.
- Source 3 is the only available database (at least as far as I am aware of) that covers all years starting from 2004.
- Sources 4-6 are not student websites, these are legitimate (and reasonably popular) Greek news sites! (See “notability part” for more details).
- Sources 8-9 shows that two very popular outlets (See “notability part”) were discussing about the video that the movement posted. Source 7 is the video itself, so that the reader can access it.
- Source 10 proves that the YouTube account that is mentioned in source 11 is indeed the official account of the New Democracy student wing, and source 11 proves that its most popular video has 52,000 views at the moment. (One has to click on “popular” to see it.)
- Source 12 shows the election results for that specific department, and it is visible that the movement was labelled as “other right wing”.
- Source 13 shows that the other independent party got media attention for getting the 1st place in their department elections. It is a valid news website, not a student website.
- Sources 14 and 15 prove that no elections took place in 2020 and 2021.
I see a “failed verification” near source 6. That should not be the case; if someone clicks on the screenshots of that website, he/she should be able to see their agenda. It says “10+1 ΘΕΣΕΙΣ ΜΑΣ”;  there are a couple of screenshots there that mention everything I have included.
The timeline is not about the Youth Communist Liberation! It only uses their election database because it is the only available source! The timeline is about the independent movements, like the rest of the article.
Beginner question: Could/Should I add Facebook photos as primary sources about the movements? That should clear any doubts.
Regarding notability:
- There is 1 article from Luben.tv (~1,500,000 monthly users) and 1 article from Neopolis.gr (~760,000 monthly users) about the first movement. [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luben.tv and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neopolis.gr for membership evidence.]
- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr and 1 from e-reportaz.gr about the second movement. These are legitimate news sites in Greece. I do not know the exact number of views they have, but other Greek Wikipedia members can confirm that these sites are legitimate.
- There was 1 article from alfavita.gr regarding the third movement. According to this source, alfavita.gr is one of the most popular news sites in Greece (https://www.e-tetradio.gr/Article/22316/ta-20-koryfaia-enhmerwtika-site-toy-ellhnikoy-internet ) But in any case, it is definitely a legitimate news site.
- There was 1 article from neolaia.gr about the fourth movement.
All of these articles were written in different years.
Apart from this, pages about other university parties already exist in Wikipedia. Like this one, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLOCO
With the same line of argumentation, shouldn’t the Independent Movements have a page as well? After all, their performance in the elections is consistently better than that of Bloco, their real impact is higher.
I am not claiming that this article is a super important piece of information, but still, it fills in a gap. It adds to the knowledge base. It could be useful for those who are interested in Greek university elections.
Regarding neutrality:
- I only listed these 4 specific parties because these are the only ones that have received media attention so far. (Or at least I am not aware of any others that have received media attention. Feel free to add more to the list.) I am by no means trying to promote these 4 movements in particular.
- Regarding the potentially most viewed video, I am just stating facts. The official YouTube account of the New Democracy student wing has no video with more than 52,000 views, while one of the independent parties has a video with 63,000 views. This is an objective statement, I think.
-Regarding the best result up to date (29.9%), I checked the entire database, and I was not able to find any better result. If anyone else is aware of a better result, I will be happy to be corrected.
- The database I am using is the one of the communist student wing. The only reason I am doing it is because there is no other database available though! As far as I am aware of, this is the only database with detailed results since 2004.
Regarding original research:
- The introduction relies on published research.
- The information about each one of the 4 movements comes from reliable media.
- The only “original research” I did was summing “other left”, “other right” and “other” to calculate the total percentage in the Timeline section. Everything else is documented.
These are my 2 drachmas! ( I mean… cents!) I am happy to be corrected, and I am also more than happy to hear suggestions for improvement. In any case, thanks for taking the time to read the article!
(PS: As the author, my opinion is to KEEP the article.)
ArchidamusIII (talk) 16:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gathered some data about the media I mentioned:
According to this source https://www.moneyreview.gr/society/13952/kathimerines-ekdoseis-kai-neolaia-gr-mazi/, neolaia.gr had 1,000,000 monthly visitors and had published more than 110,000 articles in 2021.
According to this source, neolaia.gr has 900,000 monthly visitors and 4,500,000 page views in May 2014. https://www.advertising.gr/advertising-2/paramedia/rekor-episkepseon-gia-to-neolaia-gr-55244/
Regarding alfavita.gr, this source ranked it 5th in 2020: https://edessaikoskosmos.gr/eidisis/poia-einai-ta-megalytera-eidiseografika-site-se-episkepsimotita-stin-ellada/
I am not claiming that these sources are 100% reliable and that the numbers are 100% accurate, but we are definitely talking about serious media that have an impact in Greece. There are not student websites, these are serious nationwide media. (The same applies to Luben.tv and Neopolis.gr as explained earlier.)
ArchidamusIII (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:07, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: "While relatively rare" and the fact that they gather less than 10% of the vote isn't notable here. Could put a brief mention in an article about the political process of Greece, but most of these Movements seem to come and go fairly regularly. The sourcing is simply confirming their existence at a point in time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curwin Gertse[edit]

Curwin Gertse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I found a handful of sentences of coverage here and here on this rugby player. I don't think that's enough for WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So close to deleting based on available arguments, but at least a little more discussion is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Conradie[edit]

CJ Conradie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. It's possible he goes by a different given name. JTtheOG (talk) 20:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sphu Msutwana[edit]

Sphu Msutwana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find enough coverage of the subject, a South African rugby union player, to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Signature Yashmagh[edit]

Signature Yashmagh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small Emirati clothing brand with one retail location - coverage is low quality churnalism/promotional. No evidence of GNG. BrigadierG (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar[edit]

Ghulam Mahmood Dogar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable police officer as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He is not a non-notable police officer. I don't agree with you. Asadwarraich (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, a senior police officer with the rank of Additional Inspector General (IG), though I do not understand the country's police rank, I do know that an inspector general is a high rank. Other than the rank the subject has been controversial enough and has received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary media sources. See these[1][2][3][4][5]. The article only needs to improve the sources cited because of the 7 sources cited about 4 are primary sources. Piscili (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Piscili, Senior police officers are NOT inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. And so the subject is merely one among the numerous Additional Inspector Generals of the Punjab Police, received some ROTM and ROUTINE press coverage. Regarding the references/coverage provided;
    • Brecorder coverage lacks a byline and appears to be WP:ROUTINE reporting based on a tribunal's decision, and fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject.
    • Dunya News article, also lacking a byline, seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage, simply announcing the retirement without delving into sig/in-depth details about the subject.
    • The News coverage discusses the transfer case but doesn't provide sig/in-depth details into the subject himself, again falling under WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    • Jasarat's credibility is questionable, but still the article, based on a press release, merely announces the retirement, lacking sig/in-depth coverage.
    • The Express Tribune coverage, while announcing retirement, also fails to offer sig/in-depth information about the subject, thus also fitting into WP:ROUTINE coverage.
    So overall, these references/coverage (with 3 out of the 5 provided coverage solely focused on announcing his retirement) may suffice for WP:V purposes but fail to establish WP:N based on GNG which requires independent, reliable sources addressing the subject in-depth. Provided coverage is WP:ROUTINE, based on interviews, and press releases henc fails to meets WP:SIGCOV. Remember, BLPs require strong sourcing. — Saqib (talk) 15:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Officers of Police Services of Pakistan enter the service through CSS exam in grade-17 as an ASP. Grade-22 is the highest grade in Pakistan that a civil servant can attain. Ghulam Mahmood Dogar retired in grade-21 as Capital City Police Officer of Lahore, a city with a population of more than 15 million. Other than this, he served on key positions which are mentioned in the article. Asadwarraich (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Asadwarraich, Senior police officers are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. — Saqib (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Police. Saqib (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A nominator who regularly argues with everyone who disagrees with them over the course of numerous AfDs (repeat: numerous, not all) may be viewed by some as engaging in disruptive behavior.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Heppler[edit]

Rob Heppler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person. Article created promotionally. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Explorer[edit]

Campus Explorer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable website. Created by the same editor as Jerry Slavonia, also at AFD. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirang Lupa[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sirang Lupa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unlikely to pass WP:GEOLAND. Another barangay article made/maintained by the infamous Ivan Clarin or his socks. The only references used – a page from Calamba's official website and a source from the Philippine Statistics Authority – are not strong enough to strengthen the notability of the topic. The Calamba website may also lean towards non-independent source. A casual search on news using keywords "Sirang Lupa" AND "Calamba" only yields two results (source1 and source2), both only mentioning Sirang Lupa in a trivial, fleeting manner. At worse, redirect (again) to Calamba, Laguna. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerry Slavonia[edit]

Jerry Slavonia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable person; article is promotional. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Registered Agents Inc.[edit]

Registered Agents Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article's primary justification is that it is the parent company for Epik, which is a notable fact already reported directly on the Epik article, and it would not be sufficiently notable otherwise based on WP:INHERITORG. The remaining items mentioned comprise insignificant coverage with only a few cited references focused on the company as the central topic. Those articles appear biased in part, based heavily on gossip, and show that the company provides business registration services to entities that are the reason for the journalistic coverage due to various criminal allegations associated with them. However, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents. An earlier Talk page discussion regarding the page's questionable notability did not attract any substantive comments in support of retaining it, so I am nominating it for deletion. CapnPhantasm (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as there has been sustained and an increasing amount of coverage by WP:RSes, particularly by WP:RSPSOURCES. - Amigao (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This separate but closely related deletion discussion may also be relevant here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Keen. The consensus was to redirect to Registered Agents Inc.. - Amigao (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, Companies, Internet, Idaho, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources don't have to have to be "focused on the company as the central topic" to 'count' towards notability, but whenever we have sources actually focused on the company, then that is a strong indication of notability.
    CapnPhantasm, being the registration agent for other organizations that did notable or notorious things does not convey notability to Registered Agents is a sort of WP:ITSIMPORTANT argument in reverse. You are saying that their role isn't (in your opinion) important enough to the events of the day to justify all the attention that the sources dedicated to them. However, we care about whether they got coverage from the world at large. We do not care whether the reason for their coverage seems important to us. If the subject got coverage for enabling something, then the subject got coverage. "Why" or "for what" or "do we agree that they deserved that coverage?" is irrelevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the issue is that they got fairly insignificant coverage in passing in articles focused on other topics. With the majority of mentions being trivial ones, it seems likely that this article would not be supported had all the mentions been positive versus negative. I do not believe it's an argument in reverse -- without the coverage involving the acquisition of Epik, this would have been too thin to merit a Wikipedia article. WP:INHERITORG absolutely applies. CapnPhantasm (talk) 03:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Actually, it's not whether the reason for coverage is important to us, but the quality of the coverage and whether it should qualify for inclusion -- simply being mentioned in a number of articles is insufficient. Aside from the lead paragraph which is about its Epik subsidiary, the other items are piggybacked off of this, with most being fairly trivial mentions in the cited references.
To test whether this should be included, imagine that each of the points currently listed in the History subsection was positive, like "Registered Agents has been the agent of record for Apple corporation, the Pulitzer Foundation, IBM, and Chipotle." Such an article would likely get speedy-deleted because simply providing services for someone notable does not make your company automatically notable. There are other articles in the Afd lists right now that are going to get deleted for this very reason. Neutrality suggests this should be treated exactly as it would be if the coverage were totally positive.
Under Wikipedia:ORGSIG the company does not appear to have had any significant culture, society or business -- it looks as though they supply services just like other registered agent companies. If this met the test for notability, then we should add in all business registration agent companies mentioned in the same articles. WmLawson (talk) 05:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After reading through all sources, talk page comments, and comments here, I think the majority of the sources fall into WP:ORGTRIV (single line mentions as registered agent of bad companies; example of something being discussed; or local controversy); the most notable thing the company appears to have done is acquire Epik, a troubled domain registrar with an ugly history, and like the nominator suggested it can't inherit that notability per WP:INHERITORG; and unfortunately, the most significant source is all about alleged misdeeds/practices which WP:ILLCON says can't be used as a basis for an organization's notability. Although I do think this page should go, it does, however, seem like the primary editor has gathered sourcing that could be used to potentially enhance and create new aspects of the Registered Agent and Limited Liability Company pages, as the reporting in several of the sources elaborate extensively on the consequences of blindspots in state business formation statutes.MertenMerten (talk) 09:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There are cited WP:GREL sources that go well beyond the Epik acquisition and satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. For instance: "Inside the Shadowy Firm Pushing the Limits of Business Privacy" and "A US Company Enabled a North Korean Scam That Raised Money for WMDs" - Amigao (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CapnPhantasm, you previously declared that you have undertaken WP:PAID Wikipedia editing for more than one client of NUANCE Agency, an advertising and marketing firm that you listed as your employer. Any WP:COI to declare here? - Amigao (talk) 22:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Copying my reply to here as this comment was also cross-posted by User:Amigao on the Registered Agents Talk page.) I no longer work for Nuance, have not for some time, and I have no conflict of interest involved here or anywhere else on Wikipedia. However, you have now tried to threaten and intimidate me on multiple occasions because I corrected repeated instances of exaggerating information on the Registered Agents Inc. article unsupported by the references, and while you essentially conducted a reversion war about the article's quality assessment rating on the Talk page (while over and over I requested you discuss it on the article's Talk page). I also see that you've been taken to task for similar activities by a few others according to your Talk page, including a recent warning by User:MarkH21 for a deceptively described/committed edit on the Persecution of Uyghurs in China article. I'd request that you halt the harassment campaign towards me and ad hominem attempts here or else disclose your own potential WP:COI as your own activities could begin to be seen as some sort of biased activism. CapnPhantasm (talk) 23:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You probably should consider reviewing WP:AGF and WP:ASPERSIONS. - Amigao (talk) 01:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You might consider this yourself. And, it is not casting aspersions, as anyone can review the history of the article to see that I have accurately described what you were doing. Desist with giving me "advice" while you keep flouting Wiki guidelines. CapnPhantasm (talk) 02:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative note: I accidentally deleted this page when I intended to relist it - I have reversed the error and would ask another admin to take any future administrative actions here, as I am now involved due to my mistake. Apologies to those involved in the discussion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The Wired, Reuters, Washington Post and Wyoming News Service (a statewide consortium whose work is published in individual papers) sources all clear the bar for WP:NCORP. The sources support this topic being covered in a standalone page with no need to merge into other subjects. Dclemens1971 (talk) 07:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP criteria apply. This Wired article and others such as this also contain sufficient in-depth Independent Content to meet the criteria as well as the Washington Post article. If the article is not kept, a redirect to Epik as per ATD should be established. HighKing++ 16:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there is a problem with multiple sources essentially reporting upon what they do not find -- they imply someone (an employee) does not exist, but cannot prove a negative. Other articles involved are specifically focused on other topics/entities, but the reporters are stymied by being unable to see who the company owners are because of how registered agents legally function -- it is clear that if they could see company ownership directly they would not mention the registered agent at the end of their search. If this is the main thrust of the mentions of this company along with other registered agent companies in the same articles, then this is insufficient despite the typical reliability of the sources involved.
    The Wired articles read as biased, hearsay, and inherently speculitive -- again, this is not sufficient. Those were ealier cited in an Afd discussion on the supposed notability of the Dan Keen article (this article was cited earlier above - he was purported to be the company owner), but were ultimately deemed by consensus as insufficient for this purpose because they were full of hearsay and too speculative to be depended upon whilst the company's attorney stated categorically he was not the owner. If the Wired articles were indeed too undependable for use establishing notability for the Dan Keen article, they are insufficient for propping up a thin article on Registered Agents, too, for the very same reasons.
    Some of the arguments here seem to be at the level of "they are mentioned in a number of reliable sources, so that is enough to merit a Wikiped article." This isn't so -- the mentions themselves have to be sufficient. Else, we would likewise have an article about Chris Xu who is the founder of Shein and who is mentioned in a great many articles from reliable sources. Like Xu, being mentioned is not enough in of itself - the coverage has to be reliable, substantial, and significant enough to assert notability.
    Some of the ICIJ article merely reiterates the same content from the Wyoming article, so multiple paragraphs are less than what is being suggested. It likewise reports upon not being able to establish that an employee existed or not.
    Collecting a bunch of trivial mentions, regardless of coming from august sources, does not seem sufficient basis to keep. As another mentioned earlier, if the source facts were all positive ones with the same level of insignificance/triviality, this article would not stand as it would appear thin puffery that does not meet the hurdles of household name status or marginal notability. It may be that some are motivated to keep out of some sort of latent activism, but neutrality suggests that if this was not sufficient for similar levels of mentions casting a company in a positive light, it should not be sufficient for a company in a negative light either. WmLawson (talk) 04:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not dealing with articles that don't exist, per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. (If Chris Xu is notable, then someone can make an article about him.) We're dealing with the straightforward question of whether RAI is notable. I've read the sources (all mentioned in my !vote above) and I consider them reliable, and they are certainly significant coverage. By the way, I !voted "delete" in the Dan Keen AfD because the sourcing didn't support notability for a standalone article for him. I think it absolutely does on this subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "...not dealing with articles that don't exist..." is a straw man argument as the point was that a subject could be mentioned in many sources, but each of the mentions are insufficient to establish notability, and a quantity of mentions does not add up in itself to notability. Xu was just an example of this because the coverage about Shein frequently mentions him or talks about him, but the main thrust of those articles is not him.
    Regardless, you previously argued the coverage was WP:NSUSTAINED which should also apply here as the majority of sustained coverage (if we would call it that for articles where the company is not the main subject and nothing is particularly proven/established in the articles being cited about the company) is primarily from this spring, and it is hard to understand why you discount the Wired articles earlier but now consider them sufficient for this purpose.
    As the earler Afd comments demonstrated, the Wired articles have severe deficiencies as mentioned by BBQboffin, voorts and Otr500 such as not meeting SIGCOV as a number of the articles are a series of collaborations by the same authors/organizations which does not meet GNG as separate sources, and the articles are based off of questionable sources only while making utterly trivial statements that cannot possibly meet encyclopedic notability by focusing almost solely upon statements from apparently disgruntled employees with no verification ("micromanagement", "shifts in mood", "dresses modestly... wearing shorts and flannel shirts..", "passive aggressive approach with staff", "described as inappropriate", "misogynistic..", etc). Wired may often reflect journalistic integrity and be typically reliable, but for this topic depending on those articles for virtually anything gives undue weight to a clearly biased couple of articles from the same authors, which is why they weren't accepted for a biography article.
    The intro section of the article also demonstrates its main basis for notability is WP:COATRACK for its subsidiary, Epik. That shouldn't be considered in assessing the notability as acquiring a notable subsidiary does not establish independent topic notability per WP:INHERITORG.
    Wikipedia is supposed to be something of a lagging indicator of notability, and this seems like an exemplar. Until more significant coverage occurs this should not be an article. WmLawson (talk) 19:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Sources appear substantial enough to meet NCORP. The ICIJ source, for example, spends multiple paragraphs to establish this specific company as not just a convent example, but as a noteworthy example of its industry. Grayfell (talk) 03:49, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cypriot Futsal Cup[edit]

Cypriot Futsal Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources. Search (in English) does not find anything reliable. WP:PROD declined by RadioactiveBoulevardier Викидим (talk) 20:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHAHAHA (Chinese TV series)[edit]

HAHAHAHAHA (Chinese TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

TV series fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 20:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elbow roomers[edit]

Elbow roomers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

(Note: my PROD was removed.) Not a notable term. According to the source in the article, which only mentions the term once in a quote, the term was made up by John Fraser Hart, and I could not find any record of this term being used by anyone else. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Made-up topic or possible hoax. The single "source" was added 12 years after creation and does not support the term, it merely uses the familiar "elbow room". Could not find any sources that use the term. –dlthewave ☎ 21:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn’t a hoax; the newspaper article (not fully accessible from the link in the Wikipedia article) quotes the professor who states he made up the term “elbow roomers”. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I accessed the article using the Wikipedia Library. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grupo Latino de Radio[edit]

Grupo Latino de Radio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP as a holding company because of a lack of significant coverage. Don't see any plausible redirect either. Let'srun (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Canadian military victories[edit]

List of Canadian military victories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Follow-up to the recent deletion of List of conflicts in Canada, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of conflicts in Canada. NLeeuw (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of battles fought in South Dakota[edit]

List of battles fought in South Dakota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN WP:UNSOURCED. Follow-up to

Kicko & Super Speedo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kicko & Super Speedo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The references cited are mainly announcements and TV schedules, which do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag since May 2023. M S Hassan (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Marseille shooting[edit]

2015 Marseille shooting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS, WP:LASTING, WP:SUSTAINED, etc. A shooting incident that only resulted in one injury (and no deaths) is generally not allowed to have an article, because it always happens around the globe WP:ROTM. JuniperChill (talk) 18:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federation of European Mineral Programs[edit]

Federation of European Mineral Programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:N Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sigma (cosmology)[edit]

Sigma (cosmology) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article lacks a definition, focus, and citations, and some parts (e.g., the opening sentence) read very confusingly. All references I can find to a sigma in cosmology in the literature describe velocity dispersion – which incidentally is linked in the closest thing to a definition present in the article – or ordinary standard deviation, so it's not clear what this page should be about. Even if this is a real, distinct concept from other types of sigma, WP:TNT may still be needed. Complex/Rational 17:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest ranked figure skaters by nation[edit]

List of highest ranked figure skaters by nation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bloated lists full of original research & syntheses of “sources”, most of which do not provide evidence of what they claim to. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:31, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FreshGames[edit]

FreshGames (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Created by a mostly single-purpose editor and written like an advertisement. Could not find SIGCOV to support WP:NCORP being passed at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun – Prince of Bali[edit]

Arjun – Prince of Bali (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. M S Hassan (talk) 12:55, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Engineering[edit]

Extreme Engineering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NTV and WP:GNG. Tagged for notability since 2017. Nothing to support notability was found in a BEFORE. Checking the other languages pages, several of them have 0 citations. The ones that did, they are not independent/in depth enough for notability support. DonaldD23 talk to me 12:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Strauss, Gary (2007-08-14). "He engineered himself a job - 'Build It Bigger' host loves his Discovery gig". USA Today. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

      The article notes: "Forster, an architect and erstwhile stand-up comic with no TV experience, sent a three-minute audition tape that led to his hiring last year on Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering, a series that became this season's Build It Bigger (tonight, 10 ET/PT). Bigger kicked off the first of 14 episodes in July, with Forster checking out the engineering behind roller coasters. He also has traveled to sites ranging from an Alabama plant that refurbishes Abrams battle tanks to the 100-story-plus World Financial Center, one of the world's tallest buildings, under construction in Shanghai."

    2. Ashby, Emily (2023-06-19). "Parents' Guide to Build It Bigger". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

      The review notes: "That said, the show lacks any special pizzazz, so it probably won't be a must-watch for most kids. But tweens and teens with an interest in engineering or heavy machinery may be intrigued to watch their practical application in the real world. As for content, it's all fairly benign, but keep an ear out for some (bleeped) strong language and plenty of talk about the life-threatening hazards that accompany work on jobs like these."

    3. Filucci, Sierra (2022-10-13). "Parents' Guide to Extreme Engineering". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

      The review notes: "Though Forster attempts to build excitement through each project's many steps, some episodes are less interesting than others. For example, one that detailed an extremely complicated Swedish project called the Hallandsas Ridge Tunnel is dull despite the narrator's enthusiasm and the pre-commercial break cliffhangers (what will happen after the dynamite blast to that wall?!)."

    4. Johnson, Eric (2004-07-28). "Long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport tonight.long Beach Port Called Extreme - Television: Discovery Channel Airing Documentary on Our Seaport Tonight". Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

      The article notes: "The Discovery Channel's Extreme Engineering series chronicles engineering feats on a massive scale. Things don't get much more massive or extreme than at the Port of Long Beach, which is why a filming crew for the channel spent a week in March documenting an average day at one of the world's busiest ports. ... Other shows in the Extreme Engineering series document construction of the new Bay Bridge in San Francisco and the "turning torso" building in Denmark, which resembles a male figure turning at the waist."

    5. Bellman, Annmaree (2004-11-18). "Pay TV - Thursday". The Age. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

      The review notes: "This episode of the engaging series follows the week of one crew and their bosses, from high-rise dangers to nights on the town. The engineering is amazing, the building rising due to a massive automated structure that hauls itself up each completed floor to provide the basis for the next. It's the 21-man crew that makes it happen, though, and in frigid temperatures and strong winds. The narrator plays the "descendants of Vikings" card too often, but it's a great look at extreme building and its practitioners."

    6. Del Gandio, Jason (2014). "Performing Nonhuman Liberation: How the ALF and ELF Rupture the Political Imagination". In Besel, Richard D.; Blau, Jnan A. (eds.). Performance on Behalf of the Environment. Lanham, Maryland: Lexington Books. p. 28. ISBN 978-0-7391-7498-2. Retrieved 2024-06-14 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Discovery also airs Build it Bigger, a show that depicts massive, breathtaking feats of engineering. This show—as a discursive phenomenon—subtly contributes to the masculine, patriarchal, and even quasi-imperialistic practices of "bigger is better" and "expansion is progress." It also ignores issues of population displacement and the extinction of indigenous practices and knowledges caused by urban sprawl."

    7. Jergler, Don (2004-07-15). "Digest: Cable Show to Highlight Port of L.B." Press-Telegram. Archived from the original on 2024-06-14. Retrieved 2024-06-14.

      The article notes: "Discovery's Extreme Engineering series is produced by Powderhouse Productions of Somerville, Mass. Production crews filmed at the Total Terminals International container terminal on Terminal Island, a 375-acre facility that is the Port's largest shipping terminal, and one of the largest such facilities in the world."

    • There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Extreme Engineering, also known as Build It Bigger, to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: the sources presented above show it's notable enough and, according to Wikipedia's policy on notability, the page can be retained. Thanks, Cunard. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:28, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we have other opinions on this newly found sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Expectations from the Muslim Woman[edit]

Expectations from the Muslim Woman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A lecture that I can't find non-passing coverage of. What sources do exist don't really seem to be discussing this specific lecture, but mentioning it in context for Ali Shariati's views on women and Islam. There is a language barrier however so I could be missing something. If not, redirect to Shariati's biography. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:58, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shivaharkaray[edit]

Shivaharkaray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:V and WP:RS. As per criteria 6 and 7 of WP:DEL-REASON—it appears this place does not even exist. Completely imaginary! Jovian Eclipse 04:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Saqib: This edit from the Hinglaj Mata Temple page by a sockpuppet account predates the Tribune article by years and simply by looking at the lead, I think it is pretty obvious that the author has plagiarized from Wikipedia. I have particularly highlighted that edit because it was the precisely the one establishing for the first time that there are three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan. Older revisions have two. I would also like to make another point that this supposedly revered pilgrimage site not only has absolutely zero visitor accounts in the internet era, but no picture of it is available anywhere. It does not even receive the slightest mention in the books of scholars on Shaktism, who have otherwise produced detailed works on both Hinglaj and Sharada. Jovian Eclipse 21:04, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jovian Eclipse, But there are Indian RS confirming the existence of three Shakti Peethas in Pakistan, which includes Shivaharkaray such as The New Indian Express, The Economic Times. Plus, there are books that mention it too. You can just do a quick search on Google Books to check it out. — Saqib (talk) 07:15, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Saqib: This is supposed to be a very well-regarded shrine for Pakistani Hindus, for at least a century just as the other Shakti Peethas are. Every source you listed has come into existence after the aforementioned edit on 18 June 2021, which makes it blatantly clear that their reference was nothing other than Wikipedia (the ET article even explicitly says so). The books are all self-published ebooks, not academic works from well-reputed presses. The NIE article refers to a place called Karavipur where the temple is located, and it is again supposed to be near a railway station named Parkai. A quick 5-minute online research will reveal that none of those two exist anywhere in Pakistan. Also note that every "source" is either about the Shakti Peethas in general or about Hinglaj, but none about this temple itself. That also makes it fail WP:N. Jovian Eclipse 09:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No votes yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An evaluation of sources would be useful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syed Ibne Abbas[edit]

Syed Ibne Abbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable, unless meets the WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. In this case, the subject is non-notable diplomat as I couldn't find sig/in-depth coverage, so clearly fails GNG. ROTM coverage like this is not considered towards establishing GNG. Saqib (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:40, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG. Head of missions to India, UK, US, UN are almost always notable. Dawn article was written by Mateen Haider (not a press release) and includes biographical information which is useful per WP:BASIC: If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. There is a lot of coverage about him in Indian media, like Syed Ibne Abbas: Low-key diplomat knows how to handle India and [6]. 2400:ADC7:5102:9100:D8E7:7A4C:6383:36BD (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)— 2400:ADC7:5102:9100:D8E7:7A4C:6383:36BD (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • IP - I repeat diplomats including head of missions are not inherently notable. WP:BASIC also states trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. We don't need BLPs on each and every other head of mission. Routine coverage of head of mission is expected, therefore such coverage should not be considered sufficient to establish GNG , which requires strong sourcing. For instance, if each of the 200+ sovereign states maintains an average of minimum 100 diplomatic missions abroad, that means roughly 20,000 diplomatic missions and roughly 20,000 head of missions. Do we really need a BLP on each of them based on some routine coverage? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 16:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The anon IP says "Head of missions to India, UK, US, UN are almost always notable." Absolutely false. There is no inherent notability of ambassadors. This one fails to get third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 20:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chimpoo Simpoo[edit]

Chimpoo Simpoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. It lacks in-depth analysis or substantial coverage from reputable publications. The references are primarily primary sources or basic descriptions, which do not provide the necessary independent verification to establish the show's notability. M S Hassan (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean)[edit]

Daughters of Mary Immaculate (Chaldean) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG, is dependent upon primary sources and lacks any reliable independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 15:00, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a possible Merge
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DemoCrisis[edit]

DemoCrisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG as well NCORP because it hasn't received sig./in-depth coverage in RS, Fwiw, this article is created by a SPA WillyEaaa Saqib (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Israel, Europe, Hungary, and Poland. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has been covered in independent reliable periodicals (in depth and directly): Haaretz (https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-15/ty-article/.premium/this-catastrophe-proves-the-democracy-movements-importance/0000018b-334e-d1bc-a58b-7befc67b0000 https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-10-03/ty-article/.premium/civil-society-in-israel-poland-and-hungary-team-up-to-defend-democracy/0000018a-f400-d3af-a3ce-f5c215bd0000), The Jerusalem Post (quoted currently in the article). So that it does meet the general requirements for notability. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:29, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mushy Yank, Per WP:MULTSOURCES The appearance of different articles in the same newspaper is still one source (one publisher) And even with coverage in The Jerusalem Post , it falls short of meeting the GNG as well WP:SIRS.— Saqib (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The Jerusalem Post and Haaretz (choose the article you like best from Haaretz) are not the same periodical. Far from it!:D) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sorry, how does any of the 3 articles fall(s) short of meeting (....) WP:SIRS? Both newspapers are 1) independent, 2) considered reliable on WP; 3) the coverage is significant and 4) the articles are secondary sources . So why does this movement not meet GNG then? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Mushy Yank, Well, given that the author WillyEaaa has been found engaging in UPE as confirmed here, so I don't even feel the need to argue whether this meets GNG or not. — Saqib (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      !!!!!!!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: For what it's worth, this same author WillyEaaa also created a BLP on Dan Sobovitz, the founder of DemoCrisis, and it was noted that the @WillyEaaa is engaged in UPE, so it's very likely that this article is also a PAID job. Saqib (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: "International" means Europe and Israel in this case. The movement is unknown in North America (and based on the lack of sourcing, I'm assuming everywhere else). The UPE (twice 'round) is another red flag, this is PROMO. There is no sourcing I'd consider about this "group", it appears to be a SYNTH. Oaktree b (talk) 20:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ?? International means across different countries! Yes Poland and Hungary are in Europe and Israel is in the Middle-East, and neither is in America yet. True. But do you have a problem with that? Shall we delete every page related to those regions? Good luck. Ping me when you have a consensus. And "unknown in North America"..... how would you know and how would it matter? Notability is based on significant coverage in reliable sources not on the assumption that no one in North America reads Haaretz or The Jerusalem Post, that are widely considered some of the most notable newspapers in Israel. Lack of sourcing? No sourcing?? Please do read the page and this discussion again.....As for promotional intent, no idea, feel free to correct any phrasing or wording you find inappropriate....-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:23, 13 June 2024 (UTC) (PS..Added article In Politico (:D) with 3 paragraphs on the movement. ....)[reply]
    Correct, sourcing is about various small groups, not about this confederation of groups. This is a European event at this point with Israel stuck on for good measure. Oaktree b (talk) 23:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't understand your comment. 2 major newspapers (+ Politico) cover THIS movement in 3 articles, and it is referred to under its name. What small groups that would not be this confederation are you referring to? In what sources? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:27, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And I know because I'm in North America, and media here hasn't covered it. See for yourself [7] or [8] and Mexico for good measure [9]. A re-hashed PR item isn't really what we're looking for. Oaktree b (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Oaktree b, I don't see the point of debating whether this meets GNG or not. This article was clearly created in violation of WP's TOU. — Saqib (talk) 14:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Understood, I'm wondering if this AfD could be closed at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. No. Sorry but the nominator's deliberate lack of response to the issue they themselves raised and commented is at the very least misleading and so is the way they justify their refusal with repeating their comment about potential paid contributions: the COI/Paid contributions issue does not change the fact that we're discussing content here, not investigating behaviour. Sources show the page does not meet deletion for promotional content (if that is what the nominator has in mind, but not sure, as they didn't elaborate any further). Quite the opposite, as it does appear the subject does seem to meet the requirements for notability, see above and below. So, no, the Afd cannot be speedy-closed now, unless nomination is withdrawn and everyone agrees the subject is notable, but I suppose that is not what you had in mind. That would be the only way to allow an early close so far, imv, though. But both nominator and you might know that by now since the nominator has asked this elsewhere, in a discussion where you also were active, so I that should suppose you've read it (:D) and you both probably simply didn't update your comments..... So although this is technically a reply, I am rather mentioning this so that the closer and other users should not waste too much time on that part of the discussion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mushy Yank, I suggest you focus this discussion on the article itself, rather than on the nominator. — Saqib (talk) 20:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's exactly what I thought I was doing and was only mentioning the nominator's lack of response, to explain that what they had said was misleading. I did so so that other users should indeed not be misled to believe that this discussion was over, that notability was not the issue or that this could be early-closed. Sorry if I gave the nominator the impression that I was focusing on their person. But I thank you all the same for your suggestion and time. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:31, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Saqib (talk) 20:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It appears the "manifesto" (for lack of a better word) was sent out to various media outlets, none of which seem to have picked it up. [10] is all there is, outside of the two sources from Israel. This reads as pretty much a rehashing of the same news/PR item mentioned above. I'm still not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, it's not notable on the English Wikipedia because it is "unknown in North America (...) and everywhere else" because American media haven't covered it, and despite the fact that 2 major Israeli newspapers have covered it (one, twice)? OK. That's what I thought. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 06:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The same story in both papers, yes, that's one source. Oaktree b (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ???? Jerusalem Post= one newspaper, one article. Haaretz=one (very different) newspaper, with two different articles. That's three articles, which, if you wish, you can count as coming from 2 different sources only, but not 1! Add Politico (which was not an Israeli website last time I checked and is owned by an....American group:D), 3 paragraphs. You can turn this the way you want but you cannot count only one source. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:48, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mushy Yank, OK allow me evaluate the coverage you provided to address your doubts - Haaretz is behind a paywall, so I can't access those articles. However, I've reviewed the coverage from Jerusalem Post and Politico, and both fail to meet the GNG. The Jerusalem Post coverage is based on an interview, which does not qualify as independent coverage. While the Politico coverage is merely a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and does not provide the in-depth, significant coverage needed to establish GNG.You've participated in hundreds of AfDs, so by now you should at the very minimum know that we don't rely on TRIVIALMENTION as well interview-based coverage to establish GNG. Are you purposefully insisting that the article meets GNG, despite it clearly falling short? Well I see it as WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:TIMESINK, then. Allow me repeat GNG requires strong, independent sourcing that offers in-depth information about the subject and neither of these coverage meets that standard. Feel free to ask if there's anything else you'd like me to clarify, so that you can stop from labeling my nomination as misleading. — Saqib (talk) 21:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not calling your nomination misleading. Your comments about the fact that discussing notability was not needed (and your sudden lack of response to replies I had made to your comments on my !vote and comments) were, as anyone can now verify, but I sincerely don't think that was on purpose, and thanks for clarifying that point. As for your assessment of the sources, I pretty much disagree with everything you say (The JP article is presenting excerpts from an interview only in its second half and Politico has 3 paragraphs on the movement; although the article in Politico is a bit unclear).
    Regarding your other comments (disruptive, timesink), allow me to sigh again (the time sink accusation might prove a double-edged sword) but feel free to raise the issue elsewhere, if believing that what I find to be multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage is enough for notability, and daring to !vote accordingly and explain why when my !vote is commented (by you, as it is your habit when a !vote does not go your way) is not allowed when you have decided something is not notable. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look I've no interest in raise the issue elsewhere as it doesn't concern me greatly. You've stated your case, I've made mine, so there's no need to prolong this debate. If it's my habit to argue when a !vote does not go my way, it should be yours as well so let's avoid pointing fingers at each other. I leave this discussion to others to decide the fate of an article on a non-notable subject created by a confirmed UPE. See you around! Saqib (talk) 22:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Whether or not the article creator was/is an SPA or a paid editor doesn't mean an article should be deleted, it's not grounds of deletion. If you believe so, please quote the policy that states this. What matters is whether this article subject meets GNG or NCORP which is based on the quality of the sourcing. If there are factors of the article that can be improved by editing, they should be. Also, an article subject doesn't have to internationally important to be considered notable. Please focus on notability of the subject and existing sources establishing this, not who created the article (unless they are a block-evading sockpuppet).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

P.E.E.[edit]

P.E.E. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

does not meet any of WP:BAND or WP:WP:SIGCOV. the article has 4 sources: a link to YouTube for an interview, a page of the band and East Bay Express. when you do some research about the band, the only think you get is about urinating FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is where there isn't much sources on the internet due to many emo bands being poorly archived. You're gonna find most of these sources on zines. I found a bunch of reviews online from zines like Maximum Rocknroll and Tape Op. These should be reliable
  1. A review of Now, More Charm and More Tender in Maximum Rocknroll [11]
  2. A review of Now, More Charm and More Tender from AllMusic [12]
  3. Another review of The Roaring Mechanism from Maximum Rocknroll [13]
  4. A extremely short review of a Pee song in a compilation (see V/A-4 Bands, 2x7”) on Punk Planet. [14]
  5. Another review of The Roaring Mechanism from Tape Op [15]
  6. P.E.E. - The Roaring Mechanism listed at #20 on Fecking Bahamas (a digital math-rock magazine) as "100 Great Math Rock Albums You've Never Heard" [16]
  7. Yet again, another Maximum Rocknroll review on Miracle Research Center Staff. [17]
I only put sources of reviews, but these should be at least enough for a page (they are all independent from the band). The band also released their second album on Absolutely Kosher Records, which has its own page. The drummer, Andee Connors, is also debatedly notable. He was a drummer in other bands (J Church (band) and A Minor Forest) and I could find a bunch of sources pertaining to that and his overall music career. I would also say this case of "being no sources online" about an emo band is easily similar to the AfD of Strictly Ballroom (band), which had a decision of "Keep" 49p (talk) 17:36, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Uchendu[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jennifer Uchendu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The individual in question appears to be a non-notable researcher and climate activist. There is no significant coverage of their work in reliable third-party sources. The existing references consist mainly of personal profiles or brief mentions. GSS 💬 15:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Squid (company)[edit]

Giant Squid (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP - mainly sourced to trivial announcements that don't count towards the notability of corporations. After a BEFORE, I am still not seeing the notability here, with the most major article about Matt Nava specifically rather than the company itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeraj Kundan[edit]

Neeraj Kundan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL where the article itself claims the subject person as a politician. WP:GNG can't surpass WP:NPOL criteria. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J.J. College of Arts and Science[edit]

J.J. College of Arts and Science (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is written promotionally Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 15:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2027 Kentucky gubernatorial election[edit]

2027 Kentucky gubernatorial election (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Future event, more than three years away. The only reference is a speculative article with some rule-based candidate elimination and guesswork about who might run. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball -- this can be recreated when more concrete information is available. Mikeblas (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep no point in deleting the next election as we know it will be notable, and we already have news coverage discussing it. If you think the coverage isn't sufficient, redirecting to 2027 United States gubernatorial elections#Kentucky is preferable to deletion. Elli (talk | contribs) 16:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is illogical to assume that this election will not be notable, as it is scheduled to happen and it is already in the news. Also, the 2027 Mississippi gubernatorial election has a page, so it doesn’t make sense to have one with a page and one without NathanBru
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: While the election hasn't happened yet, there's strong evidence it will be significant. Scheduled elections that generate news coverage often become notable events. Deleting the article now throws away potential future value. Waqar💬 20:35, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the rationale of all "keep" !votes above. Sal2100 (talk) 21:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Future of the United States Navy[edit]

Future of the United States Navy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Literally just an out of date list of ships being built. The comparable articles for other navies are rich with prose. At best should be merged without redirect. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not clear what's actually out of date or if the tag itself is out of date, but that's an editing issue and not a reason for deletion. While prose about the future would be great, the lack therof is also no reason to delete this list. However, I am undecided if this should be merged to List of current ships of the United States Navy#Future ships or kept and renamed to List of future ships of the United States Navy with that section merged here instead. Reywas92Talk 20:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Sparrow[edit]

Giant Sparrow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to fail WP:NCORP with insufficient significant coverage. Ian Dallas, the studio's creative director, may be notable per WP:NARTIST and various sources covering him, but the studio itself doesn't seem to be, and the page was made by an account that made barely any other edits. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sibpur Hindu Girls High School[edit]

Sibpur Hindu Girls High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jagadbandhu Institution[edit]

Jagadbandhu Institution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:GNG. Relies on WP:PRIMARY. Sources are passing mention only. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ivy Road[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Ivy Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP; the sources are largely about Wanderstop rather than giving significant coverage to the studio. Could be redirected or merged to said game as an alternative to deleting. Either way, I suggest SALTing/protecting the page to prevent recreation, as it has been deleted once already for similar reasons. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theta Delta Kappa[edit]

Theta Delta Kappa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability not shown, even after research. Naraht (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chiel Meijering[edit]

Chiel Meijering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Zero sources and nothing in a Before. Maybe notable for 117 bassoon concertos though. (Was BLPPRODed but removed because there were apparently sources though actually there was nothing but the composer's own sites and those not used as sources.) — Iadmc♫talk  14:54, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evil-Lyn[edit]

Evil-Lyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence that this is notable per BEFORE. 🍕Boneless Pizza!🍕 (🔔) 14:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santragachi Kedarnath Institution (Girls)[edit]

Santragachi Kedarnath Institution (Girls) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL as well as WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Chicago Bears all-time record versus NFL[edit]

List of Chicago Bears all-time record versus NFL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Adding that I would support a selective merge to List of Chicago Bears team records on the condition that the list of Thursday/Sunday/Monday night games and holiday games are not included in such a merge. Frank Anchor 17:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge. I don't agree at all that the information is trivial. On the other hand, this is simply a repetition of results reported at multiple places on the net. E.g., [20], [21]. If there were more context and analysis, I might view it diffferently. See NOT STATS "(Extensive listings of unexplained lists"). Gonzo's suggestion to merge the main list into List of Chicago Bears team records also makes sense. Cbl62 (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine[edit]

Temple University School of Podiatric Medicine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Ricco Diack[edit]

Ricco Diack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra[edit]

Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Merge into section of Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders, removing biographical info, keeping the scouting CV, POW information. The content is notable, even if the author is not notable enough. -Bogger (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are sufficient details here to merit keeping the article. --evrik (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a policy based reason to keep or delete articles. Which sources are independent and indepth? Fram (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Well referenced figure, historically notable. –DMartin 02:15, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject is notable and reliably sourced. WC gudang inspirasi (Read! Talk!) 14:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: My vote is obviously to keep it; I wrote the article as I deemed it historically significant and notable. Cflam01 (talk) 14:51, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as a clear WP:GNG failure. Without any sources that support notability, it is unclear if and how much content should be moved to Vereeniging Nederlandsch Indische Padvinders (correctly identified as a potential target by Bogger). So a BIG NO to merge. Redirect isn't right either, as Bolhuis-Schilstra was not organically included in the body of the target (only as possible other reading). Hence this should default to delete. Thanks to Fram for nominating. By no means the first time we see excessive Dutch scouting biographies. gidonb (talk) 19:00, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, this article is the best I could find, and isn't good enough: „Mijn leven in Indië", door een oudleerlinge van de Koloniale school.. "Haagsche courant". 's-Gravenhage, 11-03-1937. Geraadpleegd op Delpher op 16-06-2024, https://resolver.kb.nl/resolve?urn=MMKB04:000149139:mpeg21:p018 gidonb (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: the keep !votes above are extremely weak and should obviously be dismissed by the closer, while a quick look at the "well referenced" article shows a distinct lack of WP:SIGCOV at all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete As per AirshipJungleman29's comments directly above.
    Axad12 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I thank you all for your efforts to maintain and improve Wikipedia. While I understand that concerns regarding WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV are certainly valid in this case, I'd like to make a proposition here that Bolhuis-Schilstra's story may be an important piece of historical information that sheds light on some of the humanitarian efforts during WWII. Her work as a scout leader in helping the sick is a testament to the resilience and compassion of humanity during a time of great turmoil, which I believe should be preserved and made known regardless of current notability and coverage. As for the "excessive Dutch scouting biographies", each of these articles provides unique insights into their contributions and experiences, showcasing the diverse stories and achievements within the scouting movement from WWII which again should be preserved in my opinion. Furthermore, WP:IAR exists to guide us towards maintaining and improving our content on Wikipedia, so in this case, ignoring concerns about notability and coverage would help us preserve and further document this piece of history that provides valuable insights into such an important historical period. While I can't stop you from voting for deletion, I kindly urge the closer to consider these points. Cflam01 (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Searched Google books and found nothing. Sources presented in the article doesn't pass WP:GNG. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairoz Khan[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fairoz Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Birel[edit]

Birel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article only references corporate sources. It does mention a book, but unless this book can be sourced - which it so far has not been. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP for these reasons. Checking the Italian and Swedish versions for sources proved unfruitful, and with the book being prohibitively expensive to fix the reference (which is incorrect on publishing date) it is very difficult to see this being notable. JM12624 13:39, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Servan-Schreiber[edit]

Anastasia Servan-Schreiber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Opay[edit]

Opay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Egypt, Nigeria, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 17:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment first of all, if you were a member of the Wiki project Nigeria. You will know that Opay is a notable bank. Talking about the sources, Opay is not a company that goes to the news to create well run press campaign. The news generates content base on the company notability as a global bank. To all the WP you cited, they all said a company is presumed to be notable which they gave their reasons and I don’t see how does the company fails to meet them. The article subject even also, passed WP:GNG.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 17:31, 5 June 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Thanks, Gabriel601. Unfortunately, notability is not based on knowledge of WikiProject Nigeria, nor is it based on it being a global bank. NCORP (And GNG) require significant coverage in reliable sources, independent of the subject. Are you able to point out the references that meet WP:ORGCRIT? I will take another look and if they meet the criteria withdraw the nomination. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know too well notability is not based on WikiProject Nigeria, nor it being a global bank. But I am still surprise about what you are saying about it not being significant in a reliable source, independent of the subject. I have to start reading Wikipedia:Trivial mentions to understand what is significant coverage and reading WP:IIS to understand what is independent and I don't see how Opay fails to meet them. CBN stops Opay, Palmpay, others from onboarding new customers Is this not an independent source ? Because it's not talking about Opay directly but a Central bank stoping them. And when talk about significant coverage in reliable sources they are many out there on Google. It's a bank, so I don't think we should be expecting more than anything else than the government interaction. There is no difference between Opay, Kuda Bank and Moniepoint Inc. that was nominated for an AFD but was keep. Gabriel (talk to me ) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will look at this again but beware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:50, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: So while reviewing AFCs, I encountered this draft and wanted to decline it. However, due to the Opay's operations in Nigeria and Egypt (in addition to Pakistan), I refrained from making a definitive judgment, as I was uncertain about the extent of coverage in sources from these 02 countries. But as far as Pakistani sources are concerned, the organization does not meet WP:NORG as I could not find sig/in-depth coverage in Pakistani RS. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where does wikipedia state that if you can't find RS in Pakistani an article should be deleted? I have never even been to Pakistan so I didn't focus to write anything much about it. And from what I have seen so far I don't think the popularity it has gained in Nigeria, Pakistani nor Egypt are far better than it, so I didn't focus to get RS from those country.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel601, My assessment was based on the Pakistani sources cited in the article. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because your assessment was based on the Pakistani sources made you voted delete. That sounds so funny, meanwhile, the sources from even the Pakistani section are not just mere blogs but newspapers which are qualified to verify if a statement is right according to WP:NEWSORG and WP:REPUTABLE. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:32, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel601, Instead of spending your time mocking me, why not suggest some strong coverage that you believe can help establish WP:GNG? Simple! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not mocking you. I am just trying to understand your point which doesn't seem to be clear by Wikipedia. Because wikipedia is not just base on only Pakistani RS if that has been a reason you have been declining other editors article. Just like you said you would have declined Opay base on the Pakistani RS. Gabriel (talk to me ) 19:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gabriel601, That's not quite what I meant but I don't think I need to explain further. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Saida, Gabriel601 seems to be a bit correct. We can't use a part to justify a whole or for example, John Doe is bad and for that, his family member are all bad. No! If you checked the Pakistani sources and since you may be familiar with them just help the article and remove it. As far as I can suggest it think, there were only two or three sources from Pakistan which I had removed not because they doesn't meet WP:SIRS but because they are mostly WP:INTERVIEWS. I hope this addresses a bit good matter, and thanks for analysing the Pakistan source. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:37, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I voted to delete in this AfD because the article mentioned the company operated in Pakistan. Now that the article no longer mentions Pakistan, it's not relevant to me anymore, and I don't have time to analyze Nigerian sources. So, I'm going to remove my vote and stay neutral. — Saqib (talk) 08:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am the one who recommended this for deletion actually. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
48JCL, What made you say this? — Saqib (talk) 22:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ 48JCL TALK 22:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
oops ignore that that was an accident 48JCL TALK 22:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Clean is not deletion. I won't call this WP:HEY because it is good before I made few changes. The sources though may be populated by a little unreliable/routine sources doesn't mean others should be same. Herein, if a source isn't good for an article, it can be removed, and not alter a whole deletion discussion . I have presented that all the sources in the article makes it meet WP:ORGCRIT. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:33, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Courtesy ping to @CNMall41, @Saqib, @Gabriel601, to reconsider the current state. Thanks. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 08:38, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. I see you approved this through AfC so you likely spent quite a bit going through the sources, but I feel that WP:SIRS may not have been applied correctly. Even the references since the nomination do not see to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Routine sourcing is fine to verify content, but not for notability. Can you point out the specific references that you feel meet ORGCRIT as the ones I see are still run of the mill?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CNMall41, you do be the one to do a source assessment. As much as I can see, all the sources or at least WP:THREE are all good to go. I am sorry to say you do have to see WP:SIRS again, maybe you are forgetting something. Since Organisation's are presumed notable, the sourcing maintains WP:SIGCOV, the sources are reliable per WP:NGRS, the sources are also secondary and independent of the subject. I don't even see any WP:ROUTINE because I have addressed that issue when I saw flaw of Pakistan, Egypt related matter. I address again, all the sources are all reliable and meets WP:ORGCRITE. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:18, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did assess the sources and did a WP:BEFORE yet you say there are sources that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Yet, you have not pointed them out so unsure where to go from here. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Maybe it has some minor issues, but deleting it is not suggestedParwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a policy-based reason for the vote? I am willing to look at references that meet ORGCRIT and withdraw the nomination if anyone can point them out. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
https://www.cbn.gov.ng/supervision/fi.asp?name=OPAY%20DIGITAL%20SERVICES%20LIMITED%20(FORMERLY%20PAYCOM%20NIGERIA%20LIMITED)&institutetype=Mobile%20Money%20Operator Yes Talks about Opay and it's former name Yes Official publication of the Central Bank of Nigeria. Yes It values the companies existence in Nigeria. Yes Because it isn't from the company, it is therefore a secondary source.
https://www.theafricareport.com/346765/nigeria-opay-palmpay-face-scrutiny-amid-rising-appeal/ Yes Listing Opay among other fintech in Nigeria and a problem Yes Per RS. Yes Fintechs in Nigeria received a significant report based on the scrutiny. Yes Wasn't biased from a routine view. A news report.https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/
https://punchng.com/opay-highlights-achievements-plans-improved-security/ Yes Reporting a press conference of Opay Yes Punch news is reliable per WP:NGRS. Yes A press reportage. – Much more of a primary coverage since it was a press conference or thereso. —
https://businessday.ng/technology/article/olu-akanmu-steps-down-as-president-of-opay/ Yes Only about Opay and the CEO's withdrawal Yes Per WP:NGRS Yes Received massive reportage of a stepping CEO means the company is notable. Yes A secondary news report
https://thenationonlineng.net/fact-check-video-of-opay-agents-protest-in-ikeja-falsely-shared-as-recent/ Yes A problem with the company's service Yes The Nation is reliable Yes Such rallies dress the media attention. Yes A secondary report. Why will a company drags it's name down.
https://dailypost.ng/2023/04/08/kano-court-sentences-opay-agent-to-nine-months-in-jail-for-stealing/ Yes Problem again. Yes Per WP:NGRS. Yes Man's court case over Opay Yes A court case and arrest of an Opay agent is a secondary report
https://www.thecable.ng/opay-partners-verve-to-roll-out-opay-instant-debit-card-get-yours-anytime-anywhere-instantly/ Yes Only about the subject Yes Ditto Yes Partnership to such a firm is usually taken to the media in Nigeria as it benefits the mass. Yes A secondary report thigh we can't tell if the report was called. I wonder term this primary because it came from a secondary source.
https://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2022/04/14/opay-obtains-approval-of-cbe-to-issue-prepaid-cards/ Yes Ditto Yes Daily News Egypt is a newspaper with editorial policy. Yes Approval by the nations bank is a significant coverage Yes From a secondary source.
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/africa-focused-payment-firm-opay-040352184.html Yes Ditto – I don't know about Yahoo finance but it's mostly reliable – – —
https://leadership.ng/opay-wins-in-fintech-category-at-nitdas-digital-nigeria-2023-awards/ Yes An award ceremony Yes Per NGRS Yes Award ceremony are often significant especially when it's from NITDA Yes From a non primary coverage
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/12/opay-wins-advan-consumer-choice-award-for-best-fintech-2023/ Yes Ditto Yes Ditto – An ward ceremony that covers only one company is likely questionable. Yes From a secondary source. —
https://punchng.com/opay-gets-wef-recognition-on-financial-inclusion/ Yes Yes Per NGRS Yes Received SIGCOV from an international organisation. Yes From a secondary source.
https://leadership.ng/opay-earns-cnbc-and-statista-global-ranking-in-digital-payment-category/ About a championship award won by Opay Yes Ditto Yes Why not Yes Non primary coverage.

Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 09:42, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. It does show that you are applying WP:SIRS incorrectly just be looking at the first four you listed. The first reference is a business directory listing. Never at any time have I ever seen it acceptable to use something like this towards notability. It would be the same as using a Bloomberg profile (see the section here on Bloomberg profiles). The second is paywalled and I do not have access but looks like it is one of four companies listed as being told to stop accepting some form of payments. This is NOT in-depth about the company as it likely doesn't describe the background of the company in-depth (just routine coverage although again, I do not have full access - I have seen these countless of times however). I am not sure about the third you listed by Punch, but would need clarification on what you mean by "primary coverage." The fourth also does not show WP:CORPDEPTH. It is routine coverage of the CEO stepping down. There is no depth to it about the company and you can see it is routine by the way it is covered in at least four other publications. It would fall under WP:CHURNALISM as well. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Because this greatly fall under Nigeria, I do know how I analyse sources and know when other "copy cat" websites copy. The fact is that other website you cited are blogs. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:15, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources I cited above are the ones you stated meet WP:ORGCRIT. If they are blogs as you say, that is even more of a concern they don't meet the criteria. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:27, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was an error. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never intended this would be a long argument since I thought you did a BEFORE before nominating or because of the Egypt-Pakistani error had earlier. Now, bypassing BEFORE do affect AFDs. Per GNG, an article that has shown relevant significant coverage is presumed to have a stand alone article/list,and here lies news publications, Google scholar lists, appearances on CSE, and this article [Eguegu, Ovigwe. “The Digital Silk Road: Connecting Africa with New Norms of Digital Development.” Asia Policy 17, no. 3 (2022): 30–39. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27227215.] quoting "...The Chinese fintech company OPay serves millions of Nigerian users and is valued at over $2 billion.14 Chinese firm Transsion Holdings dominates the African smartphone market with a 48.2% share, ahead of Samsung at 16%.15 Market-leading apps and services such as music streaming service BoomPlay, mobile payment...". Am I still having any other problem? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:19, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never intend to be an argument but I am discussing points being made. I would also appreciate that everyone stops mentioning countries and culture as if this is a bias issue. Not all Wikipedia languages have the same guidelines and maybe the sources are good enough for other Wikipedia. However, for English Wikipedia, company guidelines are strict on sourcing. These simply do not meet it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Amongst other sources found by SafariScribe, these source by Samson Akintaro of Nairametrics is a field work that reviewed the company. I understand that CNMall41 may have a feeling that the sources are probably biased or promotional but what reads as "normal" tone for a news article depends on your culture, and we don't want to be tone policing the sources. Best, Reading Beans 18:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a culturual thing. The applicable guideline is WP:ORGCRIT and when applying WP:SIRS there is nothing here that meets it. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND.
I'll also add that ORGCRIT is not the full picture when analysing sources and the analysis performed above is incomplete. Here is an analysis of those same sources performed against NCORP criteria:
  • This Listing on Central Bank website is just that, a listing. It does little more than verify the existence of a company at that point in time. What it doesn't do, is provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
  • This report from Africa Report is based on a directive from the CBN to halt on-boarding of new companies and is little more than a mention-in-passing, no in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails ORGIND and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Punch is based entirely on information provided by the company, fails ORGIND.
  • This in Business Day is also based entirely on an announcement by one of the company's execs with no "Independent Content", fails ORGIND.
  • This is a "story" about a tweet, it has no in-depth "Independent Content" that is from a RS, fails RS, ORGIND, and CORPDEPTH.
  • This from Daily Post is an article about a company exec convicted for stealing. It has no in-depth info about the company, fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This Daily News article is entirely based (and is) a PR announcement, fails ORGIND.
  • This published on Yahoo is also a company PR announcement, also fails ORGIND.
  • This in Leadership concerns the company winning an award but contains zero in-depth "Independent Content" about the company, fails CORPDEPTH/ORGIND.
  • This from Vanguard fails for the exact same reasons.
  • This article in Punch acknowledges that the topic company is mentioned in a report. That's it, just a mention. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This final one from Leadership is regurgitated PR and also contains no in-depth "Independent Content" on the company, fails CORPDEPTH and ORGIND.
In summary, not one single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the ones listed above are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no in-depth "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. HighKing++ 20:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Analysing sources especially on companies are usually seen from the way a certain readability is mean. For example, it is mostly a liar to.say that companies doesn't have PR but at some point, one of the major ways of seeing the notability is per WP:SIGCOV. This has been talked about for years. I want you to address this source, and significant ways that shows SIGCOV like this JSTOR article, CSE, listing on Google Scholar, and this news sources. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 00:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't spin PR or company-generated information into notability - that's a pretty basic foundation of our guidelines. Nor can you t rely on an article that discusses the app to establish the notability of the company - another fairly basic part of our guidelines - see WP:INHERITORG and WP:NOTINHERITED. You've also missed some pertinent points relating to the OUTCOME essay you linked to - first, its an essay and not one of our guidelines, second it speaks in generalities and not specifics. For specifics, you need to look at NCORP *guidelines* - the basis upon which notability is established - which I've linked to in the analysis of sources above.
You pointed to some other sources. In summary, none of those meet NCORP guidelines for establishing the notability of the company either. I encourage you to familiarise yourself with WP:GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines as you have repeated the same misunderstanding. For example, this article in Nairametrics] is written by a tech contributor about the app, not the company. The start of paragraph 3 contains one sentence about the company but has zero in-depth information about the company and a single sentence is not sufficient to meet CORPDEPTH criteria. The next reference entitled "The Digital Silk Road" is available through the WP library and is 10 pages. The topic company gets a single one-line mention on page 4. That is insufficient and this reference also fails CORPDEPTH. For your other two links, please see WP:GHITS but in summary, we require specific sources, the volume of "hits" is not one of the criteria. HighKing++ 14:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you perhaps tell me why OPay is non-notable. Aside from the news sources that you have discredited for reasons best known to you, can you give me a rundown on the following sources?
Adinlewa, Toyin (2022). "Effectiveness of Opay ORide outdoor advertisements on market expansion in Akure metropolis". African Social Science and Humanities Journal. 3 (2). ISSN 2709-1317 – via AJOL.
Ogiriki, T.; Atagboro, E. (2022). "EMERGENCE OF FINANCIAL TECHNOLOGY AND MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM SCALE ENTERPRISES IN NIGERIA". BW Academic Journal. 1 (1).
Nezhad, Mahshid Mehr; Hao, Feng (2021). OPay: an Orientation-based Contactless Payment Solution Against Passive Attacks. Proceedings of the 37th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (ACSAC '21). New York, NY, USA: Association for Computing Machinery. pp. 375–384.
Omotayo, Funmilola O.; Tony-Olorondu, Josephine N. (31 August 2023). "Promoting Cashless Economy: The Use of Online Electricity Payment Channels in the Ibadan Metropolis, Nigeria". Vision: The Journal of Business Perspective – via Sage Journals.
Southwood, Russell (2022). "Mobile money: From transferring cash by SMS to a digital payments ecosystem (2000–20)". Africa 2.0. Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.
I can go on for some time but I want to sternly believe that you have understood the point I am trying to make. Best, Reading Beans 03:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, just so that we're not at cross purposes and to facilitate reviews of sources, when you're posting links, please indicate whereabouts in the sources you believe the content meets GNG/NCORP (i.e. in-depth "Independent Content", etc) - at least then we'll know you've actually read them yourself. As to the links you've provided:
  • this analysis of the effectiveness of outdoor advertising just happened to use the topic company's billboard ad (could have been any company's billboard ad), but has zero in-depth information about the *company* and fails CORPDEPTH.
  • This research paper asks merchants questions about which payment system they use but only has 4 sentences describing the *company*. It refers to "(Lionel & Samuel, 2020)" as a source but the referred paper (available here) makes no mention of the topic company. Also, for me, the paragraph smacks of puffery/marketing but leaving that aside. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Your inclusion of this source is evidence that you didn't read it because it has nothing to do with the topic company.
  • This research report mentions the topic company twice in relation to popularity in paying electricity bills. In passing. Fails CORPDEPTH.
  • Finally, Russell Southwood's book (available at jstor) also mentions the company in passing, no in-depth information, fails CORPDEPTH.
I've responded to your comments about the relationship between GNG and NCORP below. HighKing++ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Comment Actually haven’t had enough time to contribute but as per the one delete vote. I don’t think the user has made its research on google to find what he or she is actually looking for. Sometimes it happens like that to some editors. While the editors who voted keep has provided more reference beyond the reference on the article from google. I’m currently weak at the moment and look forward to others contributions.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 23:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reponse Thankfully, the AfD isn't decided by a count of !votes, but by the application of our guidelines. In this case, I've pointed out how each and every reference fails GNG/NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The editors who !voted to Keep don't appear to grasp the fact that the guidelines for establishing notability of a company require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company*. HighKing++ 15:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For context's sake (the current version of this article is not clear about this), Telnet was a company that owned Paycom, Opera acquired Telnet's Paycom, picked the O from Opera and picked the Pay from Paycom to reflect a merge of these services, Opay. [source1] [source2] Opay has deep historical records and coverages of how it came about, from being Telnet's property (Paycom) to becoming Opera's property (Opay) all over the web, Business Day gives quite a handful of history here. There's a review of Opay's services right here on Nairametrics. With these, I am satisfied with WP:NORG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:42, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Can this also be added to the article about how OPay came about. For now I’m currently busy off Wikipedia and will be back soon. Thanks. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:35, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Vanderwaalforces, no doubt the company exists but neither of those sources meets GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. The Nairametrics article discusses the app, not the company and fails CORPDEPTH (I discuss this above) and the Businessday article appears to rely entirely on an interview with Folorunsho Aliu, group managing director of Telnet, failing WP:ORGIND. HighKing++ 15:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • All I see from your statement is a confusion. There is no point debating. If the app was discussed, theirs no need differentiating it from the company. It is part of the company. This is not like a father and son scenario. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not trying to save this article that was why I haven't involve myself lately even though I created it. But I look forward to valuable reasons. Gabriel (talk to me ) 00:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, that's wrong. If the app is notable, then we'd have an article about the app (also meeting GNG/NCORP guidelines). This article topic is the company. WP:NCORP applies to articles on companies, but you should be aware that those same guidelines apply also to articles on products. When you are reading the guidelines, you should be aware of this fact, otherwise you might incorrectly make assumptions about product notability and company notability. In a nutshell, notability of a company does not bestow notability to their products/services and vice versa. A review of a product does not assist in determining notability of a company. HighKing++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighKing, I disagree with this submission. NCORP and other guidelines are not above GNG; they are a branch of GNG if I’m not mistaken. I see a lot of misunderstanding here. If an entry meets GNG, I don’t think it would need to meet a different criteria for “product” or “company” to be considered notable. Best, Reading Beans 03:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've seen this argument plenty of times before - I suppose when all else fails, attack NCORP guidelines. First, both GNG and NCORP are guidelines and nobody is placing one "above" the other, however that might be done. GNG are general guidelines which apply (in general) to all topics. Some areas need additional explanations/examples and elaborations and therefore the GNG is augmented/supplemented/explained for those topic areas in other guidelines. For companies/organizations, we use NCORP. HighKing++ 20:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seem to misunderstand WP:NCORP. Are those sources not part of being significantly covered or are you cleared on the deletion of this article? Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 02:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I misunderstand NCORP at all, I think you do. The app is not the topic of this article, therefore those sources cannot be used to establish the notability of the topic. In plain English, you cannot use product reviews to establish notability of the company and vice versa. HighKing++ 16:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @HighKing, are you suggesting the app is notable and the company is not? If so, it needs a rewrite. Best, Reading Beans 03:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, please don't misread what I've said. I'm merely pointing out that one cannot be used to establish notability of the other. Nothing more, nothing less. HighKing++ 19:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite edit count, you are a relatively new user. I would recommend going through company deletion discussions and talk page discussions of NCORP before making such a suggestion. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Primorial sieve[edit]

Primorial sieve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. D.Lazard (talk) 13:23, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nomination. I did also look for this in a couple of textbooks on computational number theory and in the mentioned Scottish Book, and did not find it in either. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not remotely encyclopedic, woolly, rambling, uncited, and per the above actually unciteable, i.e. WP:OR. Delete as not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be unpublished original research based on a web page dated (in its source code) from yesterday. The article creator's pseudonym BaSzRafael bears some resemblance to the author name (in the web page source code) Rafael Szulc, suggesting that they may be the same person. The edit summary in the creating edit, "a completely new topic", could be interpreted as a statement that this is made up, and as a rationale for a WP:CSD#A11 speedy deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Center on Media and Child Health[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Center on Media and Child Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Shiv Prasad Kanaujia[edit]

Shiv Prasad Kanaujia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Beachhead Solutions[edit]

Beachhead Solutions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Shafkat Saeed[edit]

Shafkat Saeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

ఐ 20[edit]

ఐ 20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

The result was procedural close‎. This has been userfied by Bai0926 (talk · contribs) to User:Bai0926/Fashion in China (by way of various other titles that have been G6’d, with Clearfrienda (talk · contribs) being the one to place it at the right spot), with the resulting redirect being given an R2 speedy deletion by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion in China.[edit]

Fashion in China. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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.

Gaurav Nanda[edit]

Gaurav Nanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

LSU Department of Finance[edit]

LSU Department of Finance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not seem that this department of the business school is notable by itself, all references are incidental do not shown notability. Relevant information can easily be covered by the business school that it belongs to the E. J. Ourso College of Business article. This article seems to almost be a sales prospective for the department and has no general value. We could merge this with the business school, but I see little worthwhile content for merging and so I believe the best option is to delete this article. Sargdub (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

People in the line of succession to the British throne[edit]

People in the line of succession to the British throne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Also, the 2015 discussion is not relevant; the merged article only contained the short list of descendants of George V, and the outcome of the discussion was in fact to keep text referring to Reitwiesner's list. Lastly, your nomination itself is factually inaccurate: they need to be Protestant and not specifically Anglican, and I don't think there's a legal provision that they be British citizens; George I was certainly not when he ascended. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. George was naturalized by the Sophia Naturalization Act 1705 before his accession. DrKay (talk) 19:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rascals (producers)[edit]

The Rascals (producers) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Sergey Skabelkin[edit]

Sergey Skabelkin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Oleksandr Komarov (businessman)[edit]

Oleksandr Komarov (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Terwin (corporation)[edit]

Terwin (corporation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Celebrities who use their middle names as their first names[edit]

Celebrities who use their middle names as their first names (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Terézia Kulová[edit]

Terézia Kulová (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Vandalism of Stonehenge[edit]

Vandalism of Stonehenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Merge with Just_Stop_Oil#2024: Per OP. Not independently notable when this is one among many Just Stop Oil protests. — Czello (music) 09:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is salvageable to Just Stop Oil per OP. WP:NEVENT is relevant. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge where appropriate and delete. Given the tabby choice of title I'm agnostic if we need even the redirect. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge whatever is appropriate to Just Stop Oil. I was tempted to nominate it myself, but thought for some reason we should wait one week or so when coverage inevitably stops. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With that said, I would be down to expand the scope to all acts of vandalism on Stonehenge. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 13:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the title is simply "Vandalism of Stonehenge" so this article could be used to cover all vandalism attempts on the monument. Otherwise Merge as above— Iadmc♫talk  11:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another stunt from them. No damage - not interesting. Secretlondon (talk) 12:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from creator — I absolutely did not say the scope couldn’t be expanded. In fact, my only comment regarding notability of the article was to note that LASTING could not be proven, and that a reassessment should occur in a week for notability. I am not going to !vote here, however, GenevieveDEon put words into my mouth in this WP:RAPID deletion attempt. I personally ignore the nomination reasoning by GenevieveDEon for that reason, however, all other comments (keep, merge, or delete) from other editors I will be looking at extensively and appreciate all the responses. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On closer inspection, I see that the large additions that were removed were from IP users trying to make the page be about the nearby road tunnel. That's obviously not appropriate in any case. But it does highlight a deeper problem: the concept of 'vandalism' is not culturally or politically neutral, and deciding what should be included or excluded from such a general article would be very difficult. As it stands, this article is still undue emphasis on a very short-lived and likely insignificant event. I also note that User:WeatherWriter tagged me with the 'climate change is a contentious subject' talk page template. This isn't about climate change. I have no interest in the purported subject matter of the protest. My position would be the same whatever the purpose of the protest - a separate article is unnecessary. And calling this "the vandalism of Stonehenge" was, is, and remains ludicrous. We're not here to elevate utterly trivial news stories into separate encyclopedic topics. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The tag on your talk page is a required thing per WP:CTOPICS. This was a protest related to climate change and as such, first-alert topics are given to editors in the field of articles regarding climate change. Nothing directed towards you. You statement "This isn't about climate change" is absolutely false, since Just Stop Oil is a climate-change related organization. Please do not focus on the editor and focus on the content. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regard it as rather targeted, because you didn't add the tag to the Vandalism of Stonehenge article itself when you created it, but only when you were tagging various places including my talk page, after I had made this nomination. And I'm not sure it's a sensible use of the contentious topics policy for you to create an unnecessary (and untagged) article about a very minor event somewhat connected with the contentious topic, and then start throwing around the template once someone challenges that creation. GenevieveDEon (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please strike the comment above as it does not pertain to the content of the article and is directly entirely at me. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It's about how you handled the marking of the article in question, and related pages, as being related to a contentious topic only when it served to criticise this deletion discussion. My comment stands. GenevieveDEon (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's extremely obvious you're targeting us with those contentious topics alerts because we want your article merged away, WeatherWriter. LilianaUwU (talk / contributions) 22:24, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? CTOPIC notices are a required thing to do. As explained to GenevieveDEon at the administrators noticeboard. After the discussion was opened up there, all the accusations of OWNing, POV-pushing, and alleged targeting were taken back by GenevieveDEon. Please don't make the same mistake and accuse me. On a brief inspection, two minutes earlier, you removed the CTOPICs notice, which you are perfectly allowed to do (with indicates you acknowledged it). In your edit summary, you stated, "where did I edit an article under that?" Does that mean you do not consider this to be even slightly related to climate change? If the answer is yes, then you are not ready to edit in the CTOPICs area. Also, before you accuse me further that I am targetting because "we want your article merged away", you should do your homework and see that I too support merging it. Please strike the accusations and I would strike this entire comment insuit. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 22:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DELAY is also listed right above WP:RAPID. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Just Stop Oil#2024 as per above. For vandalism attempts other than the Just Stop Oil one, they would be more suitable for inclusion in the Stonehenge article. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expand Scope or Merge — The scope of the article should be expanded to cover all acts of vandalism to Stonehenge throughout history. If that cannot be agreed apon, then I support a complete merge (the entire article content) into Just Stop Oil. I would also encourage other editors to consider the scope expansion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 12:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. "Vandalism of Stonehenge" suggests the article is about the concept of vandalism of Stonehenge and is confusing when it turns out to be about one specific incident. SystemPhantom (talk) 16:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - and expand scope. There must have been similar incident etc in the past. Sourcs are good and notability fow now obvious.BabbaQ (talk) 14:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I regard that as an unncessary content fork - there's not enough on this in the main Stonehenge article to warrant it. When there is, then such a fork would be worth considering. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly agree. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While I appreciated the appearance of this entry when I was looking for more information on this breaking story, even then I was doubtful that it needed its own page. Also, it should be noted that I went to the Stonehenge page first, and either the incident hadn't been added yet or I somehow missed it, otherwise I wouldn't have gone to this page at all. RogueLoreBard (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I dispute your assessment Ad Orientem that this fails GEOSCOPE. I highly doubt the Associated Press, CNN, and Fox News are "local" sources around Stonehenge. The rest I do not have a direct disagreement with, but I wanted to go ahead and dispute the GEOSCOPE argument stated. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 16:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. There was international coverage. Though it has dropped drastically even in the UK which does not bode well for WP:SUSTAINED. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't originally propose a merge at all, because there's already a more-than-sufficient mention of it in the Stonehenge article itself. (See the discussion on the talk page there about whether that's warranted.) The Just Stop Oil article needs some work in any case because it's tending to WP:PROSELINE at the moment, but I don't feel qualified to say whether merging this page into it would help that issue. GenevieveDEon (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. No more notable than any of the other instances of immediately reversed vandalism from JSO. Sinclairian (talk) Sinclairian (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Stonehenge has been around 4,000 years and it'll be around 4,000 more. A feeble double act of environmental suffragettes taking 30 seconds to sprinkle orange flour over two of the stones doesn't warrant a mention in the main article, let alone its own. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:09, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Engineering Group, Inc.[edit]

Peninsula Engineering Group, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

The company went through a few name changes: first to Peninsula Wireless Communications, and then to Repeater Technologies. The company was taken public and then went bankrupt under the name Repeater Technologies. Peninsula Engineering Solutions is a successor organization, which was acquired by Infinity Wireless. https://www.infinitiwireless.com/we-are-pleased-to-announce-the-merger-of-their-two-companies/
The company's patent on split band filtering was a foundational patent in on frequency repeaters for cellular mobile radio. It is cited by 36 other patents, see: https://patents.google.com/patent/US4783843A/en Rabcfi (talk) 16:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

TwoTiime[edit]

TwoTiime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The Ottawa Citzen article was reliable, but there is no widespread coverage in reliable source about this person or their music. No charted songs or notable awards. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I created the article but I'll comment anyways. Meets WP:BASIC. There are at least two in-depth Complex articles ([22] [23]) - Complex is a recommended source at WP:A/S and is independent of the subject. There are many in-depth HipHopCanada articles ([24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]) which are independent of the subject. There are multiple in-depth HotNewHipHop sources ([31] [32] [33] [34] [35] ) - HotNewHipHop is also a recommended source per WP:A/S. This isn't including the many Ottawa Citizen articles which are all independent and reliable, or any of the interviews that add little additional commentary. Doesn't have to meet a SNG if it meets GNG/BASIC. I don't see how this is controversial. C F A 💬 21:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Another issue is that the article also reads like a promotional piece, with nothing therein showing why he’s actually notable. 💥Casualty • Hop along. • 03:55, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A non-neutral tone is not a reason for deletion, though. It can be fixed through editing. I think it’s pretty clear the subject meets GNG, regardless of any SNGs that might apply. C F A 💬 10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

King Hiss[edit]

King Hiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Sorceress of Castle Grayskull[edit]

Sorceress of Castle Grayskull (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Ram-Man[edit]

Ram-Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

2024 Sydney Super Cup[edit]

2024 Sydney Super Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles[edit]

Heartland Museum of Military Vehicles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Military, Transportation, and Nebraska. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:17, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this does somehow survive deletion I am able to get some photos for the article. I haven't looked much into the Museum itself so I can't currently comment on it's notability. ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 04:50, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is not written like an advertisement, instead it needs improvement, not deletion. I'm appalled to see this nomiated for deletion. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 06:03, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, I've found some sourcing. Cleanup is possible, not a reason to delete. This is nowhere near TNT level. Star Mississippi 14:27, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This page need to be rewritten to not be like an advertisement, but there are some articles online about the museum that make it notable. That Tired TarantulaBurrow 17:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Apart from being written like an advertisement (WP:NORG), this entry fails WP:GNG. Its only sources are its own website. AstridMitch (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024

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

  • Delete: Could be notable, but sourcing is primary in the article. I can only find various travel blogs or listings for them [36], without much coverage at all. Oaktree b (talk) 14:34, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in North America[edit]

Racism in North America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Keep - I see what is trying to be accomplished, organizing a set of existing pieces on racism by country. I'm good with it. Carrite (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then Redirect - I concur with the original requester. Any content that happens to be unique to this article (I couldn't find any in my review) should be moved to one of the country-specific articles. Then, it should be redirected to a list of the country-specific articles. Garsh (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Enhanced network selection[edit]

Enhanced network selection (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

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

Rossi Morreale[edit]

Rossi Morreale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Popular culture, and American football. — Iadmc♫talk  04:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — this man played minor-league American football for a few years and appeared on a bunch of TV shows of very little interest. White 720 (talk) 04:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @White 720 Interesting change of heart by the creator — Iadmc♫talk  04:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It happens. But only rarely so maybe don't rub it in. I thank White 720 for not using this forum to waste anyone's time where most others would. It's a kind gesture. So thanks White 720. JFHJr (㊟) 04:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I created this article 17 years ago after being curious about the subject's then-current project. I don't have any real attachment to the article subject, and while I can't resist a chance to save an article with last-ditch citation adding (I've succeeded before) there's no point in preserving an article for a person whose entertainment career never really took off. White 720 (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. I didn't mean any malice — Iadmc♫talk  05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Following this referral from WP:BLPN. This subject fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The sole extrinsic claim to N is WP:NACTOR. However, (the paucity of) BLP-worthy reliable sources underlying the claims to NACTOR makes it hard to support any particular prose or derivative filmography section. If we remove what is unreffed or supported only by the subject or allmusic, there is no encyclopedic biography. JFHJr (㊟) 04:29, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Arkansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Found [[37]], but I was surprised of the lack of WP:SIGCOV considering this subject played at the highest level of college football. Let'srun (talk) 12:25, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Let'srun (talk) 19:03, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Kendrick[edit]

Adam Kendrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

Blue, White and Red Rally[edit]

Blue, White and Red Rally (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

2014 Pathum Thani building collapse[edit]

2014 Pathum Thani building collapse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

2021 Ravanusa explosion[edit]

2021 Ravanusa explosion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

Singara Chennai[edit]

Singara Chennai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable reviews or other sources other than a single production source. A search in Sify ([38]), Chennai Online ([39]), and BizHat ([40]) proves futile. Please find the Kalki and Cine South reviews or redirect to Chennai as all online sources prove to be a description for the city. A WP:BEFORE found a fleeting mention here (சிங்கார சென்னை). DareshMohan (talk) 03:10, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Sylvia[edit]

Jesse Sylvia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

  • Delete I agree. Not really notable, even as a poker player, I would delete it. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 02:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Three new sources have been made inclusion before this went AfD but after it went up as a proposed deletion. I now sincerly reach out to editors like UtherSRG with a question of what's more to add. Everything is in there; primary sources, local sources, stats database sources, routine match coverage sources, indepth match coverage sources. And even if someone would remark on there being only two scores you should keep in mind that one score is for $5,000,000 - and is a second place in the main event (world championship) - and the other is a win in a WPT Main Event (the largest set of tournaments next to the World Series of Poker) - both these scores alone should merit inclusion. PsychoticIncall (talk) 13:38, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read WP:SIRS. If you feel that the sources pass SIRS, please provide WP:THREE for evaluation. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:54, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's a bit silly asking for sources for such obvious results (events) as a main event 2nd place and a world poker tour win when it's obvious these events have taken place (with the selective outcome). Like asking for more sources too validate Stanley Cup or Super Bowl. That said - the three sources needed for evaluation is right there (ref: 3;4;5;6). PsychoticIncall (talk) 15:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:SIRS, the references must each be independent, reliable, and provide significant coverage. None of them provide significant coverage. You have obviously failed to read and understand WP:SIRS. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be a bit more specific? The sources are specialized, but they do seem to be reliable, independent, and provide non-trivial coverage of the topic. Hobit (talk) 22:30, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage is the only one I say couldn't be debated; of the sources have looked at, they are all about Jesse Sylvia doing something, whether it be his performance at a competition or otherwise. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pokernews is fine for new about Poker (unless it's on a list of non-RSes?). The local "boy does well" article is reliable, independent, and provides significant coverage. I think we're okay on meeting WP:N. Hobit (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Keep, While there are no big name sources like NYT or AP, I scanned over a few and they seem good enough. ✶Quxyz✶ 02:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier[edit]

2023 Women's Asian Hockey5s World Cup Qualifier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

LSU Department of Finance[edit]

LSU Department of Finance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It does not seem that this department of the business school is notable by itself, all references are incidental do not shown notability. Relevant information can easily be covered by the business school that it belongs to the E. J. Ourso College of Business article. This article seems to almost be a sales prospective for the department and has no general value. We could merge this with the business school, but I see little worthwhile content for merging and so I believe the best option is to delete this article. Sargdub (talk) 01:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arie Trouw[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Arie Trouw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

James Sunter[edit]

James Sunter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

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

  • Keep - With all due respect to the hard-workings of Wikipedians who insist on adherence to all the Wikipedia dictates ... there's more to it when it comes to spiritual leaders. I've done a great many Hawaii articles on spiritual leaders. The ones that impress me with their Christian walk in life, are not the ones who necessarily made the headlines when alive. It's people like Alice Kahokuoluna and Father Damien who put their own safety aside to care for the helpless leprosy patients. The ones who don't impress me are the spiritual leaders who make the news, and hobnob with legislative leaders. Not to knock Wikipedia guidelines, but people putting their own lives and welfare on the line to serve others, just doesn't seem to arise in Wikipedia guidelines. — Maile (talk) 02:49, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I tend to agree with the nomination. This is a rather well-sourced biography of a religious person, but I'm not sure what the notability is... He built a school, ministered to the faithful, other routine things. I suppose it would all get reported on at the time, but it's all strictly local news reporting on what the pastor was up to that week. Oaktree b (talk) 03:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, a lot of Wikipedia is like that. That's what makes it useful. Doug butler (talk) 04:28, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's wrong with this source, which appears to be an extensive full-column long story on his life in a major newspaper? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:14, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Linked five times in the article. Doug butler (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical question: when the deletionists have whittled the English WP down to 1 million articles class C and above, or 2 million mid-importance or higher, how much storage space will be saved ? Doug butler (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1162720113"