User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 02:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Hut 33	19 days ago	1	2131	1742.65
Tulika Mehrotra	15 days ago	1	7264	1433.31
Biometric Consortium	14 days ago	0	3197	1396.96
Ram Vishwakarma	13 days ago	1	4377	1335.1
National Library of Cameroon	12 days ago	1	4020	1246.5
Maoist Communist Party (France)	11 days ago	0	6926	1230.29
Ethics of simulated suffering	13 days ago	2	4204	1216.51
Senco Gold Limited	12 days ago	1	4927	1204.39
Farakka Port	13 days ago	3	3718	1186.84
Armed Forces Insurance	10 days ago	0	2959	1171.55
Michael Meaney (darts player)	13 days ago	3	4082	1168.16
Al-Khair University (2nd nomination)	14 days ago	4	9290	1136.37
Association of Maldivian Engineers (3rd nomination)	10 days ago	1	3881	1111.92
Mwijaku	10 days ago	1	3897	1071.76
The North American Discworld Convention	10 days ago	1	5507	1055.97
Permanent Revolution (group) (2nd nomination)	10 days ago	1	5164	1051.83
Guite people	12 days ago	3	6648	1050.62
AEYE Health	11 days ago	2	14560	1050.33
List of Ale Conners of London	9 days ago	1	3871	1049.98
Salavatabad (mountain)	8 days ago	0	4950	1014.51
İAOSB Müdürlüğü (Tram İzmir)	10 days ago	2	7364	966.14
Caribbean Twenty20	10 days ago	3	4914	958.24
Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo	7 days ago	1	3468	906.74
ClickUp (2nd nomination)	9 days ago	2	27017	906.4
Undetectable.ai	10 days ago	3	13950	903.18

Hut 33

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

Non-notable radio show; lacks any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Only refs found in Google are mere mentions or are BBC links, which is not independent of subject. Prod removal not based in policy. Wikipedical (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to James_Cary_(writer)#Career -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR, interviews are not RS. Deriannt (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It depends on the interview / article format and whether or not the article contains facts vetted by a reliable source and observations that were independent of the subject. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment I've added a reference for her job (chief digital officer) and her marriage. I doubt they will make much difference. I'm not casting a vote on this one. Knitsey (talk) 22:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the additional work done on this article, I don't believe it qualifies for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment. This article is starting to look a lot better than when it was first nominated. Is anyone able to access the Business India article (or provide an archived link to it? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Biometric Consortium

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

Non-notable program. Per a WP:BEFORE], there is no WP:SIGCOV, only routine coverage of conference announcements. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:37, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep I found a source like that, it is valid that it remains. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
[1] is a WP:MILL WP:BLOG and not a WP:RS to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment - The subject does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 20:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Ram Vishwakarma

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

No reliable sources are available on google, I also tried searching in Regional languages but got nothing. Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine and India. Taabii (talk) 09:40, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The highlighted individual meet WP:GNG under WP:SNG. A former director of the Indian Institute of Integrative Medicine ([2]) qualify under WP:NPROF and WP:NACADEMIC (#8) criteria. In addition, a search in Google Scholar reveal several scientific articles that have been credited to or published in collaboration with the same individual ([3], [4], [5] and [6]). The article however, require improvement and addition of sources. QEnigma (talk) 15:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep. As a former director of IIIM he does not automatically qualify. The staff is about 68 PhD/Dr, with a modest budget of about $0.5M (it goes further in India). Just as a Dean at a university is not automatic, he is not -- but it is a partial notability. In terms of publications his h-factor of 62 is strong, but it is a high citation field. (The 20th person in drug discovery has an h-factor of 118, and it is more an exponential than linear relationship.) The two together just about persuade me that he passes WP:NPROF, the criteria the nom used are not really appropriate. For certain the page needs work.
Delete: I can't find coverage that can clarify his notoriety.. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 06:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:37, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:09, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

National Library of Cameroon

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

There is no "National Library of Cameroon". The current coordinates given are to the national museum. The national archives, which are the largest museum in the country, have their own seperate entry.-- NotCharizard ^🗨 15:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Cameroon. Skynxnex (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge to National Archives of Cameroon which appears to be the case with the French article where Archives nationales du Cameroun talks about the volume it holds if I'm reading it correctly. Star Mississippi 03:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: What do you make of the first reference? The deletion discussion says there is no "National Library of Cameroon" but the source suggests there is.

On another note, the coordinates given (3.8611940644516403°N 11.516500695387736°E) are highly suspect. I'm not sure where those came from, but they have an astonishing 16 decimal digits of precision, which is sub-nanometer precision and nonsensical for a building. Crystalholm (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge of this article to National Archives of Cameroon?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep: From this document page 8, it looks like as of 1978 the library was located in the archives, and had minimal (100m^2) space allocated. According to [7][8], "The National Library and the National Archives were created by the decree of 17 August 1966 as separate establishments. The decree of 20 November 1978 restructured the Library into three sections: acquisition and legal deposit, classification-cataloguing, history of Cameroon and national bibliography"; this document is perhaps 20 years old (Jean-Pierre Angremy died in 2010), but it was still a separate organisation (though perhaps a somewhat vestigial one) as of 2022[9]. this implies that as of 2016 it was still located within the archives. If a merge is to be done, it would really need a francophone who can correctly interpret/translate the sources and dig further and avoid accidently conflating the two (What do the various decrees re the library say? Does the archives have one or more libraries of its own -- eg presidential library -- that are separate to the national library? Do the stated 64000 books belong to the national library, and how current is that figure? How does the national library function?) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
From this (not usable as an RS?), legal deposit as a function of the BN was still performed during 2014-2022, and this may be at an entirely separate location from the national archives given that the (poorly defined) map on page 45 appears to be at [10] (rotated 90 degrees). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Maoist Communist Party (France)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Every source given is from the organisation itself or a Maoist blog site, except one by the conservative tabloid Diario Correo, which mentions the French organisation in passing. Online searches in English, French, and Spanish return zero reliable sources, and I doubt such sources will be found in print offline. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment I found multiple sources in French which discuss the party, especially in relation to the Gilets jaunes: "Morts aux porcs": de violents tags anti-police en plein Paris, "De Rugy Escroc on te fera payer": qui est le Parti Communiste Maoïste qui revendique ce tag?, Nantes. Tags sur son mur de résidence : qui menace François de Rugy?, Vice interview with a PCM member, Montpellier: le préfet accuse des groupes révolutionnaires communistes d'infiltrer les manifestations des gilets jaunes, Droite identitaire, gauche radicale : quand les extrêmes gonflent les rangs des Gilets jaunes. Need to look at this further, but "zero" reliable sources appears incorrect. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
The coverage is not in-depth; the focus is on the gilets jaunes, not the Maoist Communist Party in particular. Yue🌙 01:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

The party is underground now but still actively exists, but it clearly needs updates and translations. DuCouscous (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, sources do exist. User:Goldsztajn are you arguing for a Keep here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I made a mistake, the party doesn't exist anymore, this article should be deleted. There has been no action claimed by the PCm the past 2 years and according to witness it ceased any operations. DuCouscous (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

This is an invalid reason for deletion per WP:NTEMP; something does not just lose notability because it no longer exists. If the party has received sufficient previous SIGCOV, preferably WP:Three sources that pass SIGCOV, and are reliable and independent of the subject, then it would be notable. I would note that I don't see that in the article as of now; a lot of the article is sourced to what seems to be a Wordpress blog of dubious reliability and independence, and the party's own Web site, which is obviously not usable in determining notability. Similarly, a search for the party's French name returned foreign Maoist parties, though perhaps that's due to the name being a fairly generic term. A search for the party in English was also mostly unsuccessful for similar reasons. Feel free to ping me if additional sources are found, but presently I feel that deletion is most appropriate. Nowhereman1994 (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Ethics of simulated suffering

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

Does not appear to be a robust philosophical concept needing its own article. Two sources provided are self-published and not covered by reliable independent sources. The "connection to catostrphic risks" seems like WP:OR/WP:SYNTH and not directly supporting the notability of the concept itself. If anything, a brief mention of ethical concerns in simulated reality seems sufficient. ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:47, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the concept is notable enough in itself. But some of it could probably be merged into the article ethics of uncertain sentience. Alenoach (talk) 17:22, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete as WP:SYNTH-y, navel-gazing cruft. XOR'easter (talk) 19:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep - seems page is recently created and looks WP:SYNTH as noted above, but this is a growing field in philosophy - maybe template/category for stubs (philosophy, tech, ethics?) can be added? Asteramellus (talk) 19:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Adding a stub notice isn't a fix for the problem. XOR'easter (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Yes - only reason I thought it might help with stub is bring attention to the page to get some more edits possibly. Asteramellus (talk) 20:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Stub notices don't really do that. They sit around for years unattended. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Senco Gold Limited

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

This article fails WP:NORG , the sources listed here do not provide the coverage required by stringent WP:CORPDEPTH and most sources I found in WP:BEFORE search were unusable for establishing notability as they fell under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the history of socking and undisclosed paid editing can't be overlooked either, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soumya511569- Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more participation. By the way, the correct SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BNJ Nilam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

~~Weak Keep~~ Delete @Ratnahastin, you are right that WP:NEWSORGINDIA is a big problem when it comes to checking notability in India. However, in this case, since the page is about a listed company, I have found three sources that are independent analyst reports with disclaimers. - HDFC Securities, SBI securities, and ~~SMIFS~~. But I am not sure how many such reports are needed to establish the notability of these types of companies or how relevant they are. Charlie (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment The SMIFS analyst report I shared earlier has been struck through. On page 13, it mentions that SMIFS or its associates may have received payments for products or services not related to investment banking or brokerage from the company mentioned in the report over the past year. Because of this, I am pulling back my earlier weak keep vote. As of now, just two analyst reports alone aren’t enough to prove notability. I should have read the disclaimer carefully. Sorry for the mistake. Charlie (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Farakka Port

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

The existence of this port is questionable due to a serious lack of sources. A Google search yields no results for the so-called "Farakka Port". The cited sources in the article refer instead to a Farakka inland waterway, used for transporting coal to the Farakka Super Thermal Power Station near the Farakka Barrage. It seems it is actually referring to a floating terminal listed here. In any case, the topic fails to meet WP:GNG. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, India, and West Bengal. The Doom Patrol (talk) 09:01, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Suggest merge some supported content to a section in Farakka. - Davidships (talk) 13:49, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep - there is not a lot of coverage in English, but it's enough to verify, and combine with significant coverage in Bengali, and it passes GNG. I added another English language source. I've been redirecting and merging a lot of unsourced Indian-related stubs, but this is an easy keep. Bearian (talk) 11:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: per Bearian. I have added two more sources for WP:V. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Armed Forces Insurance

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

I did wp before, but was not able to locate reliable sources meeting NCORP. Ready to withdraw the nomination if the reliable sources are found and added NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Military, Companies, and Kansas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:51, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Michael Meaney (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep - decent Irish coverage available - RTÉ (a little routine but still a headline in a national broadcaster's site indicating national prominence), KCLR (similar to before but not quite as notable as RTÉ), a circa 1k word piece entirely about Meaney and his career in The Kildare Nationalist and another piece of coverage in The Nationalist (Carlow version so separate from the prior newspaper). Of these the Kildare Nationalist piece is strongest and combined the sources indicate regional notability, imv. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 16:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Sources in the first comment from Ireland are enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 19:19, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: rte and kclr are both routine match reports and do not provide sigcov of Meaney. The other two sources contain little info directly about Meaney and are mostly quotes. Dougal18 (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Al-Khair University

AfDs for this article:

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

It does not meet the criteria of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. The article was deleted in 2020 and recreated in 2021, but in my view, the school has not achieved sufficient notability to justify recreating the article. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment - There is a ton of WP:NEWSORGINDIA to sift through but I found this. Their notability may be from being part of a diploma mill.--CNMall41 (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Um ... WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not about Pakistan. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep notable diploma mill. Scammed a lot of innocent students, attracted a lot of media coverage, and even military official received its degree to become NAB director. Very notable per CNMall41. 103.194.93.34 (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep More than adequate sourcing available to satisfy the GNG + a bit of HEY...not sure how it's possible to miss the multiyear coverage of this notorious institution. While AfD is not clean up, the article could not be left to stand as it was and I have cleaned it up. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Nothing I can find meet the GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. It hit the news at one stage for being a diploma mill but most of that coverage was focussed on the crime, not the company. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
"at one stage"? There's multi-year RS coverage going back a decade (and more) in English (I've not done any searching in Urdu): eg 2021 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2015, 2004. Whether focussed on "crime" or "company"(?) (it's a university), the content of the coverage is not relevant to notability questions. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It is incorrect to say that "the content of the coverage is not relevant". The guidelines that apply to companies/organizations (private universities) is GNG/WP:NCORP. See WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH which clearly speak to the *content* - for example, a requirement is for in-depth information *about the company* and the article must contain *independent* *content*. We don't care about the volume of "coverage", we actually care about the quality of content in order to establish notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:13, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Worth noting previous deletion was a soft delete on PROD/TNT basis, notability was not discussed. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll also note that the previous AFD had participation from only one editor, the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Private universities should meet WP:NORG, which means that we need significant coverage at WP:ORGDEPTH about the institution. We have quite a lot of news coverage about the university, which, for instance, set up illegal campuses [11] and was indeed a diploma mill per the above. Coverage such as this [12] does indeed mention the university, but not at ORGDEPTH. This is a general problem. The sources are all about the mismanagement and illegal activities and not about the university itself. My feeling is that we don't have the sources for a university article, but we do have the sources for an article about either diploma mills in general, or perhaps about the event of this diploma mill in particular - and moreso because it seems to have created a bit of a storm in its resolution. I would be open to redirect targets. But I really cannot decide between straight delete of this article (which has nothing worth saving) or keep with the assumption this could be renamed and repurposed. The problem with deletion is not that the article would be deleted, but that the sources found in the AfD would lose visibility. The problem with keeping the article as it is lies in the possibility that this might languish and then be developed as if the encyclopaedic subject is the university, rather than the scandal. I am also reluctant to add a keep !vote when I think no consensus may be a better outcome. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep as the result of the first discussion was soft delete means if some one want to work on it he can make an un deletion request. It was deleted back in 2020 and so far its notability has improved considerably. Behappyyar (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. A source review would be helpful as, at this point, there is no consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Association of Maldivian Engineers

AfDs for this article:

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

No notability of this association and no public information about it. Closest thing available was the "Association of Civil Engineers Maldives" Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 11:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maldives-related deletion discussions. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 11:57, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: This is the closest thing to a RS I could find [13], which isn't enough. The last AfD was kept as a !keep due to mentions/profiles on two association websites, which isn't quite enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:37, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Mwijaku

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

After observing the article being too promotional (still is), I moved the it back to draft space hoping for improvement that would follow a regular review at AFC but the original editor moved it back direct to the mainspace also nowhere in the references show subject's (important claims) like date of birth or number of children they have, where did the editor get them? That's WP: PROMOTIONAL, WP:COIEDIT and tries to use wikipedia as WP:SOAPBOX.

No any notable work listed show subject's importance, just a bunch of gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that cannot be trusted on WP:BLP. ANU^writes 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, Internet, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - No indication of notability. --John B123 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

As the editor of this article, I have made improvements by adding additional information from sources that I believe are credible. Please review it to see if it is satisfactory and help me by correcting any mistakes. 3L3V8D (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is an unbolded Keep here, I don't think that a Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

The North American Discworld Convention

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

WP:BEFORE only showed unreliable sources such as blogs and fan sites, or other passing mentions. This does not have reliable secondary sources to achieve WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Nothing in Gnews, nothing in RS that I can find. Sounds interesting, but no RS we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Events, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Is there coverage of the Discworld fandom as a whole? If so, then we might be able to justify creating a section or subsection (like under reception?) in the main Discworld article that could briefly cover the fandom and the various conventions like this one. I admittedly am not seeing a huge ton of sources, but perhaps someone else could have better luck? (I'm also not delving super deep as far as searching goes). I did find this one about the UK convention and this one about general convention appearances though, though. And this one that's paywalled but mentions a Pratchett superfan. They're all by The Guardian so it's not a huge depth of coverage, but it's a start. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if User:ReaderofthePack had anything more to add to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I wasn't really able to find a whole lot - there is some light mention of the conventions, so I think we could probably justify a few short lines. My recommendation is to retitle the critical reception section to just "reception" and include a sentence or two about the conventions. The conventions are a good example of fan reception, so inclusion there wouldn't be too out of the question. I just don't think that we need more than a sentence or so. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Permanent Revolution (group)

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct minor Trotskyist group. No demonstration of meeting GNG within the article, with sourcing being from self-published sources (mostly their own) so violates WP:ABOUTSELF. Checks on scholar show no notable academic discussion of the group. No likelihood of improvement and no obvious redirect targets.

Delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect to List of Trotskyist internationals#Defunct. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Looked at this, problem with this redirect is that there's no reliable evidence they ever became an established "International", just that they had a handful of supporters outside of the UK. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Haven't you just described half of all Trotskyist internationals? :) FWIW, WP:NLIST does not require individual entries in a list to be notable, just the class itself. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
@Goldsztajn while that first comment is definitely something I agree with, with this one it's not the lack of notability but the complete lack of any evidence it was effectively organised beyond the UK. There doesn't appear to be any list of national sections elsewhere, so I don't think it meets the definition of even being an international. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)
In French, I can find this, a translation from the Permanent Revolution group, on the site of their French sympathising group, indicating that 33 members from Great Britain, Ireland, Australia and Sweden were expelled from the LCI. At the end of the statement it indicates that the Australian section of the League (WPA) has joined them, along with members from Sweden and Ireland. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Guite people

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

This is a clan of certain Kuki-Chin language speaking tribes. It is a well-known clan, but not notable in any other way. We don't have any other pages devoted to such clans. The topic doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Asia, Myanmar, Manipur, and Mizoram. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it just needs a rename or move. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak Keep seems to have several references, but mostly offline, so it's not super clear if they are tangential or not. I could not find much online, but a subject expert may have more success establishing notability. I think the best route is to give this article some time to see if notability can be more clearly established. The information in this article may also be able to find a home at Paite people. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

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

Keep. The nomination statement itself already says that 'it is a well-known clan'. Why delete an article about a clan that is known and has no any other existing article on it?. Runmastery (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Because it is all folklore and no authentic sources are available. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article seems to be well-referenced, a source review would be helpful to see whether they help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep -- unless someone has a good merge/move proposal. And again... the existence or non-existence of other pages has no bearing on deletion (or not, for that matter).MWFwiki (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics has been notified because the sources need review by a WP:GSCASTE expert. At a glance, at least four of the 22 references are from the colonial era and are categorically unreliable; another is undated and contains a YouTube link that is probably irrelevant. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
User Ratnahastin (talk · contribs) also identified Lalthangliana as unreliable because it is not peer-reviewed. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I tried searching for ဂွီးတဲ ဂွေးတဲ etc and found only a couple hits listing the clans of the Zo people, like this article, this government site or in lists/last names on Facebook. Of course, the lack of a modern facebook group for Guite people isn't indicative of GNG, especially since the Chin use the Latin script and there are some other sources in English I could google. But given what others have said above about the sources, the clan might not be as "well-known" as purported. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

AEYE Health

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

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bilby, I see there are several generic sources like Reuters or Fortune, while others, such as the British Journal of Ophthalmology, Modern Retina, and Ophthalmology Times, appear to be specialized journals in the field. Additionally, we're talking about an entity that is bringing significant changes to the sector thanks to the use of innovations such as Artificial Intelligence, supported by studies. Do you have any specific suggestions on how to enrich the entry? Can I ask the company to send me better materials so I can submit them for your review and that of other editors? Thanks! Dirindalex1988 (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:25, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Sorry for taking so long to reply - it is a surprisingly busy time of the year. But, when I went through the references:

[14] Mentions AEYE health in passing, but does not cover the company in depth
[15] does discuss the company, but reads like a press release or advertorial.
[16] is not independent
[17] consists of little more than a series of quotes from the CEO
[18] is a copy of a press release
[19] does cover Aeye health, but has only seven sentences on the subject
[20] seems only to state that a company has invested in Aeye.
[21] copy of a press release
[22] Standard coverage of a company, appears to be based on a press release
[23] Summary of a press release
[24] Summary of a press release
[25] Summary of a press release
[26] No mention of Aeye

None of this seems to be sufficiently independent and in-depth. - Bilby (talk) 13:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello Bilby,

First of all, thank you for your detailed response, and of course, I completely understand that during these festive days it’s challenging to manage everything! While I understand that some sources are merely press releases and thus not usable, I have a few reservations about some of your comments.

https://fortune.com/well/2024/03/22/ai-eye-exams-diabetic-retinopathy/ I don’t quite understand the issue with this one. Even the link itself contains the company’s name, which is one of the main subjects of the article.
https://www.calcalist.co.il/calcalistech/article/bk8iuea3q I understand the objection, but since this is also an interview, I think it’s normal that the tone regarding the company might not be particularly “objective.” However, it’s still an article published on an independent platform.
https://bjo.bmj.com/content/108/5/742 This is a scientific study published in a specialized journal, complete with references. In this case, can’t it still be considered reliable or at least useful for the company’s recognition?
https://nocamels.com/2024/07/ai-makes-vital-diabetic-eye-test-as-simple-as-saying-cheese/ This is a public interview about the company’s activities. I don’t understand what the issue is with this source.
https://en.globes.co.il/en/article-biolight-invests-in-1m-in-aeye-health-1001364773 It also includes general information about the company, in addition to discussing a specific piece of news.
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/aeye-health-gets-fda-approval-screen-diabetics-prevent-blindness-2022-11-15/ I understand the concern, but I believe Reuters doesn’t publish articles or press releases that lack validity. If helpful, I also found this additional article: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/optomed-oyj-aeye-health-say-portable-device-detect-eye-issues-gets-fda-nod-2024-05-01/

Finally, if it might be useful, I’d like to highlight this other source:

https://www.mobihealthnews.com/news/aeye-health-receives-fda-510k-ai-backed-diabetic-retinopathy-screening

https://time.com/collection/time100-ai-2024/

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ Dirindalex1988 (talk) 09:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

To explain:

Fortune.com: the coverage of Aeye health consists of passing mentiosn "... and Israeli software company AEYE Health" and "AEYE Health said its eye exam is used by “low hundreds” of U.S. providers". As far as I can tell, that is the extent of the specific coverage in the article.
calcalist.co.il: is an interview. It is something, but an interview isn't really independent coverage.
bjo.bmj.com: at first it looked great. Then I realised that every author of the study is an employee, board member or the CEO of the company. So I can't see it as independent.
globes.co.il: is a standard statement of an investment, which reads exactly like a presss release.
Reuters.com: is a clear summary of a press release.

I think that nocamels.com is the best, but mostly it is the CEO talking up his company. That's not a lot to go on. The requirment is for "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Run-of-the-mill coverage of press releases, papers written by the company, or sources that make only a passing reference do not tend to meet this criteria. - Bilby (talk) 09:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, everything is much clearer now. In the meantime, I’d like to point out these two additional sources from Google Books and Scholar:

https://bostoneyeblink.com/category/uncategorized/

https://www.google.it/books/edition/The_Startup_Protocol/PkLyEAAAQBAJ?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=%22AEYE+Health%22+-wikipedia&pg=PT39&printsec=frontcover

https://iovs.arvojournals.org/article.aspx?articleid=2795094

Do you think they could be usable? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Sources need to be independent of the subject. Sources written predominently by people working with or for Aeye Health are unlikely to pass that bar. - Bilby (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you as always! I’m attaching additional sources I’ve found; they should be independent:

https://time.com/7012722/zack-dvey-aharon/ The CEO is mentioned in the TIME100AI list due to the work of the company, the entire peice is about the company and the technology, not about his personal life.

https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/h11qwtyma

https://www.globes.co.il/news/article.aspx?did=1001490971

https://www.umassmed.edu/arc-pbrn/current-projects/project-4-page-generic/airs-pc/

Regarding bjo.bmj.com, the British Journal of Ophthalmology is a highly reputable peer-reviewed journal, which has accepted the article for publication, including research published by the company that bolsters its credibility and reinforces the validity of its claims.

P.s I know I’m making a lot of requests and don’t want to overwhelm you. Is there a way to seek help from other experienced editors or admins as well? Dirindalex1988 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

The BMJ article is written entirely by staff and board members from Aeye health. It may be published in a journal, but it is not independent. UMass has partnered with Aeye Health to produce their report. It is thus not independent. The globes.co.il article is an interview with the CEO. It is therefore not independent. The ynetnews article is simply quotes from press releases by Aeye Health. It is also not independent. The Time article is the only one of note. If someone feels that five paragraphs published about the founder is suffficently in-depth to warrant an article, I will be surprised, but it is a start.

You could try asking in WP:Teahouse for assistance. I would also recommend reading the requirements at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), which does a good job of explaining the situation. Otherwise, hopefully more people will choose to be involved in this discussion. - Bilby (talk) 01:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The Time 100 article was sourced from a PRnewsire press release and an interview with the CEO of AEYE. The writer was paid with a $50,000 grant (Tarbell Fellowship) from A.I. organization donors who say they exercise no editorial control, but aim to increase journalistic coverage of companies working in A.I. For me, it's hard to see this article as separate from promotion by AEYE. Even if Time claims writer's independence from the donors, the link to PRnewswire is in the middle of the article. If this was notable, there should be another source of information besides a press release. Just Al (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 01:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with the analysis of nom's reference not qualifying GNG/ORG guidelines. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)
Draftify: In light of the ongoing discussion regarding the potential deletion, it would also be possible to propose the option of transforming the entry into a draft? This approach would provide the necessary time and flexibility to address the concerns raised, particularly regarding the lack of reliable sources. Dirindalex1988 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: I also agree with the above analysis of references. None meet GNG/WP:NCORP guidelines. Not against sending to Drafts either. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Ale Conners of London

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

Fails WP:LISTN as not having received attention as a group. An individual appointment sometimes gets a mention in a different source (though most of these aren't independent), but that's about it. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for taking the time to look for additional mentions and references on this subject. I look forward to receiving the results of the deletion discussion, and will of course be happy with whatever decision the group comes to. Tippylegend (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: as WP:INDISCRIMINATE, there's no encyclopedic information here that isn't on the article for Ale conner. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Salavatabad (mountain)

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

I struggled to find a single non-Wikimedia related source even mentioning this mountain range. Article is unsourced as well. Most mentions are indirect, such as through a local village with the same name. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment - This seems to also be transliterated as two words, "Salavat Abad", I haven't found much more with this but there are a few examples e.g. | (PDF) A GIS-based logistic regression model in rock-fall susceptibility mapping along a mountainous road: Salavat Abad case study, Kurdistan, Iran this might at least give us enough to merit a mention in Sanandaj or Sanandaj County JeffUK 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Most references are indeed to the village that I was easily able to find in a quick search. However per WP:GEOLAND there's enough there for a stub, we just need to be able to verify it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The US CIA has mapped most of the world in very detailed older maps you can find online. I found this one [27] from the "Iran, Series 1501, Joint Operations Graphic (Air) 1:250,000" set, map NI 38-4 Sanandaj, Iran. Salavatabad village is nicely detailed. You can see individual "Kuh"s (mountains) marked on the map, though a peak of 8747 elevation just east of the village is not labeled. I don't see a peak marked Salavatabad but i only have looked quickly at this map. And the current text of the article doesn't really match what the photo shows, which is a mountain close to Salavatabad. The text says the range lies west of Sanandaj, but that city is already west of Salavatabad. But maybe this map helps someone figure out the mystery.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

İAOSB Müdürlüğü (Tram İzmir)

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

Appears to lack any significant coverage and fails WP:GNG. Note that train stations have no inherent notability (per WP:NTRAINSTATION) and I'm just not seeing anything beyond routine sources. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:43, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect T3 (Tram İzmir) as ATD. The creator made articles for every station and they cannot be WP:BLARED since there already has been a draftification attempt, so might be good to convert this to a batch nom? Jumpytoo Talk 06:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
@Jumpytoo: I do intend to nominate the rest of the recent creations as a batch, but I prefer to test the waters first before doing a batch nom that could end up being a WP:TRAINWRECK. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Just curious, why can't they be redirected due to being draftified? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
To clarify I meant BLARED without discussion, since the draftification was opposed they have to go through AfD Jumpytoo Talk 22:21, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm still confused, since drafting isn't redirecting, I'm not seeing why "opposed draftification" means "cannot boldy redirect". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
If one opposed draftification, it would be reasonable to expect they would oppose a redirection too. Theres nothing that disallows a BLAR after draftification, but it usually will be fruitless since it would likely be reverted and youd have to AfD anyways Jumpytoo Talk 17:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to line, I did my best to find sources and did not find any independent sigcov of this station. Turkish Wikipedia's sources were not helpful. Support similarly redirecting other station articles to this line. Toadspike [Talk] 14:43, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

Thank you for your feedback. I understand the concerns about notability, but I believe that the articles on the stations are important and can be kept. The stations on the Izmir T3 tram line play a significant role in the city's public transportation infrastructure, and I am willing to support their notability with additional sources and content.

The Izmir T3 line is a vital part of the city's transportation network, and these stations are integral to that. There are independent sources, such as local news articles and reports about transportation, that cover these stations and their significance. I am happy to provide these sources to demonstrate that the stations are notable beyond routine sources.

To strengthen the articles and address the notability concerns, I propose:

Independent news sources: Adding citations from local newspapers, transportation reports, and public relations materials to highlight the stations' role in Izmir's transport system.
Their contribution to public transport: Emphasizing the importance of these stations in the context of the wider public transport network in Izmir.
Diverse sourcing: Supplementing the articles with a broader range of sources, such as independent studies or official reports, to give a clearer picture of their significance.

Given their role in the transportation system, I believe these stations do meet the notability guidelines. If there are any specific additional sources you would recommend, I am open to including them.

I also understand the concerns and am open to improving the articles further. I believe with the right additions, these articles can meet Wikipedia's standards for notability.

Thank you again for your input! Erdem Ozturk 2021 (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Caribbean Twenty20

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources for any of these articles; all of them fail WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Caribbean. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:11, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, nominated the season articles. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep all. Major T20 domestic competition of an ICC Full Member. AA (talk) 21:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep all per AA. St Anselm (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are no policy-based opinions. Discussion should focus on whether good sources are available (WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:46, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge the season articles into the parent one. Event itself is noteworthy but with the relative scarcity of coverage it seems like all the necessary information could be combined into one place. I would be happy to take on the task if that is the decision.

Shrug02 (talk) 21:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: lots of news coverage in fact: [28][29][30] etc. St Anselm (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still not seeing a policy-based consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep -- moderate -- I think the sources are there... either in the article or per StAnselm. Alternatively, would support a merger into Champions League Twenty20 as-proffered by Shrug02. MWFwiki (talk) 02:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo

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

This page was BLARed in October 2023, and now a duplicate article was created at Draft:Akkad Bakkad Bambey Bo (Tv Show), which I moved to draft because of the duplication. Both pages should be merged if kept. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:31, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep - per WP:NTVNATL and merge as proposed by the nom. Deriannt (talk) 18:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

ClickUp

AfDs for this article:

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

Usual issue. I see there was a minor dispute among previous reviewers (MaxnaCarta, Dclemens1971, it is not entirely clear if the passing assessment was made on the basis of sources already cited or those found in a BEFORE) as to the notability of the subject. After reviewing the sources, I am inclined to quite firmly agree with the negative case. In the interest of not edit warring the tag back in, I will be presenting my source assessment here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Source assessment

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?
O'Brien, Ciara (2023-03-08). "ClickUp opens new Dublin office as it eyes further expansion". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike (2020-12-15). "ClickUp raises $100M as venture capital continues to flow to local startups". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Meiling, Brittany (2021-06-21). "Billion dollar ClickUp grabs". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-09. Matney, Lucas (2020-06-24). "Productivity platform ClickUp raises $35 million from Craft Ventures". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Harford, Sarah (2021-12-01). "US software company ClickUp to hire 200 at new Dublin HQ". Silicon Republic. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Lunden, Ingrid (2021-10-27). "ClickUp raises $400M at a $4B valuation to expand its all-in-one workplace productivity platform to Europe". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11.			The first 6 sources are routine coverage of announcements well within the meaning of WP:CORPTRIV. I do not see the need for a more detailed elaboration at the current stage.
Smith, Paul (2021-10-31). "Atlassian's $4b rival plans Aussie assault after big money funding". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	I was actually part way through a more detailed evaluation on whether there is any secondary content; however, I eventually noticed that this is a sponsored article.
Haranas, Mark. "Tech Layoffs: SaaS Startup ClickUp, Once Valued At $4B, Cuts 10 Percent Of Employees". CRN. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			Mostly announcement and quote material
"A comprehensive list of 2023 & 2024 tech layoffs". Tech Crunch. Archived from the original on 2024-01-19.			I don't think I actually need to say for this one
Preimesberger, Chris J. (2022-04-04). "ClickUp launches Whiteboard to develop WFH analytics". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	Appears to be 90% quotes from the marketing material or Evans. So negatived.
Dee, Katie (2022-04-26). "ClickUp acquires search platform Slapdash". SD Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike. "San Diego 'unicorn' ClickUp buys Slapdash to bolster productivity software platform". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 18 November 2023.			Again, routine coverage well into CORPTRIV territory.
"ClickUp launches virtual whiteboards tool to help hybrid teams to create fresh ideas for life". RudeBaguette.	Something like 90% of the content about the company appear to be uncritically repeating company marketingese	– Does not appear to be a well-established source, editorial process unclear, leaning towards exclusion on R also.
Vainilavičius, Justinas. "ClickUp launches AI management tool". Cybernews.			Does not really go beyond announcement either
"Introducing ClickUp Brain: The First AI Neural Network for Work". ClickUp. 2024-01-30. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
"ClickUp launches ClickUp Chat with AI-driven features for improved team collaboration". VentureBeat.	Again, this is like 90% quotes. I'm honestly a little surprised any vaguely reputable source is willing to put their name on it without being paid for it but I guess it could be a slow news day.
On to a few sources not currently in the article: "ClickUp wants to be your AI-powered productivity superhub". Fast Company. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	This is better than the other ones (e.g. [31]). Nonetheless, the fact that most of the material seems to be based off company announcement and press material leads me to exclude based on ORGIND.		–
"ClickUp Review". PCMAG. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	I am again inclined towards a precautionary exclusion due to affiliate marketing and their affect on newsworthiness discussions even if not content.
Cai, Kenrick (2023-02-28). "ClickUp Raises $400 Million At $4 Billion Valuation As Competition Heats Up In Productivity Software". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			routine / mostly quotes
There are also a couple of book sources: Unger, Edward (2024). Mastering project management with ClickUp for work and home life balance: a step-by-step implementation and optimization guide to unlocking the power of ClickUp and AI. Packt Publishing. ISBN 978-1-83546-468-7. Heimann, Yvonne (2023-12-12). Mastering the Basics of ClickUp: Get Up and Running in No Time: Easy Project Management Using Repeatable Processes. Amazon Digital Services LLC - Kdp. ISBN 979-8-3759-6420-1.		However, they are obviously self published or published with well-known vanity/POD publishers, and not those with a selective editorial process, and suitable for neither establishing notability nor article content.

I believe the above source assessment is broadly representative of the state of available sourcing, which is still at the moment well short of that required to meet NCORP (multiple sources meeting all four criteria), though I don't expect it to be entirely comprehensive. I would welcome any additional sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Apologies! I edited this randomly as I was Googling Asana and ClickUp. I saw that it was inaccurate and merely wanted to make it accurate.

There are a lot of articles about ClickUp and I've added them as sources before:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91036895/clickup-most-innovative-companies-2024

https://www.crn.com/news/software/tech-layoffs-saas-startup-clickup-once-valued-at-4b-cuts-10-percent-of-employees

https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-vs-trello

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/clickup

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240130528352/en/Introducing-ClickUp-Brain-The-First-AI-Neural-Network-for-Work

https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/27/clickup-raises-400m-at-a-4b-valuation-to-expand-its-all-in-one-workplace-productivity-platform-to-europe/

https://www.fastcompany.com/90856730/clickup-project-management-artificial-intelligence

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clickup-raises-400m-in-series-c-funding-the-biggest-investment-in-workplace-productivity-history-301409506.html

I would feel incredibly guilty if the article was deleted even though it has been stable for a year now because of my interference. Let me know how I could further help.

Thank you! Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I think the Bloomberg article is a great green source? I saw the perennial sources list and it shows Bloomberg as a good source.

Thank you so much for your assistance! It's my first edit so apologies for my mistake. Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Here's a newer Bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors

and ClickUp's Bloomberg profile: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1810376D:US

But I still have sources for ClickUp in Yahoo News/Finance here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/introducing-clickup-brain-first-ai-171400354.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clickup-wants-notion-confluence-ai-162200168.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/productivity-platform-clickup-acquires-calendar-094126461.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/linkdaddy-backlink-agency-clickup-integration-020400608.html Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with you Modernwoman2021, you can rest assured that the article had been on my list now for a while, it just took me a while to get around to it, and deletion on Wikipedia won't mean the content would be lost permenantly (you can request it be emailed and reuse it per the CC BY-SA licence) just that it is deemed unsuitable for inclusion at the current time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

As for the new sources that you found, would you be willing to pick out the best three at meeting the 4 required criteria (WP:SIRS) to establish suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia (WP:NCORP) and explain how they meet the criteria in your opinion? I will be looking at them later when I have time regardless, and you don't have to put them into a table like I have (that takes a lot of effort IMO and probably isn't worth it).

All four criteria must be met by the core sources that you pick: the sources used to establish inclusion must be in-depth (there must be a significant amount of content, and it must not be trivial coverage, which has some examples listed here, though the list is not exhaustive); independent (meaning we can only count things that are not quotes or taken from press material, or appear to be taken from press material, and the source must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest); reliable (has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, probably the easiest one since most news organisations are considered reliable enough); and secondary (the source must include original analysis, interpretation or synthesis by the source, it cannot be simple statements of fact, it must interpret those facts for us to be able to use it on Wikipedia). Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi, @Alpha3031!

I appreciate the effort in explaining to me what the criterias are! They are incredibly helpful :D

But since this is just my first time, I added more than three sources, I couldn't really determine the top three ones so these are what I have:

Source	URL	Reason
Inc.	https://www.inc.com/magazine/202210/paul-kix/clickup-zeb-evans-dying-to-succeed-2022.html	This is an article about ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans that is published by an independent third-party source on Inc., a reliable and secondary news platorm.
London Loves Business	https://londonlovesbusiness.com/businesses-are-optimistic-about-growth-with-85-per-cent-expecting-growth-in-2023/	This article is in-depth but is more like the writer getting ClickUp's opinion on growth? But it is independent, reliable and secondary, though.
Yahoo Finance	https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asana-rival-clickup-hits-1b-120128290.html	This is an article all about ClickUp's growth published on Yahoo Finance by a third-party so I believe it meets all the criteria :D (Please correct if I'm wrong.)
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round	Same article as the above but this is published in Bloomberg, another reliable and secondary source.
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors	This is a very recent article on Bloomberg about ClickUp. It's actually a podcast episode where ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans, talked about ClickUp and its entrance to the AI industry on Bloomberg's official podcast.
Business Insider	https://www.businessinsider.com/clickup-building-seasoned-executive-team-servicenow-zscaler-growth-2022-10	This is an article by a third-party regarding ClickUp's new executive team published in Business Insider.

I really hope any of these can help!

Once again, thank you for the very detailed guide, it is incredible and super helpful in teaching me how to become a proper editor in Wikipedia :D

Thank you and I hope you have a great day!

Modernwoman2021 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Didn't see the ping originally, but yes, I was the new page reviewer who did a WP:BEFORE when seeing the notability tag during new page review and decided it passed NCORP. Still think so. While I appreciate the nominator's incredibly thorough and detailed source assessment, I would also count this Fast Company profile as independent sigcov. Meanwhile, there are several editorially independent and in-depth product reviews that would count toward NCORP, including MarketWatch Guides, TechRadar, and PCMag. It's a marginal case but I think it crosses the line to an NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

re the new sources, I initially struck the FastCo "Most Innovative Companies of 2024" article because it didn't meet ORGDEPTH, but it's worth noting it also fails ORGIND since FastCo charges a few hundred dollars for companies to be considered for the list. I'm really not comfortable accepting reviews with affiliate links for the product being reviewed either Dclemens1971, (even if the actual content is unaffected, there is the expectation that such coverage is less selective and more routine given the direct conflict of interest) which means striking MarketWatch and PCMag sources, as well as the tech.co one from Modernwoman2021. I am aware that there isn't a strong consensus on actually doing so in all cases though, so I would be willing to kick it up to WP:RSN for a determination on this specific case if challenged (either on some or all of those three sources), but unless we go for that, when there is any doubt ORGIND advises to exercise caution and exclude. As for TechRadar, I'm not sure it meets WP:PRODUCTREV, much of it seems very generic "copied from the feature list/marketing material" like prose, which also raises questions about the independence of the content (as opposed to the functional independnece concerns with the other sources): responsive, visually appealing look we enjoyed when testing the platform. is really the only bit that stands out as indicating personal experience with the software, and even there it fails to provide broader context or draw comparisons. There is a section on "the competition" but I would give it at best a partial pass, and it's the only source that I would do so for so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As for the other sources from Modernwoman2021:

The Inc. article is mostly about Evans. I haven't really evaluated whether I'd think it met the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND, but there isn't enough coverage actually about the company itself for it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH (see § Significant coverage of the company itself: a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).).

For LondonLovesBusiness, it's not clear to me that it's a sufficiently well established news organisation to be considered generally reliable, especially with the byline. I don't see any indication of the editorial process. In any case, content supplied by the organisation in question would definitely fail intellectual independence, and there is again little to no coverage of the company itself.

The Yahoo Finance / Benzinga article is a routine article which is the standard fare that gets published for essentially every funding round that happens, it's a type of article that's explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH.

The next Bloomberg article is the same. As for the podcast appearance, comments by Evans would again be excluded by the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND

Announcements of hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel like Business Insider again falls under WP:CORPROUTINE.

For the sources not in the table of 5 sources, ignoring the Business Wire and PR Newswire news releases (WP:ORGIND, obviously) the first block of sources (with the exception of tech.co) are in the previous source assessment table so I'll refrain from repeating myself (click show to expand). tech.co on the other hand, as mentioned, has functional independence concerns due to affiliate marketing, though these are something I'd be willing to raise with RSN case by case.

In the second block, Bloomberg profiles are pretty much database entries. This one has three sentences with thirty something words, but even longer profiles are rarely considered sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. The first and last Yahoo Finance articles are actually also press releases (Business Wire and Newsfile) and the two TechCrunch articles seem to be routine announcements of a new product feature and M&A activity respectively. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, my overall impression is that this is a company that has done a lot of the usual SPIP work, it's done all the right startup things, but overall, it is still too soon for us to have an article on it on Wikipedia. There is certainly a lot to work through, and I do appreciate everyone for chipping in with their efforts (also appreciate the confirmation from Dclemens1971 that the assessment of a NCORP pass was from a BEFORE and not from the sources already in the article). At the moment though, my answer to whether it is possible for the subject to meet NCORP is still unfortunately in the negative. Happy new year though, everyone! Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with the very thorough analysis by Alpha301 above, none of the sources meet GNG/ORG criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Undetectable.ai

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

Does not meet WP:ORGCRITE, no WP:CORPDEPTH upon closer inspection, it is clearly a WP:FAILCORP

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:17, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that the nominator here is User:Moondust534.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: A lot of text and references were excised in the fortnight prior to this AfD nomination (old version here). While the likes of OK Magazine are unlikely to provide much for WP:CORPDEPTH, others, including paywalled journal articles, may provide more for evaluation. AllyD (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. No reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 01:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Added a bunch of sources back. A simple Google Search seems to demonstrate notability as well as copy cat companies. Here are some significant sources: https://radaronline.com/p/alan-from-mighty-med-condemns-ai-cheats-then-explains-how-to-cheat-with-ai/ https://hollywoodlife.com/2024/03/20/celebs-are-using-undetectable-ai/ https://knewz.com/new-ai-mimics-real-writing-no-one-can-tell/ https://www.techtudo.com.br/dicas-e-tutoriais/2023/10/undetectableai-como-saber-se-um-texto-foi-escrito-pelo-chatgpt-edsoftwares.ghtml https://gritdaily.com/devan-leos-talks-about-diversity-and-inclusion-in-ai/

2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Also worth noting that User talk:Moondust534 is a new user, who has been in trouble for inappropriate closures before. This company is very controversial, and is the first I could find that created an adversarial AI technology, and seems the concept will be an important note in AI history. 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 (talk) 00:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment Worth noting that @Moondust534 seems to be a new user with nine edits, and appears to have vandalized the page, removing a myriad of sources before flagging this page for deletion. It seems clear the user does not have a coherent grasp on WP policy, and furthermore, @Moondust534 seems to have intentionally removed sources before nominating, as noted by @AllyD

2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 (talk) 00:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

So what? Who vandalized the page? I do not agree. Wikipedia rules say to remove sources that do not meet the RS requirements before nomination the page. Moondust534 (talk) 00:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep: BBC article and Bartneck study provide significant coverage. This is sufficient for a Keep. HyperAccelerated (talk) 07:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep based on existing coverage such as Scoop, Hollywood Life, THIS and BBC.Shinadamina (talk) 03:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With doubts being cast on nominator and the only editor arguing for Delete also being very new to the project, I'd like to hear from some experienced editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep The sources like BBC, OK! Magazine, Knews, and independent research seem to meet sigcov and seem to meet WP:CORPDEPTH given the research and media coverage. I did a search on Google Scholar and found new research of the software:
1. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Sayim-Aktay/publication/381110349_THE_RISK_OF_ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE_IN_EDUCATION_AND_AI_DETECTION_TOOLS/links/665d6979479366623a3a6415/THE-RISK-OF-ARTIFICIAL-INTELLIGENCE-IN-EDUCATION-AND-AI-DETECTION-TOOLS.pdf
2. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/02537176241247934
3. https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/GKMC-03-2024-0133/full/html Also seems they were even written about in a book recently too: https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1TM0EQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=undetectable.ai&ots=Xl-pKUarG6&sig=Ib2-scy64I2IF-QxJsQhb_QH9Us#v=onepage&q=undetectable.ai&f=false I see sources in Portuguese and from the Philipenes, UK, and US media which all make a strong case for notability. I look at edit history as well, as others previously mentioned, found it strange the sources were in fact deleted without proper explanation just before page nominated for AfD

Taksoh17 (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note, this is bluntly promotional. Hollywood Life, Scoop Moondust534 (talk) 00:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Additionally, none of the sources are related to the category to demonstrate notability. WP:CORPTRIV WP:ORGTRIV There is no independent in-depth coverage of the company. The main source reveled by Google search is https://www.reddit.com/r/WritingWithAI/comments/1g3198i/undetectable_ai_review_is_it_legit/

Self-made "academic research", not reflected in any media looks beyond doubtful. Sources added about accolades or impact do not provide in-depth coverage or any vendee of receiving any industry awards or recognition.

"Usage and impact"

In November 2023, EarthWeb used Undetectable.ai alongside GPTZero to analyze celebrity apology statements.thechainsaw.com
https://hollywoodlife.com/2024/03/20/celebs-are-using-undetectable-ai/
In January 2024, SourceFed announced plans to use Undetectable.ai for AI content detection. sourcefed.com
A January 2024 report listed Undetectable AI as the 35th most visited AI software in 2023 out of 150 analyzed.https://www.flexos.work/learn/generative-ai-top-150

Moondust534 (talk) 00:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Comments from the edition section that got my attention. The section about the criminal records was removed several times. The creator of the article seems to be blocked 7 times, with sock puppet accounts. The no account edits made specifically on this page by 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470 are questionable.

cur prev 13:10, 9 April 2024 Comintell talk contribs m 11,165 bytes −1,489 Reverted 1 edit by Sesame119 (talk) to last revision by Comintell undo thank Tags: Twinkle Undo
curprev 03:47, 9 April 2024 Sesame119 talk contribs 12,654 bytes +1,489 I created a controversies section, partially taken from an existing page on actor Devan Leos who is also the CMO of Undetectable AI using sources that were already approved for that page. I also added to this the criminal history of the founder and CEO Christian Perry and provided the court record as a source.undothank Tag: Reverted
- cur prev 20:00, 8 April 2024 Sesame119 talk contribs 12,115 bytes +950 →Reception and analysis: I added a subsection on two of the senior executives involved with this company including its founder. It is notable that two executive officers have a history of felonious behavior. I presented this information in an unbiased way and it is simply to inform the public about the background of two people deeply involved in the development. undo thank

Moondust534 (talk) 00:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

I also got hot a hostile message on my page demanding me to withdraw the nomination from 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:84F:1F8A:9022:3470. While nomination is a fair discussion, and everyone is open to contribute. A similar message, written in the same style by the sock puppet Comintell can be found on the page of editor Sesame119 who raised concerns about the criminal records of the individuals mentioned in the article. Moondust534 (talk) 01:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey Moondust, please contribute in good faith. 2603:8001:1DF0:7250:F5E6:A8A5:A9C1:45E5 (talk) 02:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)