Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

11 December 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 10	December 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Jacek Falkowski

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

His professional career lasted between 29 and 264 minutes and he disappeared in 2016. Regarding secondary sources, all I found were transfer announcements like this one. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Poland. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manya Pathak

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

Non-notable subject created by a blocked user. I have removed a lot of unsourced material, poorly sourced puffery, and unnecessary details. I have verified all the sources, but the notability of the subject remains uncertain. Zuck28 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Television, Business, and India. Zuck28 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seita Murai

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. No achievements in sport. Source assessment:

primary source
very short, not in-depth, WP:ROUTINE
primary source
WP:ROUTINE, 50% quote (primary source).
not really coverage, it's a list of transfers.
database.
Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tanori's Raid

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

Fails WP:MILNG. Most of the sources fall under WP:PRIMARY & WP:AGE MATTERS, maybe merging this event in Refugio Tánori could have been better but a standalone article is not warranted for this. Garudam ^Talk! 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, France, Latin America, Mexico, United States of America, Arizona, and North America. Garudam ^Talk! 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

58 Seconds

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

Fails WP:NFILM; there's nothing from a cursory search to also substantiate notability. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Entertainment, and Hungary. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Was unable to find any online sources about this film. As it stands, it fails WP:NFILM. Though, part of me wonders if there are any offline sources considering the film was made in 1964; if there are multiple reliable sources covering this film from something like a newspaper then I would consider keeping it. Beachweak (talk) 10:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skirmish at Grass Valley

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

Fails WP:MILNG. Most of the sources fall under WP:PRIMARY & WP:AGE MATTERS. Nothing significant or even relevant context found in the Bancroft. Garudam ^Talk! 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, United States of America, Arizona, California, and North America. Garudam ^Talk! 09:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schloss Ritzebüttel

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

No source to establish notability per GNG. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:36, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the corresponding article on the German Wikipedia has several very good sources demonstrating notability (as well as a few iffy ones). Unfortunately they're cited as general referencing rather than specific citations (this is typical for German WP), which makes it hard to carry them over here to back up individual statements, and they're in book form. But they demonstrate the existence of sources, and we can't delete just because we haven't read sources that we definitely know exist. Elemimele (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Paterson

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

Fails GNG & SiGCOVERAGE. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wine, Bibliographies, and Scotland. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rhys Hayden

(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) 09:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Robinson (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) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tajinder Bagga

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

This subject fails WP:NPOL , Bagga has never been elected to any legislative body. Additionally he also fails WP:NBIO as being a mere national secretary of a political party's youth wing does not make one notable. The sources cited here also do not provide WP:SIGCOV and those that do fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA as undisclosed press releases because they do not identify an individual author/reporter and have only generic bylines with promotional tone or are puff pieces. [1][2]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject clearly fails WP:NPOL. Currently, the Subject is a contestant on Bigg Boss 18, but all the news coverage is solely related to their participation in the show. As the nominator rightly pointed out, the coverage primarily comes from WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. Hence, I don't believe the subject satisfies WP:GNG either. Baqi:) (talk) 09:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Nichols

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria for a biography/entertainer due to the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources / WP:BASIC. The article is based on primary or unreliable sources. Frost 12:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured this would end up at AfD. When I was making the article, there definitely wasn't much there in the way of sources despite the channel having 10+ million subscribers. I'll save a draft of this article in my userspace in the event he becomes more notable. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Alaska. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creature (song)

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

WP:NSONG: "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. A song or single (that has placement on a national music chart) may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful." This song has a placement on a national music chart but there isn't any significant coverage for it and the article is unlikely to grow beyond stub-class. Also, much of the content isn't about the song itself, e.g. the Background section, and much of the other content is based on primary sources. Attempts to redirect the page were reverted. I recommend deleting or redirecting to Creature#Music. Frost 10:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Frost 10:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Frost: Looking at the revision history, I don't see this page being redirected (so I also don't see the redirection being contested). Am I missing something? Toadspike [Talk] 10:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyhow, I agree that this should be redirected to Creature#Music, and Creature (KSI song) should be redirected to Space (KSI EP). Toadspike [Talk] 10:40, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Niggs

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

Only found sources in German-language zines which are likely unreliable. Opening this rather than a PROD on the possibility that someone with access to a German-specific archive could find more on this band than I did, but seeing as all the sources I saw were already German I have my doubts. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDreamBooks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This article was previously nominated and reached no consensus. There has been no significant improvements to the article since. While there are indeed sources, coverage appears to be routine/centered on company launch and are not independent of subject (include contributions from company founders). Analysis by @HighKing: shows the sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Websites, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and I fail to find any sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Seems unlikely this article will grow from a stub or get more sources in the future. Beachweak (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find a date for when this company folded, but based on blog posts and other social media it seems to have become defunct within a few years. I can't find much beyond the announcements of its beginning - nothing about what impact it might have had while it existed. This is enough for me to consider it a "flash in the pan" and not notable. Lamona (talk) 20:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Existing sources are sufficient. HuffPost is a reliable source for non-political content per WP: RS, and the Crikey article is written by Bethanie Blanchard, a person who's spent a large portion of their career in the media industry and has extensive freelance writing experience. (cite). Both of these articles give in-depth coverage (i.e. more than a brief mention) and do not primarily consist of content written by company employees or executives. WP: ORGCRIT requires that sources provide "an overview, description, ... or evaluation of the product." I do not have a sufficient explanation for why these two sources do not meet that bar, even after reading and rereading the confusing explanations of the previous AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The Publishers Weekly and Huffington Post references in the article each provide the needed WP:CORPDEPTH to meet the WP:NCORP, IMO. Let'srun (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To reiterate what @HighKing: has stated regarding the huffington post article. The first couple of paragraphs generically describe "the problem" so not really about the subject. The third paragraph is a company description that looks like a boilerplate description. See 1 which even has a comparison to Rotten Tomatoes. And then there are quotes by the co-founders. So what remains doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. - Imcdc Contact 04:11, 6 December 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. Discussion appears to center on whether the HuffPost and the Publishers Weekly articles meet the criteria, so lets take a look at these.

This Publishers Weekly article from April 19th 2013 is about the partnership between Sony and the company. This is the blog post from the company from April 18th 2013. Here's another Blog post from GoodRead from April 17th which duplicates the information in the Publishers Weekly article. Here's another article from Books & Review, written by a "Staff Reporter" on April 20th which uses *exactly* the same text text as found in Publishers Weekly. There are lots of other similar reviews but they all share the same information in common, none are "Independent Content" which is a requirement to meet the criteria. Fails WP:ORGIND.
This Huff Post article is claimed as meeting the criteria (above) because it is "a reliable source". Being a reliable source forms only one part of the GNG/NCORP criteria to be met. The other (and more crucial) parts are than it must be in-depth *about* the *company* and that it must be independent *content*. This article is an advertorial, relying entirely on information about the site provided by the company itself and is promotional. Don't just take my word for it - this article on Tyler Shores describes the article as "an interview". Another "big red flag" is that there is no author/journalist attributed to this post. Nor was there one attributed in the original post in 2012. Based on all that, it fails WP:ORGIND.
Last article mentioned was this Crikey article is from the same date as the original Huff Post advertorial and both those articles are practically identical in content, both trying to "explain" the website, both referencing Rotten Tomatoes, both referencing "50 shades of Grey", both comparing to GoodReads, both listing all of the "big six" publishers. All indications that they're using content provided to them. But this fails on a more fundamental note. This article is a blog post (the URL is blogs.crikey.com) and blogs fail WP:RS for the most part. So fails WP:RS and WP:ORGIND.

I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. All the articles I can find are advertorials for the most part. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the website's front page (as shown in the HuffPost article), I think it's pretty natural to describe the website as "Rotten Tomatoes for books". Reviews are crowdsourced and the website displays the percentage of users who rated a book favorably. It's also common for startups to be described as "<existing product> for <new vertical>". The HuffPost article says that they interviewed an executive, but that is only a short portion of the article. I'm not convinced that these are advertorials, and I don't think I will be unless you somehow obtain conclusive proof that money changed hands as a result of the article being published. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:15, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rippon, Rachel (2015). "Watching the Watchmen: The integrity of reviews in digital self-publishing" (PDF). Minding The Gap: Writing Across Thresholds And Fault Lines Papers – The Refereed Proceedings Of The 19th Conference Of The Australasian Association Of Writing. Wellington: Australasian Association of Writing Programs. ISBN 978-0-9807573-8-5. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The review notes: "Finally, iDreambooks is a database that integrates self-published books alongside traditionally published ones and has both critic reviews and user reviews displayed on a book’s page. ... For the author, however, while iDreambooks is an excellent resource for readers, it does little to help authors garner reviews. Nevertheless, books who do manage to receive critic reviews – particularly from reputable review sites such as Kirkus or Publishers Weekly – are far more visible on the site than books with low or no critic reviews. In this regard, therefore, iDreambooks maintains ‘quality control’ by allowing books with a higher degree of critic analysis to become more visible."
2. Quill, Greg (2012-07-16). "idreambooks.com a cool tool for readers in need of credible reviews". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "A couple of young Canadian web specialists have come up with a useful tool that will help you select good books to read, using the curated reviews of mainstream literary critics. Taking their cues from Rotten Tomatoes, the popular website that aggregates the work of professional movie reviewers around the world, Sarnia native Rahul Simha and his tech-savvy buddies, Canadian Vish Chapala and American Mohit Aggarwal, have built a website, idreambooks.com, that collects, aggregates and links the published works of professional book reviewers. ... Using automated software programs and manual techniques, the three founders have managed to encapsulate and link to reviews of more than 1,000 books from publications, movie websites and blogs all over the world, including Canada’s major newspapers and magazines, the Star among them. They have aggregated the opinions into “must read” and “don’t read” categories, signalled by smiling blue cloud and frowning grey cloud symbols beneath the book cover illustrations, along with the percentage of favourable reviews."
3. Kannan, Indira (2013-06-20). "iDreamBooks: Reading between the lines: The Silicon Valley start-up spotted an opportunity in aggregating book reviews, but accurate sentiment analysis remains a challenge". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2014-04-26. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "Last year, the three friends started iDreamBooks. The website, www.idreambooks.com, aggregates book reviews from major publications such as The New York Times, the Wall Street Journal and a number of other media platforms around the world, and assigns ratings to books based on the reviews. The service is modelled on www.rottentomatoes.com, a well known website that provides a similar service to moviegoers, aggregating film reviews. ... The project started with a couple of thousand titles; now, it covers about 100,000 titles. While critics' reviews are displayed for most books, ratings are available only for about 2,000. A search for Dan Brown's long-awaited thriller Inferno, for instance, reveals only one review and no critic rating, though it was widely reviewed and one of the biggest publications this year."
4. Kalder, Daniel (2012-07-13). "iDreambooks Promises "Rotten Tomatoes-like" Site for Books". Publishing Perspectives. Frankfurter Buchmesse. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "iDreambooks has developed rapidly. Simha has been “playing around with the idea” since February, and developing it seriously since the end of March. There are three founders and four contractors on staff; Simha and one of his co-founders are engineers by training, but know how to write code. Currently they are adding new content to the site every day to make it as comprehensive as possible. Of course, others have announced similar intentions over the years, including Kirkus Reviews, which abandoned the project."
5. Grant, Rebecca (2012-07-13). "idreambooks offers credible recommendations for book lovers". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "idreambooks.com launched this week in an effort to help people read less rubbish. The site aggregates literary reviews from publications like the NYTimes and Washington Post and recommends books that were given a positive rating by 70% of critics. Plenty of book review sites out there collect user reviews and base recommendations off that criteria. idreambooks sticks solely to the professionals, so only books with critical endorsement are promoted."
6. "iDreamBooks Review Site: Rotten Tomatoes For Books?". HuffPost. 2012-07-13. Archived from the original on 2024-12-07. Retrieved 2024-12-07.
  The article notes: "iDreamBooks, a site openly inspired by Rotten Tomatoes, has created a system that aims to aggregate and streamline book reviews, giving new releases from the big six publishers (Hachette, HarperCollins, Macmillan, Penguin, Random House, and Simon & Schuster) a percentage rating. Like its popular film equivalent, the iDreamBooks team decides whether a certain review is positive or negative using both automated and manual techniques, and compiles the ratings to determine a book's critical merit."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow iDreamBooks to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response Not one of these contains in-depth independent content about the company, just stuff regurgitated from the website and from PR packs. A couple of sentences does not meet CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. Also most of those articles rely entirely on interviews from the founders or information provided by the company, which is obvious if you read the article rather than the individual sentences isolated above. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard, seems in depth and from a variety of sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PARAKANYAA, which ones appear to contain in-depth "Independent Content" to you? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Minding the Gap is good, containing a decent amount of critical analysis of the platform from a scholarly work. The Business Standard piece is also fine on that front. The other 2012 era ones are IMO all functionally one source since they came out at the same time, but in combination they have some useful pieces. Together that's enough for me. And I do not think your assessment of relying wholly on interviews or "just regurgitated from the website" is accurate.

Your bar for company notability is very high, higher than already the high NCORP. Quite frankly you say this a lot, I don't think I've ever seen you vote keep on a company at AfD. And that's fine, you're very often right, but I do not necessarily agree with your assessment of the pieces in this case or every case.

Also, WP:NWEB is a more appropriate guideline for this article IMO than NCORP, as website, under which this would also pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is not really related to the this current afd but one of my articles Cowin Capital was nominated for deletion by a now blocked account before. The decision was to keep it. One of the main reasons was because Cunard provided more sources just like now BUT HighKing actually agreed with him and voted keep. It does show both of them can agree to keep an article even if it probably is not common. Imcdc Contact 01:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Response The reference "Minding the Gap" is a paper submitted by a student for an unknown course. We don't know the context, but it is not a reliable source. You say it is "scholarly" - it has not been cited anywhere. The Business Standard piece relies entirely on information provided by the website (hence the references in the first few paragraphs to Rotten Tomatoes) and to an interview with the founders, Simha, as noted at the beginning of paragraph 3 and as is obvious by the number of direct quotes in the article. That said, your point about NWEB is valid if the article was to focus on that aspect and not on the company/founders/etc. Finally, my "bar" for notability is precisely what is contained in NCORP, nothing more or less. Others might go on their own opinion or what the like or dislike, but if you want to stick to arguing guidelines and you can point to any paragraphs in any article which contain in-depth "Independent Content" (as defined in our guidelines) then I'll happily change my !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Louis Mangione

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

I fail to see the notability of the father of the shooter in the Brian Thompson killing. Being the father alone does not grant such notability, and the enterprises Louis Mangione is head of were also created the same time and day this article was, by the same user. The known for is also a bit egregious, "known for being the heir to the Mangione family fortune". I don't think much of anyone before two days ago even knew the Mangione family fortune existed. Ré union! 08:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is irrelevant who created the article, why, or when. What matters is whether the subject is notable and whether there are reliable sources attesting to that. Based on that argument, you could have also nominated Nicholas Mangione for deletion, but you opted not to. Prior to recent events, Louis Mangione was mentioned by the Baltimore Sun here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here and by the Washington Post here, here, here, here, here, and here. He served as Vice President of Mangione Family Enterprises for decades and is now the head of the Mangione family fortune. All of that demonstrates his notability in the local business community. His son's recent actions simply shine further coverage on the family, which has been covered amply by the Baltimore and Washington, D.C. press for decades. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Maryland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bohemian Baltimore.-🐦DrWho42👻 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why delete information? 2600:1702:540:6BF0:4403:38E5:2AA8:F46C (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:NOTEVERYTHING Geschichte (talk) 10:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norkam Secondary School

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

Nonnotable school --Altenmann >talk 07:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see 3 reliable sources (1. BC government, 2. IB, and 8. sports), although whether those are significant coverage is debatable. Please convince me one way or the other. Bearian (talk) 07:57, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - found a couple of sources covering this school. Here's a couple of examples:

Dress code controversy at school in 2021 - 1 2 3 from CityNews Vancouver
Coverage of a club within the school in 2017 from The Vancouver Sun
Coverage of the introduction of "TV-Teaching" at the school from 1965 (published in the St. Catharines Standard, notably not in British Columbia, thanks to The Canadian Press newswire) (not entirely sure this meets WP:SIGCOV

Other sources include:

[BC gov't school website]
Kamloops This Week stories - will add here later, if needed

Thanks. Staraction (talk | contribs) 08:15, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Dressing controversy hardly increases notability. student's club - local news., TV teaching is a piece of trivia, etc. --Altenmann >talk 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Altenmann, the usual thing to do with a non-notable school is to merge or redirect it to the city/location (e.g., Kamloops#Education) or the government agency (e.g., School District 73 Kamloops/Thompson). Why did you decide that this needs to be completely deleted instead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 08:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of this "usual thing" about merge/redirect, I am not editing schools, I have no recollection how this one caught my eye. Redirecting looks reasonable to me. --Altenmann >talk 17:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is one excellent source (Coleman & Love, 2004), which has a portrait of a principal, Hoberly Hove, under heading "Succeeding with Diversity". The piece discusses the school at length from pages 59-66. We need multiple sources, but this is very definitely one. I am !voting keep, because I believe more sources are likely, but would suggest that until more are demonstrated, there is an IAR aspect to this !vote.

Coleman, Peter; Love, Nancy (2004). Principal Portraits 2. Society for the Advancement of Excellence in Education (SAEE). ISBN 978-0-9734046-5-4.

OCEAN Design Research Association

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep with WP:NPASR. A valid deletion rationale has not been offered. No evidence of a BEFORE, and no evidence is provided that COI cannot be addressed editorially. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dclemens1971: with all due respect, I would assert that the fact that the COI has apparently not been addressed for fifteen years is evidence enough that it can not be addressed. I welcome any editor to prove my wrong by so doing. I would offer as an alternative draftifying this article, pending cleanup. BD2412 T 04:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone would object if this were stubified. I'm just not going to do the legwork of deciding whether to !vote "delete" or "keep" in a deletion discussion when the nominator has not offered a valid rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WEBHOST is a valid rationale. If the content is COI, then we are being used as a hosting service by the conflicted party. BD2412 T 17:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WEBHOST's terms apply to userspace. It's not a catchall policy for content in article space; if it were, every AfD nomination could just say "Wikipedia's not supposed to be a webhost for ____" and leave it at that. And WP:COIEDIT is not prohibited, although it's obviously strongly discouraged. In this case, the page creator's conflict is openly disclosed. There's an editorial case for combing through the page for conflicted content, but the presence of COI alone is not a reason to delete a whole page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Note:COI is not a deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete self-promotion/advert. No independent confirmation of notability. --Altenmann >talk 07:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find anything about this organization that was not authored or co-authored by Michael Hensel, one of the founders and the main contributor to this article. One other name appears as Defne Sunguroğlu Hensel, and given that the organization's web page is in what I am guessing is Indonesian (?), I assume this is a family member. Lamona (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics Design Inc.

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - old edit -COI hasn't been discussed on the talk page, as the COI box suggests should happen. Late edit - it has been discussed as I hadn't looked in the archives. Almost all of the refs are self referential, and as discussed in the archive the trade mag article is just a rehash of the company's PR. 21:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with WP:NPASR. No valid deletion rationale has been offered, nor has evidence of a WP:BEFORE been provided. There is no reason provided why any COI that may be present cannot be addressed editorially. The WP:WEBHOST policy primarily applies to userspace and is thus not a rationale for deletion, and WP:COIEDIT is not a reason for deletion since such edits are not prohibited (just strongly discouraged). I would encourage the nominator to renominate with a valid rationale and evidence of a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Ref. 2 is significant, independent coverage. I'm having a hard time finding more but I assume more must be out there since the company has won some innovation awards. If kept, the article needs to be radically chopped, since it's almost all sourced to press releases and passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not an advertising platform. This was a blatant advert from the first and despite a lot of toning down and cleaning, still is. Plus it lacks the sort of coverage that is good for WP:NCORP. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with above; this entire article, at least as an outsider, reads like an advertisement. I find it hard to believe it passes WP:ORGCRIT; even if one source contains significant independent coverage, ORGCRIT requires multiple. To me it doesn't seem like it could be significantly improved even in the future. Beachweak (talk) 09:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hougang knife attack

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

Classic case of WP:NOTNEWS—it's a tragedy for sure but there's been zero demonstration of any lasting significance... KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 07:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can always be recreated if in the future it would somehow gain more enduring notability than the countless other murders happening each year. Fram (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I thought that this made the headlines quite a lot and considering it also was reported in Malaysian and Vietnamese newspapers and not just from the local one. Plus, I also felt that in view of Singapore's low crime rate, it is not common to have such spree stabbings happen in the public where more than one victim is stabbed. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And to sideline for Comment, I might need to clarify how some shocking cases can be kept in Wikipedia when they just happen, like the River Valley High School attack and mass shootings like the Charleston Church shooting, but others of such standard need to be deleted and later recreated on Wikipedia? What standards do I need to follow to ensure it can be kept? (I am pretty sure the coverage is not a problem here.) NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Singapore. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sulphur Springs

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

"Battle of Sulphur Springs" is a made-up title not used by the source. The entire article is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the one accessible link; the other primary news source is simply copied from the first source and certainly not actually consulted for writing this. Notability is not established for this event to justify a standalone article. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Battle of City of Rocks. Reywas92^Talk 05:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Arizona. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Full of OR mess. Garudam ^Talk! 09:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magdalena Affair

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

"Magdalena Affair" is a hallucinatory title not used by sources/historians. The entire article is a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the one accessible link; the other two primary news sources are simply copied from the first source and certainly not actually consulted for writing this. Notability is not established for this event to justify a standalone article. Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Battle of City of Rocks. Reywas92^Talk 05:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yet another OR mess from the initial contributor of article. Fails WP:MILNG and WP:SIGCOV Garudam ^Talk! 09:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitris Vlastellis

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

This article has been reliant on only one source since 2009, and a Google search only shows WP:UGC sites User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalabam

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reliable reviews from Rediff.com and Sify.com [3]. The only 2 reliable sources are passing mentions. DareshMohan (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. -Mushy Yank. 09:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2008, a standard solution for articles about released films when cast is notable, content verifiable and the director and writer have no page. Preserves history and can be reverted if sources are found. Thanks (NB- the film is listed there).-Mushy Yank. 10:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in Google search result to show that this passes WP:NFILM. The two sources in the article gave just single mentions each and with nothing in search result, there is nothing to sustain it. Mekomo (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2008, as quoted by Mushy Yank...Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sudheesh#2000s. Lots of evidence that the film exists. The other page List of Malayalam films of 2008 is poor with no sources and that is why redirect to actor's page is more better (imo). RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added some refernce links. I don't know whether the notability pass. The Film exists. Had a theater run. Streaming in multiple online platforms now. That is all. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Redirect but two different target articles bring proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still has to be a decision between two suggested Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As discussed in many recent AfDs, infomercials have taken over previously responsible media there, so sourcing about a current film in India often just verifies its existence, but does not constitute significant coverage. When this crossover into digital informational dreck occurred was in the 2020s, after this film was released. Bearian (talk) 08:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: source 3 and 4 are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES and source 1 and 2 have no significant coverage and no multiple reviews. RangersRus (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is but not was true. Indian sources in the past were good. This film was released in 2008. Arguably the Indian media deprecated in the 2010s. Bearian (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC) It’s the Sorites paradox: at which point in time did their media go from being normal to garbage? It’s an arbitrary point. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this video link via Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics, about the deprecation of Indian journalism 9 to 10 years ago. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. We still do not have a consensus on an outcome or the most appropriate Redirect target article if that is the option chosen.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moments to Remember (XM Satellite Radio show)

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

Article about a radio program, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio programs. As always, radio programs are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed -- they need to show that they pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in sources independent of themselves. But this cites no coverage about the show at all, and instead is referenced entirely to the host's own self-published uploads of old episodes of the show to YouTube, which is not an independent or notability-building source.
Simply existing is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the show from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dixon, Greene County, Indiana

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

Another rail spot (the GNIS location is wrong: older topos show it quite a bit east) now in the middle of several substantial industrial/utility/warehousing sites but no town. Mangoe (talk) 02:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rope Hypothesis

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

Page of original research constructed to appear like sourced material. Most sections start with a paragraph of standard science with reputable sources. After this comes completely original work without sources, all based upon the book on the topic by Bill Gaede (without ever stating that). To the non scientist this combination could appear to be reputable encyclopedic content. I view this as deliberately deceptive. I view it as close to WP:G3 since it has been constructed to use established science as if it supports the rest of the page. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best this might be a didactic tool; it is obviously not framed as a physical theory. But we would need an entirely different article for rope as a prop in physics education, and while searching found some material on analyzing jumpropes, tightropes, or waves on physical ropes, none of it concerned gravitation and electromagnetism, the topics of this article. So neither the references in the article nor references found in searching support WP:GNG for this article and this title. And while there may be some pedagogical value to this analogy, the idea that the shape of DNA has some non-coincidental relation to the fundamental forces of the universe comes off as pure WP:FRINGE. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no sourced claims about this theory in the article. The theory exists (see https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272630187_Light_The_Rope_Hypothesis if you want to read it), people have discussed it (and some claim to have debunked it), and it might be possible to create an article about it, but this isn't it. As Ldm1954 points out, this is sourced material about science, with an unsourced original theory tacked on. At best, this is WP:TNT Meters (talk) 06:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this sort of stuff needs to be super-well cited, and placed in context, or it's just using WP as an advertising space for fringe ideas. I have to agree with Ldm1954 that we're straying into deceptive territory. Not good. Elemimele (talk) 10:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Valdorf

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

There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV and after doing a search I could find any additional of coverage in reliable sources. I did find some passing mentions, but nothing in-depth or evidence to prove notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - For winning a bronze in the ISSF World Cup [4] , [5] Ayokakesy2023 (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Independent coverage is what we need, and I believe I found some bits at [6] [7] [8] Geschichte (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncharted (EP)

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

A contested redirection. The restoring editor claimed that "plenty of coverage exists", but I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing mentions that the EP was released and coverage of the singles released from it, but no in-depth coverage in news articles and more importantly, no reviews from noteworthy sources. While I acknowledge that the release is recent, it also did not chart on any US Billboard charts this week and what it did achieve in the UK chart-wise is fairly insubstantial. Ss112 01:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: WP:NALBUM notes that an album may be notable when it is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works". The reviews from Kerrang! and Distorted Sound Magazine should suffice for this, given that both are deemed reliable per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. While I can't seem to find any other sources at the moment, and while it is true that none of the other album notability criteria currently apply to this EP, I believe it's still enough for a presumption of notability. Leafy46 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leafy46: Ah, those have been added since I nominated the article. I agree that the notability is looking better from those alone. Ss112 09:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since being nominated the EP has been subject to "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works" per WP:NALBUM. Because of this, I would say it passes WP:GNG as well and should be kept. Beachweak (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estádio D. Afonso Henriques (1965)

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

This is a smaller article that addresses the stadium in some ways in the same way as the other article of the same name. It is, in a way, a copy of the Estádio D. Afonso Henriques, since it was created later, only it wasn't developed further because of the latter's existence. Please pay attention to the facts and references provided in the discussion. 44 Gabriel (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – The relevant content about the old stadium, and redirect to Estádio D. Afonso Henriques. Svartner (talk) 09:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – Deleting and redirecting without the transfer of information are stupid moves… V.B.Speranza (talk) 18:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge if there is anything to merge. SportingFlyer T·C 06:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I want to confirm, is Estádio D. Afonso Henriques the preferred Merge target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: you are correct, this appears to be an article about the stadium before it was renovated, but it is the same stadium. SportingFlyer T·C 03:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Costa Rica, London

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources present do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Costa Rica. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere appropriate. Not seeing any urgent need to delete this? The sources seem adequate to support the content provided. If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London, not a single one has ended in delete (most have been redirected to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, a target that is on my list to improve), a couple have been kept and some merged or redirected to other targets. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did eventually find that useful list; could a column for extra information be added there? It seems to me to be useful and interesting that the Costa Rican embassy converted relatively recently from a "mission", which is supported by a reliable Times source. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for that is on my list. Leave a note on the talk page with ideas for improvement so I remember them when I get to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended There have been many, many AfDs for diplomatic missions over several years and very few have been kept. AfD is clearly the appropriate place for each individual diplomatic mission to be assessed on notability. Not sure what's controversial here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London There have been many AfDs over several years for individual diplomatic missions globally, not just "in London". You may only be interested in missions in London but that's simply a mischaracterisation. You are also inaccurate in suggesting none have been deleted. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD AfD is an appropriate venue to decide a potential merge/redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is fine, prod not so much, imo. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some embassy articles have been deleted. So it is false to say very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources 3-10 confirm former ambassadors and are not about the embassy itself. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar Genuine question, where exactly in WP:ORG do you consider this falls? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources 1 and 2 are about the actual embassy. Source 1 is a database list. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was that intended to be in response to my question? Not seeing how it answers it. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The sources do not meet that. There will be no further response. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I'm not sure what your question is. Are you suggesting WP:NORG doesn't apply? AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to clarify exactly which part of ORG was held to apply -- eg the standards for companies are entirely different from those for non-profits, but there's no specific guidance for embassies. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. If the embassy does not have stand-alone notability then the encyclopaedic content should be merged somewhere. Straight deletion will not benefit the project. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Normally we would merge this kind of article into a foreign relations page at Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations. However, that article has not yet been created. It probably should be. Perhaps a move to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations? Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is trending toward a merge, but without a clearly defined article to merge it into, that makes it kinda tough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another relist for a merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Without a Merge target article identified, it looks like this AFD is likely to close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

comment Normally we merge NN embassies and consulates to the corresponding bilateral relations article, which in this case would be Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations. As you can see, that article doesn't exist yet. Potentially this article could be moved there and rewritten to reflect the broader topic. There is a British embassy in San José, Costa Rica, though it has no article, so there is likely enough to make a basic article. Mangoe (talk) 03:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations, which has now been created. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shift Technologies (software company)

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

None of the given sources are either reliable or give significant enough coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Cutlass ^Ciera 01:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: puff piece that fails Wikipedia:Ncorp. Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Keep if Features and maybe Browser section get removed. 808WikiWarrior (talk) 00:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP based on what's currently in the article and what I could find online. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bank charge

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

A dictionary definition with only one source, discussing a particular controversy apparently already covered at Overdraft fee. The general topic of all charges made by banks its better at Bank or Overdraft fee; a general discussion of all fees possibly charged by banks would be a discussing of the economic model of banking, which would be better at Bank. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bank and/or Fee. Although, I'm somewhat astonished that this article doesn't exist, but from looking, it seems like it was drastically reduced in article size due to OR[9]. The related topic of Bank fee redirects to a small section on Fee, but could equally fit over at Bank. TiggerJay (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Fee now that you suggest it. This mostly works as a sort of summary of the articles on individual fees -- it works as a few paragraphs in the Fee article, assuming citations can be found. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. Skynxnex (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, possibly rename Bank fees. These fees are regulated and sometimes controversial. See for example the Roosevelt Institute article The Business of Bank Fees, How to Avoid Bank Fees (American Bankers Association), Bank Fees: Federal Banking Regulators Could Better Ensure That Consumers Have Required Disclosure Documents Prior to Opening Checking or Savings Accounts (Government Accountability Office), Bank Fees in Australia (Reserve Bank of Australia). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Code page 853

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

Fails WP: NOTDICT. I can't find any sources that could expand the article beyond the definition of the codepage layout. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:51, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Computing, Malta, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki, too obscure. Alexlatham96 (talk) 04:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Transwiki per my rationale for Code page 3846 above. Davemc0 (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deterministic simulation testing

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

This term seems to only be used by a fairly small group of companies, I'm not sure the methodology is currently notable enough to warrant an article. WP:BEFORE search turns up a fair amount of results, but they mostly seem to be primary sources or unreliable blogs. I think we need more reliable secondary sources covering this topic before it can be an article.

Considering the article in its current state, I don't think it provides much value as a stub. Every current reference is only indirectly relevant, none speaks directly to the topic or includes the phrase "deterministic simulation testing". There are 2 external links, and only one uses the phrase. StereoFolic (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. StereoFolic (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangral

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

Article is entirely unsourced and poorly written. The underlying purpose of the article seems to be to glorify the community rather than write an encyclopaedic article. The books detailed at the bottom of the article don't seem particularly reliable either and no page numbers are provided. Ixudi (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Pakistan and India. Ixudi (talk) 18:53, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jammu and Kashmir-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think deleting is right answer because this is a real people group. This book seems to indicate the mangral are a clan of the Dogra people. Here is some content on the people group. I'm not an expert on the people groups of Pakistan but this should either be stubified or redirected or merged under WP:ATD at the very least. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I only saw this late at night. To help out, I only had time to add the above book reference given above by

4meter4. Hope other editors also chip in because it's a lengthy article that somehow ended up without any References....Ngrewal1 (talk) 02:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: For now its not ready for main space. If people want to contribute than they can do so in Draft space. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there support for draftifying this article rather than simply deleting it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:56, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why outsiders having zero knowledge about the tribe and it's people are so worried about "references" when those are already mentioned, not to mention someone entionedua reference classifying us s Dogras (whofare also Rajputs) rom a book published in 2008 kek RajaAtiqMangral (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea why outsiders having zero knowledge about the tribe and it's people are so worried about "references" when those are already mentioned, not to mention someone gave a reference classifying us as Dogras (who are also Rajputs mind you) from a book published in 2008 kek* RajaAtiqMangral (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No comments on draftifying; anyone?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This has been tagged since 2011 with no changes to the sourcing, delete it and be done with it. These articles with no sourcing don't help build trust in Wikipedia projects. Draftifying this when it's been tagged since 2011 won't help it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mayur Chauhan

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

Subject was twice declined in AfC and also fails NACTOR, as the subject has not had significant roles in notable films or shows. There is no significant coverage in reliable, independent sources apart from the WP:OR added by User:Saurang Vara who denies any COI despite being familiar with the subject's personal information. The subject's role in Chhello Divas does not appear to be significant and none of the other films have substantial content to be considered when evaluating Mayur Chauhan according to NACTOR. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, India, and Gujarat. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you say his 3 roles in productions that have a page on this WP are not significant? And why should Karsandas Pay & Use be considered non-notable? I found some coverage about Saiyar Mori Re too. He seems to meet WP:NACTOR, -Mushy Yank. 13:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The mentioned films do not meet WP:NFOE/ WP:NFILM. Karsandas Pay & Use has two reviews, one from TOI with an unknown critic and another from an unknown website. Saiyar Mori Re has no reception section and Samandar (film) has two local reviews! From a WP:BEFORE search, none of these films have been distributed outside Gujarat. Just because these films have articles on Wikipedia does not mean they are notable in the first place to be used as evaluation criteria for Mayur Chauhan. Either way, there is zero coverage of the subject in reliable independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If a critic writes for a national publication such as Times of India he is considered nationally known as per discussions at WP:NFILM Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discusisons on What is a "nationally-known critic"? and "Nationally-known critic" as it relates to films of India aren't closed and there is no consensus either. Let me know if I have missed any archived discussions. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions are ended and there is a clear consensus Atlantic306 (talk) 23:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For argument's sake, even if the not-yet-closed discussion is considered as consensus for what you have claimed, there is still only one review in a national publication. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The subject has relatively moderate significant coverage for his films Saiyar Mori Re, Samandar (film), and Karsandas Pay and Use. As the lead actor in all these projects, the combined coverage is sufficient to pass WP:ACTOR.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the coverage though? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: i dont think the subject passes WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 11:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Lead (ergo significant) roles in at least two notable productions have him meet WP:NACTOR imv. -Mushy Yank. 13:31, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ibar-Lepenac attack

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

Looks like a classic textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS. While this event has made headlines recently, there weren't any casualties or injuries and the canal has been repaired. Most of the article is about "reactions" from other countries. Seems more apt for a one or two sentence mention in other articles, such as North Kosovo crisis (2022–2024) than an article of its own. Griboski (talk) 21:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Kosovo. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)1[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Griboski (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: The argument that this event, declared a terrorist attack, is not notable overlooks the critical damage it caused to vital infrastructure, which provides essential water to multiple municipalities and supports energy production in Kosovo. The incident has had significant national security implications and is not merely a local crime, but part of a larger regional struggle. Additionally, it has garnered extensive media coverage both in Kosovo and internationally, which further underscores its notability. It has been widely reported by major international outlets, with considerable attention from the EU and other key actors. As investigation continues, the article can be updated and expanded, and contributions from editors are encouraged as new information becomes available. Iaof2017 (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly believe the article on the North Kosovo crisis (2022-2024) should not have been capped at the year 2024 and I view it as arbitrary. The continual escalation that started in 2022 has not seen an end. I agree that this article does not contain enough relevant information to stand on its own and should be deleted. However, the canal incident cannot be ignored entirely, it should be added to the aforementioned article on the North Kosovo crisis. Аккумулятор (talk) 12:49, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:EVENT: Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below). The event has been discussed by many sources beyond the early news cycle and it will continue to be relevant because of its consequences.--Maleschreiber (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly support It's not particularly significant. Labeling an event as a "terrorist attack" doesn't necessarily make it so, it can also reflect a particular political viewpoint. That said, this article should be deleted and its content merged into other existing articles. A variety of perspectives and nuances, which would align with NPOV principles, are currently absent. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The incident was recognised as a terrorist attack by both the Kosovan authorities and international actors, not just based on political views. Again for you, it targeted important infrastructure with the intent to cause fear and disruption, which fits the definition of terrorism. It wasn't just a label, it was a deliberate act with serious security and regional consequences. So please stop trying to downplay it, your argument simply doesn't hold up!! Iaof2017 (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Just because there were no casualties doesnt mean that a subject with this amount of importance shouldnt have its own article, similarly to the Battle of Lojane which had no casualties but still has its own article as it was an important event. Peja mapping (talk) 14:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - only because you have a redirect to Ibar-Lepenac canal explosion linked above, not the article itself. I don't think you want to delete the redirect and leave the article standing. — Maile (talk) 03:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Online database

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

Almost all sources for this article are from the 1990s, which is appropriate because this subject became a thing people talked about around that time, and stopped being a thing people talked about some time thereafter (now we would just talk about a database). This wouldn't be fatal if the article was about the emergence of online databases, but it isn't. It's a WP:DICDEF about online databases and cloud databases, with some other stuff thrown in. This article has almost no chance of ever being more. Vadder (talk) 00:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Vadder (talk) 00:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to database. This article seems unnecessary and the database article already talks about online databases. Perhaps some of the content could be usable in the main article, but I couldn't say for certain. I don't think this specific case is WP:NOTABLE enough to warrant its own article. Beachweak (talk) 01:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like a 90s computer thing article that got recently updated with a cloud software bit. Nothing worth saving. Oaktree b (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Or redirect as suggested above, I'm not that fussed either way. Oaktree b (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to database I don't see an ounce of difference between "Online database" and "database" User:Someone-123-321 (I contribute, Talk page so SineBot will shut up) 05:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Database. Databases do not have to be online, but that's the only difference, and it's not a notable difference. Meters (talk) 06:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]