Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 07	October 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect‎ to Christian metal#Record labels without prejudice against a selective merge, if appropriate. Owen× ☎ 12:46, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rottweiler Records

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

NCORP fail Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and Indiana. Graywalls (talk) 23:15, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fairly clearly meets the sense of an important label as given in the WP:MUSIC guideline, and the article has citations indicating the label gets regular coverage in music press. Chubbles (talk) 06:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I’d love to agree with you, because they seem really interesting, but… NCORP not NMUSIC is the right standard to judge them on, and everything I can see in the article is either passing coverage, or basic business process (the sale to new owners) coverage… but nothing giving any sort of extended coverage of the company itself. It’s all “band x signs to Rottweiler Records” and then a ton about band x, but nothing about the company. So weirdly they would count for the band’s notability, but not the company’s. Absurdum4242 (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 00:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ as there doesn't seem to be any in-depth secondary coverage of Rottweiler Records itself as a label. There are a lot of sources cited in the article but they are mostly articles about individual album releases or announcements about bands signing with them, with minimal commentary about Rottweiler Records itself. (Agree with above comment that there is a lot here that adds to the notability of the individual bands though.) As for mainstream media coverage, there isn't much in ProQuest except a few articles in The Hindu about R.A.I.D. which mention Rottweiler as their label (like this article from 2018) and several articles about a different Rottweiler Records based in Tacoma, which promotes hip-hop. Fails WP:NCORP. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle:, since this article was potentially discussed as merge-to target for Nosral Recordings, can you take a look at that article's AfD as well? Graywalls (talk) 02:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing !vote to merge and redirect to Christian_metal#Record labels as an WP:ATD. The section on Christian metal record labels currently lacks any sources. At minimum, we could add some of the sources cited in this article there. Will take a look at Nosral Recordings separately. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La Pierre Angulaire High School

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

No source to proof notability. Gabriel (……?) 00:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Schools. Gabriel (……?) 00:13, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Zero evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: No signs of notability on my own end. Fails NCORP. Best, Reading Beans 02:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I cannot find reliable references that discuss this school in details. B.Korlah (talk) 06:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This should have been removed at the time of creation or in fact never allowed to proceed to the main space. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 19:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Port_Harcourt#Education. I just spent a lot of time on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starlets Academy and this one is in the same vein, so to keep it short this doesn't meet WP:NORG either but we usually redirect non notable schools where possible. The redirect target has an appropriate section, although that section needs work, and probably explains why we have these unwriteable stubs. The page links secondary schools to a list of Port Harcourt schools with an inclusion criterion that schools must have a page to be on the list. The criterion is wrong and should be changed, or perhaps just merged back into the parent page. Port Harcourt should discuss the local schools, and if they ar enot due for a mention there, then they are not notable for an article either. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This secondary school has no single reliable source. Wikipedia is not Google. The school already has a map and no one even knows if it's a new school to verify. They are other school notable which ain't on wikipedia. I believe we should focus our energy on that than non notable schools. No point redirecting as school might be notable in the future as well. Gabriel-> Hello. 11:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of the redirect is not to keep non notable information, but because it is very plausible that someone would seek information on the school. Being non notable, they should be taken to a page that meets their information need. That is the Port Harcourt page, which has an education section. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:49, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool anyways. I see much sense in what you just said anyways. Gabriel-> Hello. 12:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This school (and no primary or secondary schools) are listed at the suggested redirect target article but there is a link to List of schools in Port Harcourt. Would this be a more appropriate target article if there is an ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article lacks substance to show notability per WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 04:47, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just nothing there in terms of WP:RS. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco (talk) 05:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with List of schools in Port Harcourt is that my attempt to make that a list of all schools in Port Harcourt was reverted. If this is redirected, it will be removed from that list, and then we will be off to RfD. That action pretty much scuppers my attempts at a redirect. I think that is wrong, and the only way forward I could see would be to expand the education section at Port_Harcourt#Education (and perhaps nominate the list of schools for deletion, as I don't see what purpose it would then serve). But to do that, I think I would need sourcing that describes Port Harcourt education and I have nothing. As such, I expect the deletes will have it here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn't find a single source that mentions this school. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elizaveta Levshina

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

Fails WP:NSKATE. No senior-level competitions of any kind. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Russia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - seems like a no-brainer. Deb (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: 9th at the World Juniors isn't terribly notable (if we had better sourcing, you could perhaps build a case). Rest are sub-national competitions, that I don't think meet notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Nicosia airport battle

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

This article was recently copied over from simple:Battle of Nicosia Airport ~~spun off from Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus~~, but discussion at Talk:1974 Nicosia airport battle and my own check of available reliable sources have not uncovered sources with significant coverage. I'd be thrilled if anyone could prove me incorrect, but without that I'd propose re-merging this article and covering the topic in a paragraph or two, emulating the references used now in the article. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Cyprus, Greece, and Turkey. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 05:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:38, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was taken from simple wikipedia according to the creator here. Also stop changing the name when nobody recognises it as such. As to coverage thats your opinion at this point. ShovelandSpade (talk) 08:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also to clarify the article has over 20 references ranging from journals, to books to news articles, it by more than far is in compliance with wikis notability guidelines, there are a few claims which are unreferenced but I am currently working on adding sources for them too (I didnt make the article so), doubt that warrants article deletion though. ShovelandSpade (talk) 10:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've corrected it. For more information about WP:SIGCOV, I'd invite you to re-read the article's talk page discussion. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are no reliable sources calling the events at Nicosia Airport during the day of the Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974, the "Battle of Nicosia Airport". It is WP:OR by a single editor despite protests from editors in the WP:MILHIST project. They have ignored and/or reverted any attempt to address this issue (and are still edit warring).

The information about the event is already in the Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974, and as the redirect of "Battle of Nicosia Airport" is really OR, I think it is more of a delete (and salt) than a merge. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most sources in that page indicate both the severity and name the battle of the airport yet two users seem to not only disregard that, are also straight up lying about whats written.

Cyprus mail article- "The battle for Nicosia airport wasn’t – objectively speaking – the bloodiest of the many dark events that took place exactly 50 years ago, but it may have been the most consequential."

Reuters article- "this airport was the theatre of some of the fiercest battles between Greek Cypriot troops and an invading Turkish army in 1974"

Im seriously confused as to why you guys are stiring up such a problem with an article that has more than ample sources, if we compare articles with the same events, such as Battle of Paitilla Airport, the sources are not only very few, but oddly enough its still called "Battle of Paitilla Airport" even though I cant see any of the 5 sources stating that name clearly. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If The Guardian says that there was a pitched "battle" between rioters and police in Trafalgar Square, that does not mean that we create an article for the Battle of Trafalgar Square. Aszx5000 (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Read what im saying and stop going off on a tangent. As youve displayed here, youre moving the goalposts as soon as you see that you are wrong. Also I dont know if youre playing dumb or trolling but what is the difference between "Battle of Nicosia airport" and "1974 Nicosia airport battle"? They both have that keyword battle, so again, I really dont understand your problem with this article when all other articles use the same logic. ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Including the name of the article you wish to have^ ShovelandSpade (talk) 15:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the page was created by a sockpuppet and deleted. Now it is recreated again. Users should check the last cases here as they are overlapping edits https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Cypriot_Chauvinist Shadow4dark (talk) 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page was brought over from simple wikipedia by user @Athinezos, again, check page history. ShovelandSpade (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That explains a lot. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 18:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been vastly improved since it was brought over by the user from simple wiki, enough sources from both journals and newspaper articles cover the intensity and notability issue, any other issues within the article are likely fixable. If it was, instead of delete it should be placed in the sandbox so that the users that still have an issue can fix it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ShovelandSpade (talk • contribs) 03:49, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for some input from editors who weren't part of the conversation on the talk page already - what does a fresh set of eyes have to say here? Also, please don't move articles while they're at AfD. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: as suggested. This happened in and around the airport, it wasn't a battle to take over the airport (from what I'm reading in the sourcing). Most sourcing is about the abandoned building, not about this "battle". Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oaktree b, are you suggesting a Merge to Military operations during the Turkish invasion of Cyprus#23 July 1974 or a different article? Because the editor who brought up this article was arguing against a Merge. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I misspoke in the nom about this article being "spun off". But I do think that a merge into the military operations article is logical. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 06:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry, a merge to the link that Liz has tagged is my idea. Oaktree b (talk) 11:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Oaktree b Shadow4dark (talk) 01:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge no coverage exists, but it does not separate this topic from the wider conflict. Allan Nonymous (talk) 14:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Given the unusual history of this topic title, is there a way to lock any redirect that might be created from the merge? I don't think we can just agree to "merge" this and then walk away, or we will have committed "new editors" trying to re-defend it? I personally don't think there is much material here to merge/keep that is not in the target link? Aszx5000 (talk) 12:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Bakeries

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

This article cites 2 sources, both of which are trival. One is just a directory listing on the website of the town the company was located in, and the other is a single news article about a single incident of purely local interest. A google search for the company name results in nothing relevant except some AI generated content that appears to be drawn from this article and a couple seemingly-defunct directory listings. The company's website fails DNS. The company fails notability now, and since it doesn't appear to be in business any more the chances of it satisfying the notability criteria in the future seem slim. I'm normally an inclusionist kinda guy but I think we can do without this one. -- LWG ^talk 23:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. -- LWG ^talk 23:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently British Bakeries was a subsidiary of Rank Hovis McDougall which was responsible for their various flour/bread products (including Hovis and Mother's Pride); presumably they came under Premier Foods when Premier acquired RHM in 2007. In 2014 Hovis was spun out of Premier to become its own company; it's unclear whether British Bakeries continued to exist after this. If either the RHM or Premier articles mentioned it, British Bakeries could redirect there, but neither does which suggests it's really not that important.
There are a few news articles turning up on google for me (this being the most useful), but no real in-depth coverage which would point to notability. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article seems to be POV in favour of the company and as others have stated above, appears to fail notability. Knockknock987 (talk) 22:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Notable, fails WP:GNG. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 17:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC) Striking sock !vote. Daniel (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I couldn't find reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Suonii180 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Emer

AfDs for this article:

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

1. It was moved from draft space to article space before it was reviewed and made live by the creator of the page

2. It was moved to draft space by other editors due to promotional tone, it seemed as it was written by someone closely connected to the subject

3. It was proposed for deletion and the final decision was to keep. However, the keep voters: 1 was a new account created just for this debate only (seems like it and it was an open IP, one was an editor banned for sock-puppetry)

4. There is someone constantly removing a section that is a bit negative about the subject

All this makes me believe that this page is being managed by someone closely connected to the subject. Additionally, i don't believe the subject is notable and most of the references are PRs and he is constantly self-promoting on the internet. WikiProCreate (talk) 13:49, 17 September 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 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Appears to be a celebrity plastic surgeon [1], [2], [3]. I'm not sure any of these show notability. Discussion in AfD last time was also questioning the Academic notability, noting that 1000 citations was rather low for his field. I don't see that much has changed since the last AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He's been investigated by a few regulatory bodies [4], which doesn't affect notability. This information has been added/removed, suggesting this page is being actively curated by editors, likely for promo purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and United States of America. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, California, Illinois, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 14:13, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 22:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jason Emert which is listed here was about a different person. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Laughton

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC.
The attempted notability claims here are "started a record label", "was a member of musical ensembles" and "was artistic director of a music festival", none of which are automatic notability freebies in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy media coverage about them and their work -- but while this was tagged for PROD a few days ago as being completely unsourced, it was then deprodded by an editor who added primary sources (mainly content self-published by Laughton himself and/or organizations directly affiliated with him) rather than reliable or GNG-building ones.
It's also a clear conflict of interest, as the article was first created by the subject himself under his own name.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have much, much better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I placed the PROD tag which was removed without a serious attempt at improvement. A promotional autobiography lacking secondary sources, no evidence of meeting WP:BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 21:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage. The sourcing is terrible. To be blunt. That this is also an autobiography is not a coincidence. When it was created, we let a lot slip by, but in 2024 everyone knows we are not a MySpace or Instagram. Bearian (talk) 01:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grammy RS Concerts

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

Dollar to a donut all the thai sources are pr flimflam. TheLongTone (talk) 13:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep. Needs clean-up for tone issues, but I'm not seeing actual reason for deletion. Several of the sources are presenting their own original analysis. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 20:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shijiazhuang Donghua Jinlong

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

lacks significant coverage from reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Loewstisch (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 13:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep there's plenty on the TikTok incident, and I just added a short (about 1 paragraph) cite from New Yorker and an entire article from SCMP from just three weeks ago. Article needs to have some more support for their role in the global glycine market -- it's verifiable (see, e.g., [5]) but notability is from the TikTok incident which continues to be reported on. Oblivy (talk) 01:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Bai, Yun 白云 (2024-04-29). Yang, Wenjuan 杨文娟; Fang, Tong 方童 (eds.). "爆红TikTok，这家河北化工企业什么来头" [What is the origin of this Hebei chemical company that became popular on TikTok?]. Hebei Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10 – via People's Daily.
  The article notes: "国外网友到底喜欢这家河北化工企业的哪一点？是视频里展示的生产线？记者走进东华金龙调度室，监控上能看到目前厂区所有工人的定位和移动轨迹，多条生产线上工人寥寥无几。陈莉雅介绍，经过不断升级，厂区的智能化水平大幅提高，很多工序都实现了无人值守，工人从最高时1500多人降到了目前的不足800人。"
  From Google Translate: "What do foreign netizens like about this Hebei chemical company? Is it the production line shown in the video? The reporter walked into the dispatching room of Donghua Jinlong. The monitoring system showed the location and movement of all the workers in the factory. There were only a few workers on many production lines. Chen Liya introduced that after continuous upgrading, the intelligent level of the factory has been greatly improved, and many processes have been unmanned. The number of workers has dropped from more than 1,500 at the peak to less than 800 at present."
2. "意外成为TikTok"爆款" 东华金龙董事长谈"出海"：对热度降低有心理准备，最终想法还是把产品做好" [Unexpectedly becoming a TikTok "explosive product", Donghua Jinlong Chairman talks about "going overseas": Be prepared for the decline in popularity, and the final idea is to make the product well]. National Business Daily (in Chinese). 2024-05-18. Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10 – via Sohu.
  The article notes: "就在最近，一家来自河北石家庄的化工企业突然在TikTok（抖音国际版）风靡一时。他们做了什么？并不复杂——剪辑一段展示企业园区和产品的视频，再配上关于公司业务介绍的字幕。但就是这样在国内用户看来“朴实无华”甚至有点“土”的短视频，在TikTok收获百万次播放，并催生一股“甘氨酸”风潮。"
  From Google Translate: "Just recently, a chemical company from Shijiazhuang, Hebei Province suddenly became popular on TikTok (the international version of Douyin). What did they do? It's not complicated - edit a video showing the company's park and products, and add subtitles about the company's business introduction. But such a short video that seems "plain and unpretentious" or even a little "rustic" to domestic users has been played millions of times on TikTok and has spawned a "glycine" trend."
3. "当下的世界随时都会出现新的突破" [New breakthroughs are always possible in the current world]. 金融投资报 [Financial Investment Journal] (in Chinese). Sichuan Daily Newspaper Group. 2024-05-11. Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10 – via East Money.
  Financial Investment Journal is published by the Sichuan Daily Newspaper Group. The article notes: "这家中国河北的企业全名叫“石家庄东华金龙化工有限公司”，成立于1979年，是专业的甘氨酸研发生产地。甘氨酸在食品中通常被用作甜味剂，能增强风味，还可作为工业及药品原料。东华金龙是怎么火的？2023年12月，东华金龙为了开拓海外市场，在TikTok上注册了一个官方账号，专门发布公司的宣传片。笔者也看过相关视频，客观地说宣传片也是蛮正经的。"
  From Google Translate: "The full name of this Hebei, China company is "Shijiazhuang Donghua Jinlong Chemical Co., Ltd.". It was established in 1979 and is a professional glycine research and development and production site. Glycine is usually used as a sweetener in food to enhance flavor and can also be used as industrial and pharmaceutical raw materials. How did Donghua Jinlong become popular? In December 2023, in order to expand overseas markets, Donghua Jinlong registered an official account on TikTok to publish the company's promotional videos. The author has also watched the relevant videos, and objectively speaking, the promotional video is quite serious."
4. Jennings, Ralph; Popov, Danielle (2024-08-31). "Glycine fiends: how the internet made an obscure Chinese company into a sensation". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-09-01. Retrieved 2024-10-10.
  The article notes: "Donghua Jinlong, a chemicals concern in the northern province of Hebei, had put out a one-minute video to promote glycine, its headline product. One of many Chinese firms looking to break into overseas markets, the company was taking an unusual approach to advertise the compound – an amino acid mostly used in pharmaceutical manufacturing and only occasionally as a dietary supplement."
5. Chayka, Kyle (2024-06-05). "What Doge Taught Me About the Internet". The New Yorker. Archived from the original on 2024-06-06. Retrieved 2024-10-10.
  The article notes: "When the marketing videos of a Chinese glycine factory called Donghua Jinlong went ironically viral this past spring, influencers immediately capitalized on its exposure with slews of T-shirts and other swag. There are more than two hundred Donghua Jinlong-related products now listed on Amazon. Social-media accounts have become tools for strategically funnelling attention; an aspiring influencer might route viewers of, say, a popular TikTok video via “links in bio” to a series of other accounts—Instagram, Patreon, YouTube—where clicks are more easily monetized."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shijiazhuang Donghua Jinlong (simplified Chinese: 石家庄东华金龙; traditional Chinese: 石家莊東華金龍) 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) 08:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Cunard. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 17:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have made 3 very similar keep votes in 1 minute. I doubt you have properly read this AfD. LibStar (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so what? This is not an instant vote. As a Chinese-language editor, I have full knowledge of Chinese-related articles and the right to comment or vote on AfD if I choose, even without an account. I usually check AfD on the Chinese project every week or two and cast votes to either save or delete. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would take more than 3 minutes just to read text above from Cunard. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really? The notability of a subject isn’t determined by how quickly I can read the source material. Who cares if I read fast? I’ve already reviewed all the AfD discussions from the China project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China) and decided which articles deserve a ‘keep’ vote, so I cast my votes accordingly. Why so serious? 1.47.210.41 (talk) 09:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rapid fire voting is usually a sign of not properly reading the article and AfD properly. Especially when identical votes are re-used [6] and [7]. 3 identical votes in 1 minute. That's not even apeed reading. LibStar (talk) 09:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read again “I’ve reviewed all the AfD discussions at first from the China project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China) and then decided which articles deserve a ‘keep’ vote“. Don't cry. 55555 1.47.210.41 (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
yes with 3 identical votes as WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 09:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How can be 3 ? Actually 2! This one is different. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Myself Allen Swapan

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

Reviewed during New page Patrol. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Bangladeshi streaming-only series. Of the two references, one is a review and the other is a link to their own commercial. Article was deleted in 2023 due to creation by a banned user and recreated February 2024 by a new user . North8000 (talk) 11:35, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Bangladesh. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1) given a review is cited a redirect to Syndicate_(TV_series)#Spin off is warranted ; 2) but there is plenty of coverage on this (including bylined articles), for example https://www.dhakatribune.com/showtime/309335/‘myself-allen-swapan’-streaming-this-eid ; https://www.tbsnews.net/splash/myself-allen-swapan-when-spin-outperforms-its-parent-series-622514 ; https://www.indiatoday.in/binge-watch/story/what-happens-when-a-wanted-criminal-pretends-to-be-your-husband-2366489-2023-04-30 : -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. I'm not sure what the editor means by "release my article" but if that means remove the AFD tag, I'm sorry but that's not happening. If you would like to continue working on this article, I'd recommend restoring it to User space where it can sit in case those reliable sources verifying its notability one day surface. But as mentioned in the discussion, Wikipedia is not a platform for neologisms or new ideas. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Twenteen

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

Falls under WP:FORUM Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NOTDICT; 3/4 of the current sources don't even mention the word. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you decide to release my article, I can try to look for sources that refer directly to twenteenagers. Wiki7Hell (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not enough to find sources that merely mention the word. You need sources that contain significant coverage of the word, beyond a dictionary definition. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my dear, I understand your concern, however I would like to mention that the word "twenteen" is a new word in the English vocabulary, being somewhat difficult to find related articles containing the word "twenteen", which made me look for articles that referred to the same stage of life of twenteens but using relatively similar terms such as "late-teens" and "late-adolescents". In any case, I thank you for your understanding and attention. If you wish to release my article, it is up to you, I just wanted to help. Wiki7Hell (talk) 00:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO, WP:OR, and WP:NOT. We don’t publish new ideas or words. We have never been a source of original research. In 2024, nobody can seriously argue that they need to put this stuff here on Wikipedia; everyone knows that we are not a blog, Reddit, or Urban Dictionary. To claim otherwise is well, acting like the subject of the page. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep these articles and no support for a Delete or Merge proposed by the nominator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois's 1st House of Representatives district

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

Delete or Merge into Illinois House of Representatives and appropriate elections articles. Unlike other electoral districts in Illinois or sub-national electoral districts in other countries, I do not believe individual state legislative districts in Illinois meet the standards of WP:GNG.

These are not like sub-national ridings in the United Kingdom or Canada, counties in the United States, in which there are political groups organized around district geography. They are not like wards in Chicago in which there are longstanding cultural associations or institutions independent of electoral politics.

Unlike congressional districts in Illinois, they do not elect Democratic or Republican committee-persons to any partisan body nor is there a substantial body of independent coverage regarding even their demographic characteristics.

The districts themselves are rarely written about. The "Representative district history" sections are a history of apportionment of districts generally as evidenced by the fact that all of the articles have identical excerpts. The more modern coverage that does exist is secondary to gerrymandering allegations (and the subsequent lawsuits) or the description of an election. While a subject of an article does not need to be the main topic to be significant coverage, it does need to be more than trivial. TLDR: These districts are not notable due to a lack of substantial, independent coverage just because similar enough entities might be. Mpen320 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because the articles are of substantially similar substance as Illinois's 1st House of Representatives district.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 15:31, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. --Mpen320 (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unlike congressional districts in Illinois, they do not elect Democratic or Republican committee-persons to any partisan body - do they not elect members to the Illinois House of Representatives (Democratic or Republican) in partisan elections? AusLondonder (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. I was referring to the respective State Central Committees of the major parties [8]. Those offices are elected/selected from congressional districts. It is just another way that those districts are covered that state legislative districts are not covered.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just because something isn't covered or has full articles doesn't disqualify it from an article. Other states have articles for every senate and legislature (or equivalent) district; just because Illinois does not (likely because many of them are small urban districts) doesn't mean we TNT every article that has been created, and it is undeniably partisan. Nate • (chatter) 16:44, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is just pointing out other stuff exists on Wikipedia. I also acknowledge legislative districts in other states could very well meet WP:GNG. Your remark about small, urban districts, well these are all small, urban districts with no significant coverage or independent coverage. Also, I have no idea where you are getting that I am being partisan. It's an unfair allegation.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the districts, not your views. Nate • (chatter) 22:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I don't understand the criticism. This is the nomination procedure for multiple related pages.--Mpen320 (talk) 14:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure any of the reasons listed qualify this article for deletion. These electoral districts have been around for a long time and are historical. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. If they are so historically important, then why has no one been able to find any sort of independent, significant coverage of the districts? It exists for congressional districts. I could find a bunch of coverage on the creation/gerrymander of Illinois's 13th congressional district. I can find plenty of independent, significant coverage of Chicago wards such as Chicago's 11th ward (notably Ward by Ward by David K. Fremond. So why not these if they meet the barrier for significant, independent coverage? The fact that most districts have been around since no earlier than the Cutback Amendment in the early 1980s, is not in of its self meet WP:GNG. It is a classic case of existence does not mean notability.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet but I'm not ready to close this as "No consensus". More participants would be welcome."
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: None of the reasons given for deletion/merge are correct. These districts are used for election to the state House and the elections are partisan - see Board of Elections. The members of the sate House are shown as representing these districts - see General Assembly. These districts are exactly the same as constituencies/electoral districts for other sub-national legislatures - UK nations, Canadian provinces, Australian states, Indian states and other US states - all of whom have articles on Wikipedia. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Softgarden e-recruiting

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

Fails WP:NCORP for lack of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS; sources both in-article and in my WP:BEFORE search are a blend of WP:ORGTRIV, WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs, WP:INTERVIEWs, WP:TRADES, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Software, and Germany. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – The Grid (talk) 18:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage is trivial, and honestly the refspam makes it look like UPE product. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. While I was using machine translation to read the German sources, they are all either trivial mentions or routine coverage per WP:CORPTRIV. I tried as best I could as a non-German speaker to search for sources elsewhere and could find no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. - Aoidh (talk) 16:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. No consensus exists to delete; the possibility of a merger has been raised, but should be discussed in the appropriate venue. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Shaw Jr.

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

James Shaw Jr. should be deleted because he does not meet Wikipedia's notability threshold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praiawart (talk • contribs) 16:10, 7 September 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 September 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Tennessee. Shellwood (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The shooting itself, the saving of lives, and the subsequent awards and honors are the notability. I think it's worthy of keeping. Whether or not there needs to be editing might be a POV of how a person reads this. — Maile (talk) 00:57, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The way to fix this article so that it doesn't read like a straight violation of WP:1E (notable for only one event) would be to add more detail about Shaw did afterwards. We find out that he gets a lot of awards - OK. But the article doesn't tell us anything about what Shaw did with his fame, except for "consider" running for mayor of Nashville. Tell us what he's been saying publicly – has he taken any position on crime, police, or gun control, for example? Are there any reliable secondary sources discussing his life outside of the one big event and what he's been up to? Cielquiparle (talk) 04:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there’s ongoing coverage after his one famous act. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the article about the shooting. This individual is only notable for that event, nothing terribly notable about them otherwise. This article has more about the shooting/event than about him as a person. Went to school and got a job, six lines or so, then almost half a page about the event. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 08:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional primates in film

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

A vast majority of list is WP:LISTCRUFT and fails WP:LISTCRIT. I would also support a merge back into List of fictional primates if the outcome isn't deletion. Sir MemeGod  15:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Comics and animation, Animal, and Entertainment. Sir MemeGod  15:05, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST (and yes, before I hear it should, it does ALSO meet the criterion for lists, see https://www.slantmagazine.com/film/15-famous-movie-monkeys/ or https://www.cbr.com/movie-tv-greatest-apes-ranked/ or https://collider.com/best-movie-monkeys-ranked/ etc,) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s the issue though. This list could easily be merged back into the main article with no length or accessibility issues arising, which is what I assume SPLITLIST concerns. Sir MemeGod  21:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It could, maybe, everything is feasible. But should it? SPLITLIST says "Regardless, a list or table should be kept as short as is feasible for its purpose and scope. Too much statistical data is against policy." Note that there are FIVE detailed lists on the page: this one and List of fictional primates in comics, List of fictional primates in television, List of fictional primates in animation List of fictional primates in literature. If you merge back one, you merge back all the other and then you have an awful navigation experience. I would go even further, and suggest to undo the redirect for List_of_fictional_primates_in_video_games but that might be discussed later maybe. I probably won't make any further comments here. Decide what you think best. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:41, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 19:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of fictional primates per WP:ATD, but this precise of a list fails WP:LISTN. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support synthesizing the pages with repeated info. There is a list of fictional monkeys listed on the [[Pet Monkey]] page, which doesn't fit the other content on that page. I think those fictional characters need to be filtered and moved elsewhere. Monkeywire (talk) 17:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Mushy Yank re-merge applied consistently would be undesirable. The short tables at List of fictional primates should not exist where there are splitout lists such as this one - any missing entries should be moved to subpages. Yeah it's somewhat listcruft but besides NLIST there's also the gentler WP:LISTCRIT ("While notability is often a criterion for inclusion in overview lists of a broad subject, it may be too stringent for narrower lists; one of the functions of many lists on Wikipedia is providing an avenue for the retention of encyclopedic information that does not warrant separate articles, so common sense is required in establishing criteria for a list"). Note that there are a large number of similar lists -- see {{Fictional_biology}}. If you are set on eliminating -- or at least significantly constraining -- this type of list, then RFC to establish the baseline standard for retention/inclusion would be better than piecemeal nominations which will vary in outcomes depending on who turns up. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:37, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though this at least borders on listcruft. However, it serves a useful purpose by compiling notable fictional primates in an accessible way. Merging it could complicate navigation. This is not a hill I'd die on, but in the interests of avoiding an NC close, that's my two cents. Given there are similar lists (I know I am risking an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS mentality), the format is not obnoxiously against practices. I feel there is just enough merit to justify retaining this list. — MaxnaCarta ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 20:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MC Charlene

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is back following its deletion in 2022 and not improved. Leaving aside its WP:PROMO nature and peacocking words ("hype queen," "energy goddess"), the vast majority of sources on this individual are promotional WP:CHURNALISM, WP:INTERVIEWS and tabloid coverage excluded as WP:SIGCOV under WP:SBST. I found only one example of WP:SIGCOV qualifying toward notability (in the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet) and we'd need to see more to keep this page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, Health and fitness, Cameroon, and Norway. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ : For a Norwegian/Cameroonian musical individual, there is a lack of coverage in both countries, only in Nigeria [9] which has the usual puffy language. I'd expect something from the home crowd if this person was notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep Colour me surprised. Coverage in Norwegian median [10], [11]. Not a ton of coverage, but with the zillion Nigerian sources, I'd give it a pass. Oaktree b (talk) 00:27, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - The two Norwegian links are more or less the same article, built on a third piece, the original in Bergensavisen. There was another piece by the same journalist in Bergensavisen in 2020. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still no consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the AFD nom she just picked up another award - it looks like Diaspora Glitz (responsible for the Global African Diaspora Awards) is a legitimate magazine (though it would be nice to see the print magazine credits page, since what's online is unhelpful)[12][13][14]. That makes minor awards in at least three countries. If I squint, I think she's probably on the cusp of WP:NMUSIC#7, though available sources are pretty poor (noting that print indy music magazines don't always have a great online presence)[15]. It's not clear if the forthcoming(?) Love or Pop is to be a broadcast show([16] - CRTV is a national broadcaster). Sorry, I've been on and off the fence a bunch for this one from "Very Weak possibly IAR Keep but sigcov may never get much stronger" through to "Meh Delete, this is practically an orphan, but expect new versions of this article to be reasonably created as WP:NPOINTS increase" and am landing on "No Consensus is ok for a while". ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 09:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 19:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Santos Rios

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

Delete for failure to meet WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The Senate Resolution and the House Resolution indicate that while very accomplished, this individual would receive run of the mill coverage of a typical mayor in the United States. Mpen320 (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Politicians, and Oceania. Shellwood (talk) 18:54, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - mayors in a smaller territory like the CMNI have a greater influence on its politics than a similar municipality in Texas for example. As mayor of Saipan, its capital, Santos Rios represented the majority of the population of the Northern Mariana Islands. Anyone elected to this particular elected office is as influential within the CMNI as other "territorial-wide" elected politicians, and Santos is no exception. Scanlan (talk) 12:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Can you explain how he meets WP:GNG then? Similar mayors of cities in the continental United States do not necessarily qualify on basis of their influential position alone, but some like Wilmot Collins of Helena, Montana do.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: The islands are tiny and don't have many media outlets, so coverage is sparse to begin with. [17] and [18] are coverage about the nomination and award. Oaktree b (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability has not been demonstrated. Deb (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is still divided.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chak 63 RB Nihaloana Sahmal

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

I couldn't find sources to confirm that this meets WP:NPLACE / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:49, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed per nom. Reliable sources not available. Wikibear47 (talk) 13:00, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is eligible for soft deletion, but judging by the page history, if soft deleted, this will be requested at undelete. Can we get some more participation here? Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Power Cricket League

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 18:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another non notable cricket tournament article full of non notable players. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions#Fievel's Playland & Fievel's Water Slide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fievel's Playland

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

Fails the WP:NOPAGE test under WP:GNG for a standalone page with insufficient WP:SIGCOV of this theme park attraction in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Multiple editors have sought to redirect but have been reverted, so I'd ask for an AfD consensus here to redirect to List of former Universal Studios Florida attractions#Fievel's Playland & Fievel's Water Slide. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is appropriate here. There is essentially nothing that is well-sourced here. If someone is looking for this, a very selective merge might be good, with a redirect. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Montenegrin Women's League. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 1. ŽFL

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

No sources in article, and I found nothing on Google. The creator keeps moving it back from draftspace, and would probably remove a PROD. There's also a claim to significance. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Montenegro. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 15:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montenegrin Women's League I thought it's was redirect to Montenegrin Women's League on this. Zach (talk to me) 07:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Delete Another rush to create articles for "right-now events" with no notability. Intrisit (talk) 17:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 18:13, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ and salt. Discarding canvassed/sockpuppet votes, we have a clear consensus. Owen× ☎ 19:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Middlebrook

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of page that has been twice deleted in two prior AfD discussions, the most recent in 2021. It doesn't appear that very much has changed. There is a 2024 podcast type interview, but this does not appear to me to contribute much to notability. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Businesspeople, Economics, and Middle East. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

weak delete All the sources are of the form that imply notability, but they're just not robust enough as sources to really stand. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the third time and Salt. Promotional puff. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Subject has made significant impacts and has independent coverage from The National, The Guardian and Journal of economic issues to meet WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV Tesleemah (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tesleemah, I do not think that The National (Abu Dhabi) is a reliable source. The Guardian has passing mentions only that I see, and Journal of Economic Issues has only a citation to a paper -- I do not see SIGCOV. Am I missing something? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article adheres to the guidelines for biographies of living persons, and is based on verifiable information and maintains a neutral point of view. I also disagree with the editors regarding the dismissal of certain sources, such as The National (Abu Dhabi). While it may have bias in political matters related to the UAE, this does not extend to its coverage of individuals.

The criterion for notability is clearly defined in various sources. For instance, this excerpt aligns well with Wikipedia's notability criteria:

"Dr. Peter J. Middlebrook is a leading international economist specializing in emerging and frontier markets. His work has been featured in BBC, Al Jazeera, CNN, Time Magazine, the Financial Times, and MENA regional news. He led the technical development of the proposed Arab Stabilization Plan and has played a key role in the development of the New Silk Road for the US Government."

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.241.148.242 (talk) 20:28, October 9, 2024 (UTC) — 87.241.148.242 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Sufficient illumination in independent sources. Resistancefor (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2024 (UTC) — Resistancefor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
~~Keep~~ Betterdryftify then delete. I hink that it matches wiki rules. I think we're starting to forget the ground rules of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resistancefor (talk • contribs) 22:33, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lalibertaoulamort (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC) — Lalibertaoulamort (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete. The only source that even conveys the appearance of contributing to GNG-based notability is the puff piece in The National. Past discussions have questioned its reliability — see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 274 § The National source and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 347 § Keeping content sourced to propaganda outlets for authoritarian regimes, but also to me it reads as surprisingly shallow when we're looking for depth. Also it's only one source and we need multiple. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources pointing to the significance of this man. I don't think we should delete the article. Maybe it should be reorganized or shortened, but the man obviously deserves to be mentioned in wikipedia.[19] Paralizatorsha (talk) 20:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC) — Paralizatorsha (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep There are enough credible sources. I think the article complies with the WP:BIO Kanamaharanama (talk) 08:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC) — Kanamaharanama (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KeepI think that if information about a person is available on official government website^[1], then he or she meets WP:N BBgoodfor (talk) 20:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC) — BBgoodfor (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

References

^ https://ebbf.co.bw/speakers/dr-peter-j-middlebrook/

Administrator note I can't determine which of the SPAs above are sock or meatpuppets and which aren't, but some sort of illegitimate action is clearly taking place. The closing admin should consider this when weighting these !votes. I've also semi-protected this AFD in order to stop further disruption. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 02:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC) I forgot to link it, but see this SPI for details. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 15:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After looking through sources and taking quick notes, references clearly do not establish any notability. 8 are passing mentions, 3 acknowledge the subject as one of the reviewers or compilers of a large report, 2 only cite subject's work and do not discuss in depth, 5 are self-reported, and at least one does not contain the name "Middlebrook". I cannot access The New Yorker article to see coverage here; but with all other references falling through, I do not think it would provide enough coverage to establish notability on its own. The 2 other possibly reliable refs otherwise in my opinion are the finance assessment in Kyrgyzstan and the Al Jazeera appearance. I admit I did not watch the 30 minute video to get a sense of the subject's part in the story coverage. I think all together, these still do not provide proof of notability.Cyanochic (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of significant coverage as discussed above, and WP:NOTINHERITED. Based on the analysis, by Cyanochic, all of the current references are either passing mentions, or unreliable sources, or only tangentially related to the subject, or all three. He has apparently partnered with a famous runner on a project. That does not mean he is also notable. Nor does being an expert on a topic - lots of scientists and other scholars (like me) are experts in something or another topic, but unless it’s covered in secondary sources, we’re not notable. The last remaining issue is whether to block this article’s re-creation. Based on loads of precedent, we must “salt” it. Bearian (talk) 01:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 18:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OKS Turkey

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

Turkey is continually inventing, renaming and scrapping exams. The article has no sources to show why this exam is notable. Also the Turkish article is tagged that the subject might not be encyclopedic.Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ECXX

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

Non-notable crypto exchange. No sources worth speaking of. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Singapore. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:ROUTINE, no WP:SIGCOV Andre🚐 05:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are press releases or barely-reskinned press releases - David Gerard (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 18:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rayman: The Animated Series

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

Yesterday, I just made a edit for the article of the forgotten animated series Rayman. It was just fixing up the layout and removing unnecessary materials however, when it came to the sources, most of them tend to have either little or no information, except the interviews.

Also, while I was able to find sources from reliable sources like Nintendojo, but it still isn't enough to save the article so. NatwonTSG^TALK 14:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Video games, and France. NatwonTSG^TALK 14:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if notability can't be established, I'd recommend a (selective) merge to Rayman 2 over outright deletion if it was created as an effort to promote that game. Not all the character/plot notes, but maybe some of the premise and production notes. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: and add sources in French; or redirect to the main article, of which this can be considered a detailed article/split. (https://www.jeuxvideo.com/dossiers/00018309/la-serie-rayman-rayman-la-serie-animee-016.htm http://www.planete-jeunesse.com/fiche-3160-rayman.html https://www.lesechos.fr/1999/09/profession-heros-mondial-777380) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much to work with. The first one is pretty short, and the second one looks more like a database entry from a fansite. The third one is such a brief passing mention that it doesn't even mention it by name. Sergecross73 msg me 23:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Between the sources currently in the article, the ones in the French and Spanish articles, those raised by User:Mushy Yank above (especially the first one), plus these articles: CBR (#3), GBHBL; this podcast; and this book clearly represent WP:SIGCOV (Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material; for contrast, this is what a trivial mention looks like; the others are significant coverage). And this is without all the video game magazines which are likely to have covered it at the time, plus TV magazines in France, Germany and the Netherlands where it was broadcast, and coverage of the VHS/DVD from the US and France (I haven't been able to search for any of these as Internet Archive is down). As the nominator says: while I was able to find sources from reliable sources like Nintendojo, but it still isn't enough to save the article – this is clearly enough to pass WP:GNG; I don't know what criterion it's said to be failing. --Yodin^T 09:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you more specifically outline your WP:THREE? I'm not really following what you're alluding to exactly. Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that listing additional sources and saying how policies apply to them is vague. Each of these contains non-trivial coverage in an independent, reliable source: [20], [21], [22], [23], L'Histoire de Rayman, Chapter 9 (ISBN 9782918272915). Others that may be: [24], [25], [26], [27]. As mentioned above, this is also terrible timing to try to prove a lack of notability, as Internet Archive is currently down, and would almost certainly have several more supporting sources (for example, videogame and TV magazines from the time), and many of the references given in the articles are archived from the original; e.g. this Destructoid article. --Yodin^T 17:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm simply asking you for your three strongest examples of reliable sources that show significant coverage. Could you? Sergecross73 msg me 22:57, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With IA down, I can't be sure which are the three strongest. Of the rest: for argument's sake, let's start with the first three I linked to above (#1–3). --Yodin^T 09:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and cleanup. The retro gamer magazine feature is probably WP:SIGCOV. But if it's too close to the borderline, a merge is a good WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Başbakanlık Konutu

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

I would have guessed this might be notable but it was tagged uncited in 2011 and there is no Turkish article. I could not find enough good sources to show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Politics, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's extremely odd this doesn't have an article in Turkish, typically official residences of heads of government are very well documented. Can we be sure that this was the actual official residence of the Prime Minister? All sources I could find were in Turkish, a language I do not speak, so I can't find anything verifying its place as an official residence. It isn't even mentioned at the Turkey section of the article about official residences. This entire article seems super fishy to me, almost tempted to lean towards this being a possible hoax article. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:43, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Early closure due to infernal precipitation. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kate Conger

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

not notable person; I've read all the references and found no one that would address the subject independently and with a big attention. NYTIMES has its own announcement that it fairly nor deep, nor independent as they announced that Kate joined them. Qab Bi Av (talk) 14:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Journalism. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

She's the co-author of a newly released book that addresses Elon Musk's acquisition of Twitter that itself has been covered by CNN, Washington Post, MSNBC. She and co-author Ryan Mac have appeared on multiple TV outlets to promote their work. Her work as a technology beat reporter speaks for itself. Chammyboy (talk) 14:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Easy keep, [28] and [29]. This, in addition to everything else, is at notability Oaktree b (talk) 14:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Few more for good measure [30], [31], [32]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The book's article elsewhere on here has 3 reviews, I'd say she passes AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 16:07, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: User:Qab Bi Av, please review the guidelines at WP:BEFORE - before nominating an article for deletion, you should not just check the current sources but also "search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" and "try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". Agree with User:Oaktree b that WP:AUTHOR is the relevant standard, and that she meets criteria #3 - her recent book is the "primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews", including a starred review in Kirkus, Washington Post, The Guardian, another review in The Guardian, Sydney Morning Herald, and The New Statesman. She also meets criteria #1 - her work as a journalist is widely cited. There are a lot of Google Books results for her name. In Google Scholar, searching for her shows a significant number of citations to her articles (examples: 188 citations, 51, 56). Dreamyshade (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject passes WP:NAUTHOR with their new book, I've added two reviews one from the LA Times and the other from the Guardian. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is a pretty easy keep - Conger's been a New York Times reporter for years with controversial and popular articles such as [33] and [34]. In terms of WP:NOTABILITY, she was "She was the first to publish the controversial memo from the then-Google employee James Damore on perceived gender differences."[35][36]. That work was highly cited for the Google Memo. In addition, her work is on syllabi at Stanford University [37] and City University of New York [38]. RubyEmpress (talk) 17:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP User:Qab Bi Av EASY KEEP. Chammyboy (talk) 18:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Technology, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I would argue that yes, she is a notable person. She is a published author and prominent journalist. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a notable author; her new book about Twitter is getting reviews in reliable sources. This is not an endorsement of the quality of her work (which other than her Twitter feed I’ve never read her work that I’m aware), her biases, who she is as a person, who she’s employed by, or her opinions. Bearian (talk) 01:55, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This appears to be a WP:SNOW close. Not sure what else can be added. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Kunin

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

Only trivial, interviews, etc with no deep real media focus on the Julia. The best piece from ARTnews has this:

“Clay,” she says, “gives me the freedom to create something intense, raw, over the top. It has allowed me to pile things up, break things down, play, and make mistakes.” Kunin loves the immediacy of a material that is “as basic as mud,” she points out. “I am addicted to the unpredictability and iridescence of the glazes I’m using as well as the range of their colors and their psychedelic qualities.”
Kunin grew up in Vermont in the ‘70s..... Later, she says, she rejected clay as a dull brown “craft” material but returned to it in 2003. She started exploring female sexuality and the body and began using octopuses for more metaphorical imagery. Frustrated by a series in cast glass, “I happened on an exhibit by the Chinese artist Ah Xian, who creates busts painted in traditional Chinese porcelain patterns from Jingdezhen, China. That initial spark of an idea has kept me going now for ten years.” Qab Bi Av (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Visual arts, New York, and Vermont. Skynxnex (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She has a listing in the Getty Ulan, [39] and is covered [40] and [41]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed multiple embedded links. I will go back to check the sourcing on some of the claims. Seems to be drawn from non-primary sources for bio and CV type material. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 01:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. User:Qab Bi Av, as I noted on your other recent nomination, please review the guidelines at WP:BEFORE - before nominating an article for deletion, you should not just check the current sources but also "search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability" and "try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page". I looked her up, found several additional sources, and added them to the article. WP:ARTIST is the relevant notability guideline, and as far as I can tell, she qualifies including under the criteria of "won significant critical attention". Dreamyshade (talk) 16:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Based on her competitive residencies and grants (see Yaddo and Fulbright Scholarship), and works exhibited at the center of the North American art world, she easily passes WP:NARTIST. Bearian (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:30, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Zubair Farooq

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

Fails WP:GNG and no evidence or claim of notability. The sourcing is poor, and the article has an overall promotional tone. There are not in-depth coverage in reliable sources. Father is notable but that is it. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, Bangladesh, United Arab Emirates, and Australia. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 13:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Subject works for Sheikh Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum according to the article and that counts, what raises concern is the significant coverage in independent sourcesTesleemah (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of it is coming from secondary sources, most of his career is referenced from news articles, his family background is referenced from Bangladesh: A Legacy of Blood, a very reliable source written by Anthony Mascarenhas, Humanitarian and social life is where there may be primary sources, i can remove that if you like. Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 09:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

except for the article on halalop being a secondary source

Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 09:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

another notable thing is that he will be running in the coming bangladesh elections but I dont have a secondary source for that yet. Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 10:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It will be better if citation are from independent sources. And don't add any sentence you can't find references for. A notable stub will still stand Tesleemah (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i have removed sources that were written by himself Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 23:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

what is promotional? Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 10:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence may give you an idea what "promotional" means; "Sayed Zubair Farooq will win the election, because he's the best and wealthiest politician to ever live in or come from Bangladesh". Intrisit (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nah like what is promotional about the article Thomas Khan 45678 (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhh, that!! Sorry, seems I didn't scan through the article well! Intrisit (talk) 19:31, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Working for someone notable doesn't confer notability - and the claim is unsourced. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Dishonest sourced promotional cruft with lines pulled straight from promotional primary sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dylan Besseau. Owen× ☎ 18:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

La légende de Thierry Mauvignier

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

None of the (non primary) sources here even mention the documentary, they're all on La Légende des seigneurs assassins (which this is a documentary about the making of??? why would someone make an article on the making of film and not the actual main film???). Even with that all the sources here are quite regional French sources under what is required from NFILM, so I have no clue if that other film is notable (could be, just judging off what's in the page). This was deleted on frwiki 3 years ago; I think this and several related articles (Thierry Mauvignier, Dylan Besseau, Guillaume Gevart) may have some promotional stuff going on here and on simple wikipedia but it is difficult to tell what exactly is happening here. There is this I found in a search which might be ok but it is the only thing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and France. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dylan Besseau: or to Thierry Mauvignier#Biography. (Aside: replying to the nominator's question, the article they quote states: "Although this institutional project was initially intended as a making-of, it has become a work in its own right, surpassing the reputation that Thierry Mauvignier's short film was expected to obtain - the greatest irony for a film that was intended to be rather confidential') -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that but it seemed contradictory to me because there are far less sources. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:33, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you but I was just trying to reply to your question :D. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Chan (musician)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable per WP:MUSICBIO, she released one EP which didn't chart, and I can't find significant coverage of her or the EP in reliable sources in English or Chinese. Not notable per WP:NACTOR, as her only lead role was in the film Dreamtrips, and I can't find SIGCOV of the film or her as an actress in reliable sources, apart from that it was screened at a notable festival. In the last AFD, two editors said that it was in the Hong Kong Film Archive, but I can't find it there when searching for 夢之旅. I couldn't find any coverage of her as a radio presenter, apart from sparse coverage that she won the RTHK disk jockey competition. She left show business in the 90s or 00s to become an architect, and I can't find SIGCOV of her per WP:NARCHITECT.

Editors searching for coverage that I missed, please note that there's an unrelated singer Jennifer Chan from Hong Kong at JC (singer), who debuted in 2016. There's also an unrelated American Jennifer Chan, who's been a TV presenter. Wikishovel (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Architecture, Hong Kong, and United Kingdom. Wikishovel (talk) 09:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. "陳漢詩表現見進步羨慕周慧敏身裁好" [Jennifer Chan's performance shows improvement; Envies Vivian Chow's great figure]. Wah Kiu Yat Po (in Chinese). 1989-06-26. p. 19. Retrieved 2024-10-10 – via Hong Kong Public Libraries.
  The article notes: "主持過兩輯「新地 MTV」後,陳漢詩覺得表現已漸見好轉,不過若將電台與電視相比 ,前者滿足感較大,且創作力更高。雖然陳英詩對自己在「新地MTV」節目中的表現滿意,然而令她最討厭的是肥胖的面部,原來身高五呎七时的她,竟然擁有一六〇的體重,怪不得其男友也狂催促伊人要積極減肥哩。衆所週知,陳漢詩與周慧敏非常老友,以前在電台亦常被人貫以「孖公仔肥妹」稱號, 但日子一天一天地過去之後,周的體重竟然日斷下降,反之她則日漸上升,現在她除向對方請教主持電視節目的心得外,最重要的,便是尚對方請敬一套完善的減肥秘訣。陳笑謂:「我嘅減把目標係卅磅!」雖然周的三棲發展已漸上軌道,然而她却未因此而感到羨慕,因爲她認爲作多元化發展必須講求個人潛質,而單看周慧 |敏的纖秀外型及清麗脫「俗面孔,就已經勝她一哩籌。"
  From Google Translate: After hosting two seasons of 'New Land MTV,' Jennifer Chan feels that her performance has gradually improved. However, she finds that compared to radio, the satisfaction from television is greater and the creative output is higher. Although Jennifer is satisfied with her performance in the 'New Land MTV' program, what she dislikes the most is her chubby face. It turns out that at a height of 5 feet 7 inches, she weighs 160 pounds, which explains why her boyfriend keeps urging her to actively lose weight. As everyone knows, Jennifer and Vivian Chow are very close friends and were often referred to as 'the chubby duo' back in their radio days. However, as time has passed, Vivian's weight has steadily decreased, while hers has increased. Now, besides asking Vivian for tips on hosting television shows, what she wants most is to get a complete set of weight loss secrets from her. Jennifer joked, 'My weight loss goal is 30 pounds!' Although Vivian's diverse career is gradually on track, Jennifer does not feel envious because she believes that diversified development must focus on personal potential. Just looking at Vivian Chow's slender figure and elegant appearance makes her feel that Vivian is already a step ahead."
2. Poon, Siu-chung 潘紹聰 (2021-01-08). "DJ陳漢詩親述電台撞鬼" [DJ Jennifer Chan Shares Her Experience of Encountering Ghosts at the Radio Station]. am730 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10.
  The article notes: "如果閣下於八丶九十年代，要收音機撈飯的話，應該會對DJ陳漢詩(Jennifer)不會陌生了，與她同期出道的還有周慧敏及黃凱芹等。及後，她轉到新城電台開咪，而筆者亦因此認識到Jennifer。可是，她不久便離開香港到法國深造，能與她聯絡的舊同事亦不多。由於Jennifer 在香港電台工作的時間曾傳出她遇過不少靈異事件，但礙於一直未能由她親口作證，以往關於她的經歷只能由別人口傳而來。直接早前筆者突然知道Jennifer與另一舊同事方家煌開了一個YouTube頻道，主力分享他們於法國與英國生活點滴，久違了的Jennifer終於出山，"
  From Google Translate: "If you were in the radio industry during the 1980s and 1990s, you would be familiar with DJ Jennifer Chan. She debuted around the same time as other notable figures like Vivian Chow and Wong Kai-kin. Later, she moved to New City Radio, and that's how I got to know Jennifer. However, she soon left Hong Kong to study in France, and there weren't many old colleagues who could keep in touch with her. During her time at the Hong Kong radio station, there were many rumors about her encountering supernatural events, but since she hadn't confirmed them herself, her experiences could only be relayed by others. Recently, I suddenly learned that Jennifer and another former colleague, Fang Ka-huang, started a YouTube channel primarily sharing their life experiences in France and the UK. After a long absence, Jennifer has finally resurfaced."
3. "黃凱芹變女鬼嚇爆陳漢詩" [Christopher Wong Becomes a Female Ghost and Scares Jennifer Chan]. East Week (in Chinese). 2022-10-05. p. B78.
  The article notes: "電台，是一棟歷史十分悠久的建築物，四層樓高空間亦頗多，在這幾十年來，很多次在工作的唱片騎師，都遇上各種怪事。八十年代著名DJ陳漢詩就曾經傳出一個經典故事。話說當年最著名的鬼古，就是陳漢詩某晚在港台做通宵節目，到半夜三點左右，她突然見到唱盤上出現了一個男人的人頭，便即時逃離直播室，更即時要求不再做通宵節目。不過，後來已移民法國多年的陳漢詩，就曾親口說出，自己並沒有遇上這件事，但她知道真正撞正如此恐怖事件，其實是當年紅透半邊天的蔡楓華。"
  From Google Translate: "The radio station is a historic building with four floors and ample space. Over the decades, many DJs have encountered various strange occurrences while working there. A famous story from the 1980s involves DJ Jennifer Chan. It is said that one night while doing an overnight program at Radio Hong Kong, around 3 a.m., she suddenly saw a man's head appear on the turntable, prompting her to flee the studio immediately and request to stop doing overnight shows. However, Jennifer, who has since immigrated to France, later stated that she did not experience this incident herself. She revealed that the real person who encountered such a terrifying event back then was the immensely popular Ken Choi."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. Wong, Kit-lin 黃潔蓮 (2010-08-27). "代Cult2：八十前DJ 等同節目主持，超錯！" [Cult2: DJs Before the '80s Were Equivalent to Program Hosts—Totally Wrong!]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). p. E3.
    The article notes: "梁兆輝Brian，DJ已23年，... 1986年他參加全港「業餘DJ大賽」，並得到冠軍，同屆還有周慧敏和陳漢詩。他們一起加入訓練班，接受為期三個月的訓練，導師是鄧藹霖、倪秉郎，同班的還有阮兆祥和李克勤，"
    From Google Translate: "Brian Leung Siu Fai has been a DJ for 23 years. In 1986, he participated in the Hong Kong 'Amateur DJ Competition' and won the championship. Among the competitors that year were Vivian Chow and Jennifer Chan. They all joined a training class together, where they underwent three months of training under instructors Blanche Tang Oi Lam [zh] and Simon Ngai Ping Long [zh]. Also in the class were Louis Yuen and Hacken Lee."
  2. "等一個人咖啡" [Waiting for Someone with Coffee]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2014-08-18. p. E6.
    The article notes: "但是，《三個小神仙》鄭丹瑞、何嘉麗及林珊珊相繼離開，香港電台要捧年輕人偶像接力，一個機會，周慧敏即時上位，變「玉女掌門人」。 Vivian的成功，沒半點兒幸運，事實，她同期受捧的年輕DJ包括黃凱芹、餘劍明及陳漢詩，在EQ（情緒智商）及Mental Age（心理年齡）方面，明顯成熟高質，奮鬥目標及雄心，早已超越電台範疇。她的成功個案，可以成為教材！"
    From Google Translate: "However, with the departures of Cheng Dan-shui, Ho Ka-lai, and Lam Shan-shan from 'The Three Little Fairies,' Hong Kong Radio needed to promote young idols, creating an opportunity for Vivian Chow to step up and become the 'Goddess of the Arts.' Vivian's success is not a matter of luck; in fact, the young DJs who were promoted alongside her, including Wong Kai-kin, Yu Gam-ming, and Jennifer Chan, clearly demonstrated higher maturity in terms of EQ (Emotional Quotient) and Mental Age. Their goals and ambitions have long surpassed the confines of the radio industry."
  3. Leung, Wai-ling 梁慧玲 (1999-02-23). "第二屆獨立電影週年展" [2nd Annual Independent Film Festival]. Ming Pao (in Chinese). p. C12.
    The article notes: "香港國際影展今年強化第二届独立电影周年展獨立電影及錄影帶部分﹐與藝術中心攜手放映本地自主創作。獨立影片發行組織'影意志'則先聲奪人﹐率先在本月下旬首映多出作品﹐其中包括吳家龍的《夢之旅》﹐以極闊的銀幕比例﹐展示一次虛擬又帶點科幻的旅程﹐將影像的可能性徹底發揮。《夢之旅》由唱片騎師陳漢詩與郭偉安粉墨登場。"
    From Google Translate: "The Hong Kong International Film Festival is strengthening the independent film and video segment of the 2nd Annual Independent Film Festival this year, partnering with the Arts Centre to showcase local autonomous creations. The independent film distribution organization Ying e Chi has taken the lead, premiering several new works later this month, including Ng Ka-long's 'Journey of Dreams,' which features an expansive screen ratio to present a virtual and slightly sci-fi journey, fully exploring the possibilities of visual storytelling. 'Journey of Dreams' features DJ Jennifer Chan and Wayne Kwok in its cast."
  4. "《夢之旅》" [Journey of Dreams]. am730 (in Chinese). 2005-12-15. p. M15.
    The article notes: "導演：吳家龍一齣1999年上演的本地獨立電影，由陳漢詩和郭偉安主演。導演在戲中構思出一種有如茶餐廳奶茶的港式科幻，故事講述一個徘徊多倫多的失戀少女，利用一個叫“夢之旅”的電腦方程式，進入夢世界尋找逃婚男友。不少影評都認為，本片以詩化的影像融入城市建築空間之中，形成一種心靈的沉思，是在技術和資金限制下所迫發出來的無限創意。"
    From Google Translate: "Director: Ng Ka-long. This is a local independent film that premiered in 1999, starring Jennifer Chan and Kwok Wai-on. The director has conceived a Hong Kong-style sci-fi that resembles the milk tea served in tea restaurants. The story follows a heartbroken girl wandering in Toronto who uses a computer program called "Journey of Dreams" to enter a dream world in search of her runaway boyfriend. Many critics believe that the film integrates poetic imagery with urban architectural spaces, creating a form of spiritual reflection. It is a manifestation of infinite creativity born from technical and financial constraints."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Jennifer Chan (simplified Chinese: 陈汉诗; traditional Chinese: 陳漢詩) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 05:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources found by Cunard. 1.47.210.41 (talk) 17:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Cunard made great job. not all the sources are good enough but overall the page meets GNG. 157.157.69.81 (talk) 07:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the source quotes displayed above by Cunard prove that there is ample coverage with which to build an article. Left guide (talk) 12:23, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lunchclub

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

Fails NCORP - only WP TRIVIAL and WP TRADES, no significant reliable non-trivial coverage in the secondary independent sources. WSJ only lists it among others (clearly not WP SIGCOV); Standard also lists it slightly among other apps - there is not clear deep coverage of the subject; Techcrunch - routine annoucnement; Fast Company - also WP:ORGTRIV Qivatari (talk) 07:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, The CNBC is a reliable source and has sigcov also I found this WP:FORBES article, which is good as it is written by "former staff"
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Seems to be confusion about what ORGRTIV entails as FastCompany dedicates nine paragraphs to the company in an article written by a journalist. CNBC is also reliable and the reference meets WP:ORGCRIT. So does this Business Insider piece and this from TechCrunch which is in no way a "routine announcement." --CNMall41 (talk) 07:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations, as the company has received substantial coverage in reliable, independent sources. Lunchclub is notable for its innovative use of AI to facilitate professional networking --Moarnighar (talk) 08:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like your second sentence is an unusual way to put it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:24, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spies Are Forever

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

Not notable. No significant coverage. No reliable sources. No continuance of performance. Only YouTube clips, Twitter, primary website and 2 reviews in non-notable media for initial small run. A lot of information about a very small production with very little sources. Maineartists (talk) 12:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Music. Maineartists (talk) 8:43, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Warwick Ventures

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

Low quality sourcing on the page, little else seen in good quality third party sources to show that this subject has notability outside of University of Warwick. Anything which has significance could be merged there. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and England. JMWt (talk) 09:14, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition the creator of the page is User:Warwickventures which would appear to have undisclosed COI issues. JMWt (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above; poor quality of sourcing, blatant disregard for COI, and egregious spamming. Bearian (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 08:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Diamond Garden Centres

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Loewstisch (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 13:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of WP:GNG and claim to WP:NCORP is none existent. Sources are 100% primary to the garden and its partners. It may be the largest garden chain but it clearly fails notability. Piscili (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the basis that industry pages for like (and smaller) garden centre operators do not appear to be subject to deletion discussion including British Garden Centres Notcutts & Bents Garden Centre. Outside of garden centre retail there are many other pages for retail businesses with a much lesser profile eg L&F Jones, Ugo (retailer) being a couple of examples. Asterixthegaul (talk) 05:02, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at WP:OTHERSTUFF. That argument won't pass muster here. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting from that link “ While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument; an entire comment should not be dismissed because it includes a comparative statement like this. ”

and

” In general, these deletion debates should focus mainly on the nominated article. In consideration of precedent and consistency, though, identifying articles of the same nature that have been established and continue to exist on Wikipedia may provide extremely important insight into the general concept of notability, levels of notability (what's notable: international, national, regional, state, provincial?), and whether or not a level and type of article should be on Wikipedia”

This specific article is written in a similar form to other articles on Garden Centre chains within the UK. Notoriety in this industry from examination of national news, appears to derive from commercial failure. Asterixthegaul (talk) 19:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no precedent. None of those have been through a deletion discussion. If you want this article kept, you need to focus on sources. We are looking for multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage as described in WP:CORPDEPTH. Are you aware of any? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The relevant subject specific deletion guidelines are WP:NCORP. Per WP:SIRS we need multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject that contain significant coverage of the subject at WP:CORPDEPTH. There are no such sources in the article. Anything with depth is from the company themselves, so not independent. Other sources that mention them, e.g. in the context of a National Trust press release [42] do not contain CORPDEPTH (and that is withoout consideration of whether a press release is independent). My searches have not found anything further, and no others have been presented at AfD. This does not meet WP:NCORP. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:06, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Symbiosis Law School. as an ATD. If editors want to Merge any content, it is there in the page history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Symbhav

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

Fails the WP:NEVENTS, a particular annual event of a law college Pinakpani (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Pinakpani (talk) 09:05, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 07:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 4 sources and all are poor. Source 1 has no coverage or even passing mention about the subject. Source 2 is deadlink. Source 3 has entry and Source 4 is a deadlink. No sources on the page with significant coverage to pass notability and this page also seems like promotion of an event held by law school students in Pune India. WP:PROMO. RangersRus (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: A poorly sourced article about a student campus event. Searches find notices and PR infused notes about the participants "zeal and fervour", etc. In the absence of clear evidence that this particular student event is of wider notability, a redirect to Symbiosis_Law_School#Student_life where this is mentioned would seem a reasonable alternative to deletion. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge to Symbiosis Law School.-KH-1 (talk) 23:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Bulbulay. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bulbulay characters

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

Fails WP:NLIST and is basically a WP:CFORK of characters already listed in Bulbulay main Wikipedia page. Only three characters are sourced and the references do not match the description provided (I will stop short of saying they are WP:FAKEREF). I would normally recommend a redirect as an WP:ATD but do not believe one would be needed here. CNMall41 (talk) 02:46, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Lists of people, Television, Lists, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 02:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as a standard WP:SPLITLIST of characters or redirect and merge to the main page if that seems feasible. (Note to "notability taggers": indicating the category (film, internet or in the present case television) puts the article on the radar of users willing to improve pages related to a given topic, whereas the "may not meet GNG" has it lost in an ocean of articles about other topics. Thank you) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, WP:SPLITLIST says when it is appropriate, not that it can be done despite notability. Must still meet WP:NLIST. Can you provide the sourcing that shows this? --CNMall41 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bulbulay: It doesn’t really need its own article; it could be merged into the parent article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:08, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Bulbulay: Should be just a heading within main article. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:30, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Beres

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

A PROD would certainly be rejected. A WP:BEFORE search turns little to nothing. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Video games. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 05:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, New Jersey, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: tentatively. The only reliable sources I identified under his YouTube name "Sambucha" is a Dot Esports piece on his involvement in the "Streamer Games" and a Tubefilter source briefly mentioning his content and listing him in the top 100 most viewed creators. If there were an extra piece or two that gave him more SIGCOV, I'd change my vote. But for now it's not looking too promising. PantheonRadiance (talk) 01:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. ✗plicit 14:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bulgarian exonyms

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

Indiscriminate unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, and Bulgaria. toweli (talk) 10:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could be worth keeping if it excludes obvious respellings. —Tamfang (talk) 23:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afrikaans exonyms) so Soft Deletion isn't an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taylor Corner, Indiana

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

According to Baker, an early post office, Now just a crossroads. Not a notable settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it was just a post office. 1958 USGS maps show just a couple of buildings scattered around the area, nothing that could be presumed a community: [43]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Sakazaki

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

Getting this out of the way: the article is huge, but FANDOM pages are also huge, that doesn't have anything to do with a character's notability. In this case, Ryo does not appear notable, and the article only reinforces how Dan Hibiki, the character who is a parody of him, is probably notable while Ryo is not. What is not primary-sourced development information or plot summary is sourced entirely to trivial mentions or listicles that mention him alongside all other characters, only indicating KOF characters are notable as a group. I appreciate the effort to improve the article but Boneless Pizza was likely correct to redirect it in 2023. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:52, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure it in reception to make sure it had a big impact not only in game journalists discussing him on his own in different countries. Also real people. There are cases of people reacting to his marketing, developers inspired by his story or involving him or simply how important was him being a guest character in Fatal Fury Special also inspired the creation of the fighting game franchise KOF.Tintor2 (talk) 21:08, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In case it helps, I added several new articles focused around him just now.Tintor2 (talk) 22:01, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are many articles on SNK characters (List of The King of Fighters characters), where I would struggle with notability. The recent additions don't show a significant change in notability. I think covering the character in an article together with SNK's other character would be more useful. IgelRM (talk) 20:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- 'Comment After talking with other users, I tried cleaning up the article by removing reviews and pointless revisions. Most of thecurrent articles are primarily focused on the characters and games narrative with the exception of his Mr. Karate alterego which is more rare so I used few previews for that. Furthermore, I have just found that the internet meme was far more popular worldwide and expanded on it. I also made sure to keep the only important Fatal Fury parts as Ryo's inclusion in FFSpecial is famous for inspiring the KOF franchise as well as guest characters. Same with his role in kof as I only placed articles focused on him and or team. I also changed the commentary of Dan Hibiki and how the company reacted to Dan's character by creating another parody character.Tintor2 (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, for now. There's definitely some potential for discussion regarding Ryo here, and I do feel there is some ground where establishing him helps Dan's article. But many of the sources I've looked through here just aren't saying anything or really next to anything and are mostly reviews. While I recognize the monumental effort I feel it needs a far tighter scope and a near nuke to boil down what's actually said about the character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:47, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against any removal of content but I think the current article passes the rule of best three:
The internet meme that has been so popular that has been part of an official mobile game.
Ryo is the first guest character in gaming history, inspiring The King of Fighters '94.
Dan Hibiki.

There is also all those other articles that aren't focused about gameplay or story, but critcize it like how Ryo's age makes no sense in Fatal Fury Special, his ridiculously unfiting built appearance from KOFXV, his rivalry appeal with Geese from XIV, etc. I agree content can be removed but deletion seems sudden.Tintor2 (talk) 21:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But what three sources do you feel hold up the article? It's not just concepts, but the sources themselves. So many of the things here don't even mention the character much or in passing, and those that do aren't saying really much at all. While I'm not saying there isn't something here, it's hard to see that in light of all this. So if you had to start from zero, what fistful of sources would you use as examples of it being notable?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 07:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge isn't going to work - this is enormous. (311kb!) If it's to be a redirect, please specify where.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:48, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'''Comment''' I rearranged the reception and removed most articles that are useless. There is only one review in a comparison the character has with Street Fighter in reception. The only paragraph that abuses a bit retrospectives is the small one of the middleaged persona. The Fatal Fury and KOF feature articles dedicated to the character they criticize his presentation, constant similarities with Ryu from Street Fighter, moves or role in the series. Tintor2 (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that most of the notability is around Dan Hibiki and the feud between game studios. There is some borderline coverage for the character outside that. I am torn because it feels mostly like context for why the character became the subject of the more notable parody in Dan. But I could be convinced to keep the page to provide a richer context of this as a separate character. Either way, this article needs a serious clean-up due to weight. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I feel the improvements made by Tintor2 justifies this to be kept. Does it need clean up? Sure, but it's not bad enough for a merge, or a TNT, for that matter. MoonJet (talk) 11:13, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 22:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Tintor2: Can you show me the three strongest sources in your opinion? - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 10:11, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we were to clean up the article it would be the bike meme, how his story inspired a Game designer to join SNK, and iconic was he being the first crossover character for Fatal Fury Special. There is also Capcom's response Tintor2 (talk) 10:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I mean is, can you show me the three links that demonstrate the subject's notability the best - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 07:58, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://prtimes.jp/main/html/rd/p/000000311.000028651.html

https://blog.playstation.com/2017/08/29/art-of-fighting-anthology-hits-ps4-today-the-origins-of-an-snk-classic/

https://www.gamesradar.com/exploring-the-legacy-of-fatal-fury-the-legendary-fighting-game-series-thats-returning-after-23-years/

https://www.4gamer.net/games/334/G033456/20190723069/ Tintor2 (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see it kept. But. PRTimes = press release reprint, so fails requirement for being independent (and even then what I see there would fail SIGCOV, those are just some passing mentions in list). Blog = well, blogs are not reliable. gamesradar - one paragraph, very borderline SIGCOV, just a comment on how his apperance was kept a secret as a marketing gimmick for one game at some point. The last source translates very badly, seems like some rambling gibberish - how is this reliable and SIGCOV? I am sorry, I want to see this kept, but those are not three best sources, they seem like three worst sources. Or if they are three best, I am sorry, but this is a trainwreck that I'll have to pile on and vote delete (well, redirect>delete). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:00, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went ahead following user's comments and trimmed the reception into the most important parts. I made paragraphs about how he was received in Art of Fighting , the meme, the cultural impact he has in Fatal Fury and gaming in general, and one paragraph solely focused on KOF and Mr. Karate's alter ego.Tintor2 (talk) 01:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tintor2 Can you show here at least two sources that meet RS and SIGCOV and cover those topics? Who talks about his cultural impact, for exmaple? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:02, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i already did above. If you want a scholar we have https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=Ryo+Sakazaki+snk&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1728298977936&u=%23p%3DkqAvHc1XJycJ Tintor2 (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY for the improvements made. I'm AGF'ing a bit, as so many of the sources are non-English. Jclemens (talk) 16:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deir Alla SC

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

A club in the fourth division, which places it in a non-professional league. The article is significantly lacking in secondary sources, aside from those pertaining to statistics and standard coverage. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. EpicAdventurer (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete for the reasons outlined in the nomination. BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 17:04, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. To provide some context, I plan on creating articles for Jordanian clubs that have participated in the Jordanian Second Division League, to which Deir Alla have in 2022. I set this as my limit, given that third-tier clubs and above participate in the Jordan FA Cup and there are no actively fourth-tier teams that participate in the national cup, unlike in some other countries. I don't plan on creating articles of teams that have only played in the fourth tier (i.e. the Jordanian Third Division League), as they are not notable enough to be discussed as an article.

As for the lack of "secondary sources", the vast majority of sources from that article comes from news articles that talk about the club. Zalata42 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Properly referenced to passes in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me - including if anyone can translate the ones currently on the article. Giant Snowman 18:03, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 16:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. This nomination has been withdrawn but I'm closing this as a regular Keep rather than a Speedy Keep to note that the consensus is to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Ann Raghanti

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

Biological anthropologist with an h-factor of 34 and no major awards, created on Oct 2 by a user with (currently) 30 edits. Page is a badly written stub without much information. She has a good career, but I am not convinced she is notable as yet. Page was tagged for notability by User:Ipigott on Oct 3 and I draftified it on Oct 4. Tags removed and page moved to mainspace on Oct 7; claim by original author that she is notable, with no further explanation, attempt to meet any of WP:NPROF or reach concensus. Only possible notability claim is as a co-author of an Ig-nobel prize paper. I am not sure if we consider that enough. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Brief ping of @Ipigott to ensure they get a notice. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I personally remain not convinced, particularly about AAAS. I remember being told by a very distinguished chemist who was NAS and an h-factor of 145 that nobody considered it that meaningful (he was FAAAS plus a large string of major awards). I also remain with reservations about the IgNobel. However, the concensus is clearly different so I am going to withdraw the nomination (if I can work out how to without more coffee). Ldm1954 (talk) 15:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Notability seems possible. Her CV lists multiple news stories (last 2 pages) that might prove notability. Two I pulled out quickly: Science article covering her research and written summary from an audio/radio interview on public radio. She's also an elected fellow of American Association for the Advancement of Science and has an article explaining why she was elected to AAAS on EurekAlert but originally posted on Kent University's site, but not self written. She is an Ig Nobel Prize Winner and last author usually conveys a larger part in the paper (although she isn't the corresponding author).

Cyanochic (talk) 03:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think Fellow of the AAAS is enough for WP:PROF#C3, her citations are at least enough to make a case for #C1, the IgNobel may not be a major award but it carries a lot of publicity, and she's had a fair amount of other publicity for her work: along with the sources listed above, here are a couple more in Smithsonian and Scientific American. Bad nomination and bad draftification, as many of these signs and sources for notability were already present in the draftified version. It was very stubby but not badly sourced for what it was. You'll be lucky if the article author persists in contributing here rather than getting bitten by your bad nomination piled onto a bad draftification and leaving the project forever. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree about Fellow of AAAS, that is not one that should ever count towards #C3. They elect ~500 per year from among people who have been paying dues. I also strongly disagree about her citations, by comparison to others in her field they are low - I checked, did you? She is in a medium citation field, and most of her well cited papers have more than 5 authors (sometimes far more) with her somewhere in the middle.

If you feel the Ignobel is major, then OK, that is your opinion but I do not particularly considering the topic. Some of the Ignobel papers are real science, some are a joke and not WP:Sustained. This one is a joke. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N. B., you may not know that composites where one of the components is ice is a high school/intro MSE experiment, e.g. Boeing link. (We used to do this as a lab demonstration in the intro to ceramics MSE class.) If you look at the Ignobel paper they say the knife melted, that should have been caught by a referee. The paper has decent news coverage (27) but only 14 cites. Ldm1954 (talk) 10:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Eppstein.--Ipigott (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AAAS fellow meets criteria #3 of WP:PROF. The AAAS names <0.4% of each section of the society as a fellow, which meets the "highly selective" criteria described in WP:PROF. DaffodilOcean (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. AAAS fellow looks a little less prestigious than e.g. IEEE fellow, but I think it's enough for NPROF C3. The citation record is solid enough to give some support, and the Ignobel looks to give some progress towards GNG for a possible combined notability case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator seems unaware of notability guidelines. I am concerned about their NPP actions. Could someone please re-review their actions? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A classic example of attempted retaliation by @TheBirdsShedTears because I tagged an article of his as being of unclear notability. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Voting criteria. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plurality criterion

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

Lack of notability. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Voting criteria and the "Compliance of selected single-winner methods" table in Comparison of voting rules. I found two more sources that mention the criterion. [44] p 58. Also mentioned [45] p 99. It seems like it may not meet WP:GNG, but the content of the article would be helpful there. McYeee (talk) 03:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objections to a merge. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that, as a second choice if we don't merge, I suggest we keep. The content is good, and the sources are at least marginal. McYeee (talk) 05:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Voting criteria as a viable ATD, per McYeee. Sal2100 (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Hawkman. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hawkman enemies

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

WP:OR without independent sources or any justification of the notability of the group. Fails other policies about what Wikipedia is not, like "Wikipedia is not a directory". Jontesta (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Hawkman in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE and send any redirects to that page to their respectful List of DC Comics characters pages. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rtkat3. We can WP:PRESERVE some bits of this even if the list isn't WP:NOTABLE. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of DC Universe locations#Limbo. as an ATD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:51, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limbo (DC Comics)

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

WP:BEFORE shows some very minor coverage that does not provide more than story details or existence. This does not pass WP:N. Jontesta (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree this does not pass GNG and I don't see a need to redirect anywhere. Limbo is too generic a place. Rhino131 (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The article currently contains one sentence of sourced commentary, and searches are not providing any other significant coverage. Outside of plot summaries, there is really nothing but brief mentions stating what the concept is. Rorshacma (talk) 00:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of DC Universe locations#Limbo There's at least one short, sourced comment here beyond "story details or existence". No reason to go against the WP:PRESERVE policy here, and the lone plot-summary sentence at the target can be improved with the information (including publication information) here. Daranios (talk) 10:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Harper's Island#Cast and characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Harper's Island characters

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

Article has no reliable sources and WP:BEFORE did not find WP:SIGCOV. I could contemplate a redirect to Harper's Island as an WP:ATD. Jontesta (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Harper's Island#Cast and characters - A full, detailed list of all of the major, minor, and guest characters of the short lived series already exists on the main article, making this a redundant and pointless fork. The only information that is on this list that is not already present on the main article are overly-detailed plot synopses that should not be merged, so a simple Redirect to the main page is sufficient. Rorshacma (talk) 15:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rorshacma. Already covered at main article, and this doesn't have WP:SIGCOV for its own article. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Deipnosophistae. Star Mississippi 01:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of the Deipnosophistae

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

WP:BEFORE finds that most of these are barely mentioned. Article describes itself as an "index" and "minor", making it difficult to obtain WP:SIGCOV. I would consider a redirect to Deipnosophistae and thought it was best to discuss WP:ATD. Jontesta (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 01:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the structure of the Deipnosophistae and the existence of Category:Lists of minor fictional characters, the page deserves to be preserved. It can be also enlarged in order to obtain Wikipedia:SIGCOV. The alternative is to add the content to the page of the Deipnosophistae. Digitalphilologist (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an argument to merge presented as a deletion discussion: the list is clearly relevant to the Deipnosophistae, and there is nothing wrong about treating it; the question is whether it should be a stand-alone list or part of the main article. Since the main article isn't that long, it seems perfectly feasible to merge this list there, without losing any of its contents—although perhaps it could be reformatted to make it take up less space (and if not, it's still better preserved there than deleted). If more content or discussion in secondary sources can be added, the list can remain separate, or be split off again at a later time. P Aculeius (talk) 14:08, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge cut down to main page. The characters seem an important aspect, and the main article is not long. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge selectively per PARAKANYAA. This doesn't have WP:SIGCOV, but the bits that are sourced can be WP:PRESERVED. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Beattie

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

Found no news articles on her. Only reliable mentions online are passing mentions from books about her role in the boy in the striped pajamas. Only sources this article had beforehand were Twitter and LinkedIn. Roasted (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United Kingdom. Roasted (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that the article fails WP:GNG. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 01:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO and GNG The sources are too poor Isha Sattar (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above discussion. I’m also not sure what weight should be given to the subject’s role in a film so notoriously and heavily criticized by scholars as “both-sides-ing” the Holocaust. It wasn’t the “big break” that the page claims it was. Bearian (talk) 02:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per G7. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Algarvian Portuguese

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

Attempted draftification, though perhaps the moving back into mainspace was unintended. I don't know what the notability standards for would be for a dialect, but it's actually been over an hour, no sources have been added, and the only source I could find on Google that was referring to the Algarvian dialect, and not Algarvian craft beer or the resilience of Algarvian culture was a blog post that was posted to a couple of websites. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Portugal. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn The republication in mainspace was, indeed, unintended. --I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 01:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator‎. Black Kite (talk) 12:24, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manisha Ganguly

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

I propose the deletion of this article as it fails to meet encyclopaedic standards. It contains numerous WP:NPOV violations and lacks reliable sources to support many of its claims. The content remains heavily influenced by original research and includes exaggerated statements about the individual’s achievements. Over the past two years, two users, one likely the subject herself, have edited the article. Earlier versions relied predominantly on interviews provided to non-reputable media outlets (not sure what the language is?), further indicating original research. The awards section seems designed to artificially enhance the subject's credentials, yet most of the claims cannot be independently verified, whilst the majority of the (notable) awards have been awarded for team effort. This includes journalistic pieces in which she has either contributed or claimed to have contributed, none of which can be definitively corroborated. Some of those are not reliable, others are mere contributions. As a result, the article is heavily based on unverified original research, and those involved in its editing may be breaching WP:COI. It’s also worth noting that the articles presented as the author’s original work, particularly on Gaza, are again contributions rather than pieces they’ve led. This raises questions about their WP: Notability. Previously, the language used in the article was highly self-promotional, with phrases like "exposed" and "uncovered," attributing investigative achievements to them that aren’t truly theirs. This one fails WP:SIGCOV. Finally, be mindful of potential input in this nomination from the subject and their associates. Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of this article is currently engaged in an online dispute and their page is being heavily edited, with this deletion request coming from an account who is politically motivated to try to delete the page. The subject clearly passes WP: Notability, and if there are issues with the page they should be improved, rather than the page being deleted. This deletion request looks vexatious to me, and part of a dispute about the journalist's work which is currently taking place on Twitter/X.--Jwslubbock (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This individual is journalist John Lubbock, who is closely connected to Manisha Ganguly and has a proven history of editing the page. John, could you please publicly confirm that you have no relation to Manisha Ganguly and that your contributions are not linked to WP:COI? Thanks. Happyaroundyoubabes (talk) 10:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Journalism, India, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 10:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For reference, here is the state of the entry before the nomination, an WP:SPA, cut a third of it. Innisfree987 (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Substantial WP:COI. The image added by user Fml657 at 11:21, 15 April 2022 says "Added image taken by me", yet on this website ( https://camri.ac.uk/blog/2021/04/13/manisha-ganguly-named-on-the-forbes-30-under-30-list-for-media-and-marketing-in-europe/) that same image says "Image provided by Manisha Ganguly". This shows that user Fml657 who has done the bulk of the contributions to the article is the subject of the article, indicating conflict of interest editing.
Likewise, the other major contributor to the page, Jwslubbock, is credited as the photographer (see filename/URL) on (https://blog.westminster.ac.uk/graduateschoolfestival/wp-content/uploads/sites/34/2022/03/Manisha-Ganguly-photo-credit-John-Lubbock-150x150.jpg), suggesting that a close connection is editing the page, again showing conflict of interest editing. Schwebebahn (talk) 11:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Schwebebahn (talk •contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The claim "user Fml657... is the subject of the article" is, based on the above, entirely without foundation, and illogical. The quite is ""Image provided by Manisha Ganguly", not "Image taken by Manisha Ganguly". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:29, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://ebbf.co.bw/speakers/dr-peter-j-middlebrook/

[1]