Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 8

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 07	December 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Yin-yang-style baguazhang

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Revirvlkodlaku, what did you think of the existing sources? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:19, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and China. Shellwood (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz, I'm not sure what there is to think. There are two hyperlinks, both of which are of Chinese text, and the rest are books. It's not clear to me how anyone can easily verify the content, but more importantly, this still seems like a rather small and obscure school of martial arts, and I don't think it warrants its own article. I think the topic should perhaps be redirected to Baguazhang. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 09:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Ai, Hu 艾虎 (2013). "田氏阴阳八卦掌探源及发展" [The Origin and Development of Tian's Yin-Yang Baguazhang]. 中华武术 [Chinese Martial Arts] (in Chinese).
  The article notes: "阴阳八卦掌，明末清初时，早在四川峨嵋山与青城山一带，碧云、静云两位道长所传。由田氏远祖田如銨始习阴阳八卦掌。在反清复明特殊的历史背景，阴阳八卦掌只在田氏族中秘密传承。传承序为鹏、利、富、海、山、回、克、子、金、川。"
  From Google Translate: "Yin-Yang Bagua Palm was passed down by Taoist priests Biyun and Jingyun in the Emei Mountain and Qingcheng Mountain area of Sichuan in the late Ming and early Qing dynasties. Tian Ruquan, the distant ancestor of the Tian family, began to practice Yin-Yang Bagua Palm. In the special historical background of the anti-Qing and restoration of the Ming Dynasty, Yin-Yang Bagua Palm was only secretly passed down in the Tian family. The order of inheritance is Peng, Li, Fu, Hai, Shan, Hui, Ke, Zi, Jin, and Chuan."
  The article notes: "为弘扬中华武术，田迴先生于上世纪60年代将祖传阴阳八卦掌始传外姓，1990年9月田迴所著《阴阳八卦掌·蟒形掌》一书由人民体育出版社出版，并列为中国武术协会审定的《中国武术文库》“拳械部”所属的“拳术类”，后又作为经典，被选录入《中国武术百科全书》和《中国武术拳械录》。"
  From Google Translate: "In order to promote Chinese martial arts, Mr. Tian Hui passed down the ancestral Yin-Yang Baguazhang to foreign surnames in the 1960s. In September 1990, Tian Hui's book "Yin-Yang Baguazhang·Python-Shaped Palm" was published by People's Sports Publishing House and listed as The "Boxing Category" belonging to the "Boxing Department" of the "Chinese Martial Arts Library" approved by the Chinese Wushu Association was later selected as a classic and included in the "Chinese Martial Arts Encyclopedia" and "Chinese Martial Arts Boxing and Weapons Record"." The book from Tian Hui:
  - Tian, Hui 田迴 (1995). 陰陽八卦掌 : 蟒形掌 [Yin Yang Baguazhang: Python-Shaped Palm] (in Chinese). People's Sports Publishing House [zh]. ISBN 978-7-5009-0508-0. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
2. 天津通志: 体育志 [Tianjin General History: Sports History] (in Chinese). Tianjin: Tianjin Academy of Social Sciences Press 天津社会科学院出版社. 1994. p. 71. ISBN 978-7-8056-3498-2. Retrieved 2024-12-02 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "芦忠仁(正文)近年献艺整理出版了《阴阳八盘掌》一书。阴阳八盘掌最显著的特点是,它的走转行动毫不停息,手法腿法步法身法变化多端,姿势时正时斜,时转时翻,时起时伏,并且各个动作组织严密,技法纵横游击,左右盘旋,大有冲锋陷阵威力。演练时,给人以强烈的艺术感和实战感。其器械套路较多,这里只记“八盘刀”、“八第一篇传统体育"
  From Google Translate: "In recent years, Lu Zhongren (text) compiled and published the book "Yin Yang Ba Pan Zhang". The most striking feature of Yin Yang Ba Pan Palm is that it moves around without stopping, its hand, leg, footwork and body movements are ever-changing, its postures are upright and diagonal, turning and turning, rising and falling, and each movement is tightly organized. , the technique is vertical and horizontal guerrilla, circling left and right, and has great charging power. During the drill, it gives people a strong sense of art and practicality. There are many equipment routines, here we only remember the "Ba Pan Knife", "Eight Pan Knife" and "Eight Pan Knife". The first traditional sports"
  The book notes: "阴阳八盘掌在清代也称“阴阳八卦掌”。此拳强调“八盘” (指人体的八个部位)的锻炼。因传授的人不同而变得多种多样。但在董海川以后,尹福和程廷华传授是主流。李振清前期弟子萧海波( 1863——1954 ) ,将此拳从民间传入清朝王府。萧的传人芦忠仁在津门潜心钻研,并向下传续了此拳,另有人称“醉鬼张三”的张长祯,与萧交往很密切,对萧述及所学的“内八卦'乾字门'拳法” (即此拳一支)"
  From Google Translate: "Yin-Yang Baguazhang was also called "Yin-Yang Baguazhang" in the Qing Dynasty. This boxing emphasizes the exercise of "eight pans" (referring to the eight parts of the human body). It varies depending on who teaches it. But after Dong Haichuan, Professors Yin Fu and Cheng Tinghua became the mainstream. Xiao Haibo (1863-1954), a former disciple of Li Zhenqing, introduced this boxing from the people to the royal family of the Qing Dynasty. Lu Zhongren, Xiao's descendant, devoted himself to studying in Jinmen and passed on this boxing to the next generation. Zhang Changzhen, also known as "Drunkard Zhang San", had a close relationship with Xiao and told Xiao about the "Nei Bagua" Qianzi he had learned. "Men'quanfa" (that is, this fist)."
3. Liu, Jun-xiang 刘峻骧 (1996). 东方人体文化 [Oriental Human Body Culture] (in Chinese). Shanghai: Shanghai Literature & Art Publishing House [zh]. pp. 107, 109, 115. ISBN 978-7-5321-1488-7. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The book notes: "《阴阳八卦掌》则以蟒形学为首,顺序是按后天八卦图的排列,分别狮形掌、虎形掌、熊形掌、蛇形掌、马形掌、猴形掌、鹏形掌等。但不管哪一派,都讲八方、八位、八掌型。其掌型分别为仰,俯,竖、抱、劈、撩、穿、挑。"
4. Hao, Xinlian 郝心莲 (1998). 中国武术百科全书 [Encyclopedia of Chinese Martial Arts] (in Chinese). Beijing: Encyclopedia of China Publishing House. p. 518. ISBN 978-7-5000-6087-1. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "《阴阳八卦掌》《中华武术文库·拳械部·拳术类》之一。田廻著。中国武术协会审定。 1990 年 9 月人民体育出版社出版。全书共分上下两篇, 8 册。上篇总论,主要介绍了阴阳八卦掌的源流、内容、特点、练习步骤、阴阳论等;下篇讲述蟒形掌等一至八掌的掌势套路练法和技击作用。第 1 册蟒形掌,第 2 ~ 8 册依次为狮形掌、虎形掌、熊形掌、蛇形掌、马形掌、猴形掌、鹏形掌。... 它与董海川所传八卦掌不同,实为八卦掌另一流派。该书材料翔实,图文并茂,文字简练,通俗易懂,便于自学,利于查阅。"
  From Google Translate: "The Yin-Yang Bagua Palm is based on the python form, and the order is arranged according to the post-natal Bagua diagram, including lion-shaped palm, tiger-shaped palm, bear-shaped palm, snake-shaped palm, horse-shaped palm, monkey-shaped palm, roc-shaped palm, etc. But no matter which school it is, they all talk about eight directions, eight positions, and eight palm forms. The palm forms are upward, downward, vertical, hugging, chopping, lifting, piercing, and picking."
5. Ren, Zhicheng 任致诚 (2001). 阴阳八盘掌 [Yin Yang Ba Pan Palm]. Jiaolong Library Ancient Boxing Manual Series 矫龙文库古拳谱丛书 (in Chinese). Vol. 2. Shanxi: Shanxi Science and Technology Press [zh]. Retrieved 2024-12-02 – via Google Books.
6. Tian, Keyan 田克延 (2005). "阴阳八卦掌基础套路八卦阴阳鱼" [Yin-Yang Bagua Palm Basic Routine: Bagua Yin-Yang Fish]. 中华武术 [Chinese Martial Arts] (in Chinese). No. 9. pp. 54–57. Retrieved 2024-12-02 – via CQVIP [zh].
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yin-yang-style baguazhang (simplified Chinese: 阴阳八卦掌; traditional Chinese: 陰陽八卦掌) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be nice to get a second opinion on these recently discovered sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Murdocks

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

There's reliable coverage from The Austin Chronicle, including this EP review, but most of it is very brief concert announcements. Outside of that, I couldn't find anything of value. Seems the band was prominent locally but never broke through outside of their city. It's at least a step above GARAGEBAND, but I still don't think it's enough. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Texas. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing that I can find, Gnews, newspapers and Gsearch. One story isn't enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep secondary album reviews in a number of sources, that are now cited in the article (since nomination). Coverage could be better, but enough to meet the WP:MUSICBIO bar. ResonantDis_tortion 00:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very slim coverage indeed, including one Austin Chronicle concert review in which the band only gets three sentences and is called "yet another underrated Austin band". That the Chronicle also gave an album review, as did AllMusic and Glide Magazine (about which there has been no discussion/consensus that I'm aware of), is promising, but it is the bare minimum at best. The other sources, Glorious Noise and Surviving the Golden Age, I've never heard of, and neither looks particularly promising. It's better than what I had initially, but I still don't think I see it. Perhaps if Glide got more careful consideration and proved out then this would be an easier call, but my mind hasn't changed yet. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, it is on the edge, but there is confirmed significant critical coverage from at least two independent reliable sources, and with multiple staff reviews in Glide magazine and the CMJ confirmed radio airplay I'm prepared to give benefit of the doubt and presume notability. Particularly as most of their works were c. 20 years ago which makes finding readily available sources a little more challenging. ResonantDis_tortion 10:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO by a long way. There is nothing there. It seems to be a fan response. scope_creep^Talk 08:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona Quimby

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

All of this is in-universe and no real world history, the sources do not help as they talk about the books or movies, not the characters. Toby2023 (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Undecided, but if the decision is not to keep, redirect to ~~Beverly Cleary, the author who created these characters.~~ Ramona (novel series), per Schazjmd below. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ramona (novel series). The barely-used NPR source[1] can improve the Ramona's characterization section in that article. (The NPR source is all about the character, but one source isn't sufficient for a stand-alone article.) Schazjmd (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Kushner. Johnj1995 (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in addition to the above, we have Zarrillo, J. (1988). Beverly Cleary, Ramona Quimby, and the Teaching of Reading. Children's Literature Association Quarterly 13(3), 131-135. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/chq.0.0067. which, excerpted, reads, in part...
"Cleary's Ramona, like so many kindergarteners, comes to school with three attributes that should lead to successful encounters with the printed word. She is eager to learn, she has extensive verbal ability, and she has a background with some literary works. Ramona "was a girl who could not wait. Life was so interesting she had to find out what happened next" (1968 11). She is familiar with fairy tales, and knows what type of books she likes. Mike Mulligan and His Steam Shovel (1939) is a favorite because it is "neither quiet nor sleepy, nor sweet and pretty" (1968 22). Ramona enters school expecting, from the first day, to learn to read and write. She learns, though, that she will spend a great deal of her time doing assignments which require her to sit quietly at her desk and complete a variety of skill-oriented exercises." Jclemens (talk) 07:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Basically nothing to merge (it's all plot), and while the two sources above could be used to support the series page they are not enough to base an entire character article on. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No one said they were. Two good sources means GNG is met, so no reason for deletion exists, so the AfD should be closed as keep and any discussion on merging should take place on the talk page--this is not Articles for Discussion, but Deletion. Two sources aren't all that exist, either, and it's puzzling that you would imply that only these two sources would be used to flesh out the character article. In fact, once notability is established, it's entirely fine to use primary sourcing appropriately in a fictional character article. Jclemens (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For fictional characters, especially eponymous ones, the notability is intertwined with the work and there is not enough here that is strictly independent from the parent work for there to be an article that does not violate WP:NOTPLOT. The suggested sourcing is not enough to counteract that. Even if it technically fulfills GNG, I would argue for there to only be one page per WP:NOPAGE given the main character of a children's work like this tends to be overlapping. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You make a valid point about eponymous characters, but I will note that even for eponymous franchises, we typically do have separate articles for the lead character: Veronica Mars vs. Veronica Mars (character), or Buffy Summers vs. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Ramona may not have that level of pop culture cachet, but again--there are probably more sources an interested party could use. Deletion is a last resort when editing cannot (not has not) fix a problem. The sources so far demonstrate that there are probably others, and, even if there are not, the plot can be trimmed appropriately, again through regular editing. Jclemens (talk) 06:28, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, wholesale deletion would be, but I don't think merging/redirection is as "last resort" as that - which is what I am proposing. I think content here would, at the current stage, work best as one page - even if it can be written to be better later, which I am unsure of but is possible - I think as it is now it would best serve the readers as one page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources given by Jclemens, showing GNG and notability. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 04:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge Ramona Quimby to Ramona (novel series)#Ramona's characterization per WP:NOPAGE. Neither article is long enough on its own to necessitate having separate articles (especially once some of the unsourced plot info is trimmed out of this one), and it makes the most sense to cover the series of books along with its titular character in the same article in this case. While its true that there are some cases we do have separate articles for a series/movie/etc and its titular character, I don't think the sources on Ramona herself are substantial enough where that would be necessary here, or would help readers get the information they are looking for. The Beezus Quimby article, which has been bundled in with this one, should be Procedurally Kept with no prejudice against renominating as its own AFD. As a main character in two separate notable book series (both the Ramona (novel series) and Henry Huggins article lists her as a main character), the same consensus for Ramona really can't be applied as part of the same discussion as Beezus, so this really should not have been a bundled AFD. I am pinging the previous participants to comment on the Beezus article as well, as it looks like they may have missed that this is a bundled AFD: @Metropolitan90, @Schazjmd, @Jclemens, @PARAKANYAA, @DaniloDaysOfOurLives. Rorshacma (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no issue with that as an editorial decision, but I do not think it should be considered an AfD-enforceable consensus. Per WP:PEREN#Rename AfD, we're not to be having nuanced discussions here, just deciding whether something should be deleted or not, which is why I think 'keep' is the proper outcome, and what you've proposed is an eminently sensible editorial call. Also, I have no opinion on Beezus, but absent a compelling reason to delete see no reason to. Of note, the nominator left Wikipedia after apparently deciding that AfDs weren't for them. Jclemens (talk) 18:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was aware that the Beezus Quimby article was included in this nomination, so I have no change to my comment above. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:44, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge per WP:NOPAGE. I am of the same opinion as PARAKANYAA that a better article might likely be written but is unlikely to be, and that the existing page's sources are inadequate and will overlap with the series article. As for it not being an "AfD-enforceable" issue, I am not familiar with this but from what I could find from quickly searching the archive this appears to be an unresolved issue Jclemens is involved in. I am not sure if such a large change is going to be resolved in a Ramona Quimby AfD... Οἶδα (talk) 23:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not unresolved. I advocated for a change in consensus; I lost. Thus, I am doing my best to advocate for the consensus as it stands now, which is that AfD is not supposed to be doing what it is here. Jclemens (talk) 04:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I do not exactly understand. Can you direct me to the page which contains "the consensus as it stands now"? It still sounds like a larger discussion being inserted into a smaller discussion. I understand how it is related, but I do not see how this is the appropriate avenue for that discussion. If consensus changed, why do guidelines such as those at WP:GD and WP:AFDFORMAT still offer "merge" or "redirect" as closure options? I see that WP:GDBN suggests nominators consider whether they actually want the article to be merged, expanded, or cleaned up rather than deleted. But it does not appear to state that, when a deletion discussion veers toward a merge vote, that it must be appropriately closed as kept, with discussion moved to the article's talk page. Forgive me if I am wrong, but that is my interpretation of what you have said. Οἶδα (talk) 09:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge per Rorshacma. I don't see coverage that really separates this from Ramona (novel series). I mainly see plot summaries that recap the story for the protagonist, or otherwise comment about the Rmaona novels more generally. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an absurd AfD, in part because the nominator has admitted that "I lied to you all, i didn't use WP:BEFORE, I just assumed it wasn't notable!", and in part because Ramona as a character is one of the best known in American 20th-century children's literature. (This is a little like someone nominating Harry Potter (character) for deletion, and I hate to reward a disruptive nominator.) OK, on to sources: We already have two solid ones identified by Jclemens and Schazjmd. We also have coverage of Ramona as a character by:
- Anna Katz's full-length book treatment, The Art of Ramona Quimby
- Jane Ross in The American Scholar
- Rachel Vorona Cote in Literary Hub
- Laura Vanderkam in the Wall Street Journal (also available via The Wikipedia Library for non-subscribers)
- Allison Hope on CNN
- Scaachi Koul in BuzzFeed
- Benson, Linda. “The Hidden Curriculum and the Child’s New Discourse: Beverly Cleary’s Ramona Goes to School.” Children’s Literature in Education, vol. 30, no. 1, Mar. 1999, pp. 9–29. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022477517959.
- Mackey, Margerey. "Ramona the chronotope: The young reader and social theories of narrative." Children's Literature in Education, v22 n2 p97-110 Jun 1991.

There's more, but that ought to be enough for keeping as a standalone page. Pinging "merge"/"redirect" !voters Shooterwalker, Οἶδα, Rorshacma, PARAKANYAA for commentary on the newly provided sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced. As is, there is nothing here, no one is going to write it, the article as is violates WP:NOTPLOT. This is not a reason for deletion, but it is a reason to merge/redirect if there is no useful content and the readers would be better served by one page. I also don't think some of these sources are very strong, or at least strong enough where the benefit is immediate given how overlapping these topics are - I disagree with the Harry Potter comparison, Harry Potter has an expansive world of lore and characters, this is not that. If someone who is really into this children's book series wants to write expansive articles, they can have at it, but no one is going to so for now this is the way to present it the best. Again, WP:NOPAGE. Not everything that passes GNG is presented the best as its own article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PEREN#Rename AfD, WP:NOPAGE discussions aren't appropriate for AfDs. Since we all agree that it's notable the question for AfD is what to do about it. Since there's nothing wrong with the article that can't be fixed via editing, forcing a merge or redirect from AfD is outside our remit. Besides, once a page is redirected, odds of it being improved, ever, fall dramatically. Jclemens (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that mergers or redirections are regular conclusions at AfD, that is not true. And I disagree on that last front, at least when it comes to fictional characters - especially ones that are in a state that is as unencyclopedic as this one is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You already said this above. Οἶδα (talk) 01:54, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - My recommendation was based on WP:NOPAGE, and I am afraid I still hold to that. In this specific case, it makes more sense to cover the discussion of the series and the discussion of the central character that the series is focused on and named for as same topic, as any discussion of one is inevitably also a discussion of the other. That is really demonstrated in the sources, since they are also largely covering the character and her series together. When there is not really any size concern going on, I do not see the benefit of making readers jump between two different articles that will have such an overlap in information just to get the full picture, when it could very easily be done as one decent length article. I honestly see this as a very different situation than a Harry Potter (character) page being separate from a Harry Potter franchise page, because the entirety of the Ramona series was about Ramona's characterization, her growth, her relationships with others. A comprehensive article about Ramona the character is also going to be a full discussion of the Ramona book series. A comprehensive article about Ramona the book series is also going to be a full discussion of Ramona the character. One section of WP:NOPAGE in particular states that it "in no way disparages the importance of the topic" when advocating to cover one topic as part of a broader discussion - it is simply about the best way to present information on that topic to the reader. Rorshacma (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ramona’s characterization is also heavily present in the Henry Huggins series; it’s not coterminous with the Ramona series. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:38, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by Tooncast

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

I would have draftified the article, but that has already happened and the creating editor reversed the move. At the moment, the article is a simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit. As an alternative to deletion, I would support re-draftification so that interested editors can source and reference it properly. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Latin America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 23:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 23:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that the context resides in the main article of which this is a standard SPLIT. Keep or merge back if size is not considered an issue; don't delete.-Mushy Yank. 23:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the case, it's not clear to me what list or article it has been split from. From its revision history, I do note that Tooncast has had many instances of very similar content added and then reverted as unsourced (on occasions citing WP:NOTTVGUIDE too) over the past year to the extent that page protection was requested. I don't know if the creation of this article is related to that activity. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No originally programming. No reason to list what every television channel in the world has on it at any given time. Not what Wikipedia is for. Dream Focus 12:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why? The programming, original or not, is of interest for the history both of the channel and of the broadcast of the said programs. In terms of navigation, the existence of categories (containing similar lists, that are very standard) is an excellent tool for the reader who wants to compare various channels' programs, for example. Or various channels from the same region/country, etc. How can one know what the channel is like if one does not know what they broadcast? -Mushy Yank. 21:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of old shows that have been on multiple channels over the years. Whatever company owns the rights to them now, just tosses them out on their channels as filler. Some of the shows listed are from the 1960's, and I seriously doubt many people watch them these days. Dream Focus 22:22, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Negative keyword

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

Poorly sourced article that fails WP:GNG. Encoded Talk 💬 15:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Documentation from Microsoft [2] and Apple [3] can be added to the references. The blog post reference can be removed. That makes room for others: [4] [5] [6].

Book references are also forthcoming: [7] [8] [9] [10]

The article is crap now, but it seems like it can be improved and the phrase is notable and common. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GM Modular

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

I don’t think this meets the WP:NCORP criteria, as it only has routine coverage and lacks significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. Baqi:) (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Baqi:) (talk) 15:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm only finding routine coverage, nothing significant. Surprising, sine it seems like a big enough outfit, but ... -- mikeblas (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Article may need to be TNT'd at most, but I am not entirely convinced that this company isn't notable. Not all sources in the article seem to be routine coverage to me. I'm willing to change my vote to delete if among the countless results yielded from a WP:BEFORE search, absolutely nothing that verifies notability can be found. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:25, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Beint

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

I don't see any significant coverage. Likely doesn't pass WP:NACTOR due to insignificant roles in films which are also difficult to verify due to the lack of reliable sources. Frost 15:45, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beint does meet WP:NACTOR, his role as Duke Frederick in As You Like It (1974) in Broadway is notable, first billed [11][12]. He also has a biography in the Cast Section in the Playbill website [13]. He also appeared in over 100 notable films and television programs, which there are definitely more significant roles he played out there. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 05:44, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the nomination. Everyone who appeared in a Broadway show is not thereby notable. This article lacks WP:RS citations and is fails WP:GNG criterion. I vote delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His Broadway role was actually the main character in the Broadway play As You Like It (1974). [14]. Nobody said "Everyone who appeared in a Broadway show is notable". MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aresu Rabbani

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of an activist, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for activists. As always, activists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third party media coverage about them and their work -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary source content on the self-published websites and/or social networking accounts of organizations directly affiliated with the subject, which are not support for notability.
There are just two hits of third-party media coverage shown here, of which one is clearly WP:GNG-worthy and one is debatable, but even if we grant the debatable one the benefit of the doubt it still takes more than just two GNG-worthy sources to get a person over GNG.
This may, further, be an WP:AUTOBIO, as it was created by a virtual WP:SPA named "AresuGeography", but people aren't entitled to create their own articles about themselves on here. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Afghanistan, and Switzerland. Bearcat (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This person is more than a casual activist and notable as a speaker at UNHCR. There are more appropriate third party sources that could be used to cite this person's work (such as this one or this one). Considering the importance of representing women's activism what about removing the information that you consider self sourced or dodgy and leaving it as a stub to be added to later? The concern WP:AUTOBIO is speculation and we can't confirm that. Nayyn (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources where she's doing the talking about other things don't help to establish her notability — we need to see sources in which she's being spoken about by other people. As important as improving our coverage of women is, we don't do that by exempting women from having to have proper WP:GNG-worthy sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there's lots of Facebook and interviews, but not significant coverage in secondary sources. Her association with UNHCR is at best, WP:NOTINHERITED, at worse, Association with Hamas. Bearian (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Student Room

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG or WP:NWEB. mikeblas (talk) 17:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Websites, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are mutiples articles are about the student room website from sources that WP:RS such as bbc, the guardian, and the times.

1keyhole (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plant perception (paranormal)

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

Withdrawn by nominator See my comments below. Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is no such thing as paranormal plant perception, this is not an independent field of research and the article is misleading as what the article describes is the "Backster effect". Most of the sourcing on the article refers to Cleve Backster. He is the only person in history to hold such ideas. The majority of this article is just citing Backster's experiments which is mostly duplicated material from his own Wikipedia article. There is a main article on plant cognition. I suggest that this article should be deleted and any information if needed in the "research" section of the article can be merged into Cleve Backster's own Wikipedia article which also contains criticism of his experiments. This article serves no purpose.

The two recently added single lines on the article about Jainism and Manichaeism are off-mission and belong on the plant soul article which is a religious belief. I suggest the article to be deleted and redirected to Cleve Backster. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yes, the nominated page is about stuff that is WP:FRINGE. But the pagename is the right name for that kind of stuff. On the other hand, the plant cognition page mentioned by the nominator is equally fringe. It makes the counter-scientific assumption that tropism and related kinds of plant responses to environmental stimuli are equivalent to cognition. For this reason, I believe that the nominated page should be kept, and a lot of rewriting is, instead, needed. Plant cognition should be largely merged into the page nominated here, rather than the other way around. Some parts of the cognition page are actually based on real physiology, and should be merged, instead, into the physiology page (and any non-scientific stuff there should be relocated in the opposite direction). So, while I agree with the nominator that we do not need both the paranormal and the cognition page, the one that should really be deleted (well, actually, just made into a redirect via a merge) is actually the cognition page. The paranormal page should be kept as the page that covers the various counter-scientific ideas that have been promoted over time. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that all this type of fringe content related to plant intelligence or "plant neurobiology" needs its own article away from the mainstream plant physiology article on perception. That is why I expanded the plant cognition article which unfortunately has the wrong title. All the WP:RS refer to the this fringe field as "plant intelligence" not plant cognition. I would support merging Backster's content on this article into the plant cognition article which should be renamed plant intelligence. The "plant intelligence" field is supported by botanists and philosophers such as Tony Trewavas, František Baluška, Stefano Mancuso, Peter V. MInorsky and Paco Calvo and is supported by plenty of reliable sourcing. However, there is no reliable references calling their research "paranormal". What they are promoting is definitely fringe but it isn't paranormal. Psychologist Guy (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are making some progress towards consensus now, thanks. We seem to agree about a 2-article solution, and the question comes down to the pagename for the one that isn't Plant perception (physiology). I think there's a reasonable logic, based on WP:COMMONNAME, to go with "intelligence" as the catchall. But instead of deletion, I'd prefer to keep the other names as redirects. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We now have an article plant intelligence, I suggest as stated above that this article be merged and redirected into plant intelligence. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we now have no objections to merging, as opposed to deletion, would you consider withdrawing the AfD? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes no objections from me, I can withdraw this afd and we can get round to merging any content. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please do. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FireHOL

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

Fails WP: GNG. FireHOL maintains a dataset of malicious IPs which a couple studies use, but this article is about a firewall configuration tool that doesn't have any significant coverage. For this reason, I think the article should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:06, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe keep. Google books and google scholar seems to have a number of books and journals on cyber security, network forensics, ransomware, etc. discussing FireHOL. I confess it is too technical for me to evaluate the sources, but I do think the volume of coverage suggests this is a notable topic.4meter4 (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for voting. I'm not sure if you read the AfD rationale, but there is some literature about a dataset that an organization called "The FireHOL Project" maintains. Those sources will appear in searches but aren't actually about the subject, a configuration tool that (confusingly) is also named FireHOL. (If this doesn't make any sense to you, consider that it's very common for organizations to release products whose names are identical to that of the organization creating them. For example, people commonly refer to "Google Search" as just "Google".) I understand that you don't feel comfortable evaluating the sources you found, but this is why we don't keep or delete articles based on how many WP: GOOGLEHITS they return. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. That’s why I said maybe. What I don’t want to see is a soft deletion. We need some editors who can tackle the subject matter competently to participate given the potential pool of sources out there.4meter4 (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I figured that someone was going to dePROD this if I went through the proposed deletion procedure anyway for the reasons you're describing. Thanks for your input. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the IP dataset is notable Andre🚐 03:04, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What should we do then? Are you suggesting we rewrite the entire article to be able to the dataset instead of the configuration tool? HyperAccelerated (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bandidos MC support clubs

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

Only a few of these have their own articles, and the rest of them are cited mainly to their own webpages. As Wikipedia is not a directory, I recommend this article be deleted due to the list not having a claim to notability. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 18:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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!} 01:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Wandu Bimo

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

BLP with self published and unreliable sources, mixed with fake citation that does not support most of what is written on the article, and what is factual is from a self-published source. As for notability, does not meet any of the notability criteria for a musician FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Sudan, and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. A quick google search shows no significant or reliable secondary sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject per WP:SIGCOV — most mentions are trivial or from primary sources, which don't help establish notability. Per WP:BLPSOURCE, "When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources", which just isn't the case here. The article feels like it was written by someone close to the subject, and it's full of unreliable citations, some of which do not even verify the claim it was meant to cite. ZyphorianNexus (talk) 16:30, 9 December 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.

Giacomo Milano

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted article which was recently recreated with no significant improvements. Clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rizzler

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

Pure WP:BIO1E. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, United States of America, and New Jersey. UtherSRG (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support: people will probably forget about him soon and there's not much information about him other than him being "The Rizzler" Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's not a valid reason for deletion. C F A 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Rizzler is simply notable and has received mass media coverage from reliable sources such as Vulture, NBC, and The Express Tribune. No single event defines him and his influence, and some work on the article could create a decent page. If you had, perchance, made an article on Jersey Joe or Cousin Angelo, then I would be inclined to merge the articles, but the Rizzler is separate from the also highly influential Costco Guys. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 05:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What "one event" is he notable for? C F A 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is stretching. He may not be notable per se. But he also isn't even notable for an event I don't think. He's just a TikTok famous meme kid. Andre🚐 23:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NBASIC. I see no reason why WP:BIO1E would apply. C F A 23:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not exactly sure how they cover WP:BIO1E. It appears the child does cover WP:BIO based on the current sourcing. Although I do doubt Betches as a source, the others in the article do fine. The interview with Jimmy Fallon was an event, but he's been famous for a while. Conyo14 (talk) 04:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant coverage in reliable sources, so the general notability guidelines have been met. Dream Focus 12:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with frequent collaborators A.J. & Big Justice until enough content is available to justify a separate article. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Costco Guys per Skywatcher68 Andre🚐 02:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is acceptable. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with A.J. & Big Justice. Both colloborate frequently - and there is not enough content for a seperate article to be justified. The AP (talk) 17:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Puk Kun Pal

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 23:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:33, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My Occurrence

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

This is just another poorly written episode article that is mainly plot with a small review section. These kind of articles might have been good 10 years ago, but new episode articles should need more to them than just a review section. Gonnym (talk) 21:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but you deleted half an article and then restored redirect saying it's mostly has plot.

The episode is often cited among the best Scrubs (TV) episodes, it has significant coverage.

"mainly plot with a small review section" - three paragraphs of plot, three paragraphs of reception. BilboBeggins (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Scrubs season 1#ep22. I'm usually in favor of keeping articles with only reviews as secondary coverage, but a single review in The A.V. Club and brief mentions in listicles such as IGN isn't enough. (This doesn't count as a significant review – my general rule of thumb is that sites or authors should have their own article to provide a significant review.) A redirect is best as episode titles are reasonable search terms. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I of course have no problem with keeping the title as a redirect. Episode titles are always valid search terms. Gonnym (talk) 09:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. There is enough significant coverage of episode in various reliable sources.

First, "article is mainly plot" was never valid argument for deletion, we need coverage. Second, it is now no longer true, the review section is roughly the same amount of words. BilboBeggins (talk) 17:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jadin Kingi

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this rugby player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was four sentences of coverage here and this routine transfer announcement which looks very much like a blog. JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, Italy, and New Zealand. JTtheOG (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In less than 3 minutes I found these reliable sources here, here, here in addition to those in the references in the article and those mentioned above. The first source referred to above is more than four sentences and the second one is informative, contains more info than a routine transfer announcement and the publication is a local/regional news site, not a blog. I'm sure if someone invested some time in this article, it could be improved and expanded into something containing more information & references. The sources are there. Unfortunately, my to-do list is already quite long, so it won't be me. Ruggalicious (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table: prepared by User:JTtheOG**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.nprugby.it/una-seconda-linea-neozelandese-per-il-mogliano/	Identical reproduction of this press release.		Routine transactional announcement.	✘ No
https://www.teaonews.co.nz/2019/03/28/kingi-getting-ahead-by-going-backwards			Fails WP:YOUNGATH as routine coverage of his amateur athletic career.	✘ No
https://www.steelers.co.nz/community-rugby/latest/news/jadin-kingi-signed-to-pic-steelers-academy.html	Press release from his club.		Routine transactional announcement.	✘ No
https://www.lapiazzaweb.it/news/sport/342279/il-grande-ritorno-di-jadin-kingi-in-biancoblu-coach-caputo-un-elemento-che-fa-la-differenza.html			Four sentences of independent coverage of the subject.	✘ No
https://notizieplus.it/jadin-kingi-al-mogliano-rugby/	Nearly identical reproduction of this press release.	?	Routine transactional announcement.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Aside from these, all four refs currently present in the article are from non-independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 03:58, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Association of Professional Landmen

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

Purely promotional article with only primary sources; the current version of the article is already a cut-down version of even more promotional material seen here: Special:Diff/755821962. Could find no secondary sources on Google LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. LR.127 (talk) 14:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:52, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Landman (oil worker) - These two are essentially saying the same thing about the subject matter. We don't need two articles on the subject. — Maile (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has enough secondary sources to prove notability. I'm against merging. This is about an organization, not about the career itself. Rublamb (talk) 07:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More analysis of specific sources in light of WP:NORG would be helpful in ascertaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alessandro Ortombina

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

Non-notable Italian rugby player who fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found was this. JTtheOG (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 22:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When You Wake Up

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

Other than the Pitchfork review and the Fader interview, there doesn't seem to be other sources about this album. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV and WP:NALBUM. Frost 21:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Found no additional coverage beyond some announcements; certainly not enough for notability. No apparent redirect target at the moment; there is a draft article for the artist, but it doesn't look promising at the moment. If it does turn around, then recreating this as a redirect to Molina (singer) would make sense. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 22:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or draftify. It's not looking good at present, but I wouldn't assume it can't be improved. It cites five sources, four of them twice each: 1/7 and 6/8 are by the same Emma Madden, so if they qualify as independent, they're still only one indepedent source. 2/3, 4 and 5/9 are all based on interviews with Molina, and so not independent. Maproom (talk) 22:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Need a lot of better sources to gain notability. Ahri Boy (talk) 00:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Between this and the draft article for this artist, I think there might be nearly enough for a decent article about the artist. The author would do well to keep to an encylopedic tone and use proper referencing though. -- D'n'B-t -- 18:34, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. I agree with above; While I don't think the album warrants its own article due to lack of WP:SIGCOV, I think this could be incorporated into the draft about Molina (though some work needs to be done to get that draft up to standard). Beachweak (talk) 11:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No Bragging Rights

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

Keep due to non-English sources mentioned now. I was only looking for English sources in WP:BASIC search as one can't realistically search for things in every plausible language out there. I am seeing no indication of notability. The article is almost entirely based on primary sources from the band's own social media materials without citation as well as citations to their record labels. AMP doesn't offer much of anything other than asking interview questions. Coverage on allmusic is very thin. Additional search finds no sigcov in reliable secondary sources.

The article was created by a single purpose one time account, so it may have been created for promotional reason. Graywalls (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and California. Graywalls (talk) 21:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't sweat it too much, a lot of the sources that others found (English and non-English language) didn't easily turn up for me, either. I think Google custom tailors results too much now, I've seen if I search for something repeatedly, sources will even disappear from results. It's frustrating.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snow Keep: They charted at number 2 on the Heatseekers and thus meet NBAND special notability guidelines. AllMusic and Kerrang! coverage is probably enough to meet GNG, and that plus the charting highly suggests there is more sourcing out there.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 01:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, as I suspected, there's more. [15], [16], [17], [18]. Thus satisfies GNG in addition to NBAND.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 02:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a clear WP:MUSIC pass, and even if it were created by a promotional account, notability is independent of that fact. Chubbles (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, also The Music (magazine) [19] Visions.de [de] [20] Ox-Fanzine [21] Metal.de [22] etc. Geschichte (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep band meets WP:MUSICBIO per above sources. ResonantDis_tortion 16:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

\

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

The result was delete‎. WP:SNOW. No way this is surviving, and as a non-event there is nothing to redirect. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syrian Air Flight 9218

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

Whole article is a WP:CRYSTALBALL. There is no reliable source stating that this plane crashed, nor that it had anything to do with Assad at this time. If information emerges in the future to support either of those conclusions then by all means it can be recreated at that time, but right now its an article about a plane dropping off ADS-B tracking, something relatively common. EoRdE6^(Talk) 19:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Aviation, and Syria. EoRdE6^(Talk) 19:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Assad has now been confirmed to be in Moscow, which means it's fairly certain he was not on this plane. Unlikely to have any lasting significance. Ping me if sources are found that suggest otherwise. Toadspike [Talk] 20:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping someone would nominate this for deletion, to save me the bother. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:19, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Assad is alive but the planes whereabouts are unknown, perhaps it's entirely a hoax Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 20:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong redirect unless any of this is verified. The article literally states this may be a hoax, and it's better in an article about Assad or his disappearance - the flight as it stands today is non-notable beyond the context of Assad's absence. Departure– (talk) 20:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Assad was basically confirmed to not be on the plane, if the plane is still confirmed I think the article should be kept, if Also the crash Is denied then delete SignorPignolini Talk 20:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's been nearly a day. We would have known by now if a large plane had crashed somewhere. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete – Unless there is further verification of something notable happening to this plane, this is just a minor aviation occurrence with no WP:LASTING effects. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 20:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the guy above me says something as large as an IL76 would have been found by now. plus redditor’s found an airfield near where it “disappeared” if its anywhere it’s likely there or in allied nations like russia or iran Rocketproppeled (talk) 21:01, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I understand that there is a rush to be the first one to create articles on news items, but Wikipedia is not a news site, and this is barely even news. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is idk 207.161.210.19 (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator Michail (blah) 22:08, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CRYSTALBALL, no WP:LASTING impacts likely. Given the amount of times its been linked to off-site, no prejudice against being re-created as a redirect once we actually know something. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is absolutely nothing to prove that it “crashed” besides flightradar showing it lost altitude, and nobody has reported to anyone that a plane crashed. Smokymcpie001 (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. CapitalSasha ~ talk 22:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete The entire section of the article violates WP:CRYSTAL, as it speculates on future events without sufficient evidence. Since it is clear that the Syrian dictator has fled to Moscow, the article should be considered for deletion. HurricaneEdgar 22:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ наб (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is a file

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

Not notable enough on its own, each system (class of systems) reinterprets this in its own way so there's not much to write that's general enough to be true and not overgeneralised to be meaningless, and the current talk page is awash with confusion as the principle that was roughly true for UNIX clashes with modern systems. This is more of a slogan than an actual principle (also see talk page). This should be Redirected to Unix philosophy or Device file or removed outright. наб (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator. Thank you for your input. I'll try to rewrite this article in a way that will be satisfactory to all. наб (talk) 15:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's certainly notable. Deletion on the basis of 'this article version isn't good enough' is not a good reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While I think some work could be done (judging from the "reliance on primary sources" maintenance message), I would say this is notable and has a good amount of coverage. Beachweak (talk) 11:22, 10 December 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.

Anders Jallai

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

WP:BLP of a writer, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:AUTHOR. As far as his writing goes, the only attempt at a notability claim here is that his work exists, which isn't automatically enough in and of itself -- writers have to show that they pass WP:GNG on significant third-party coverage and analysis about their writing, not just use ISBN and Libris links to verify that their work exists. And the other attempted notability claim here is that he led a search for a missing plane, which wouldn't be "inherently" notable without a GNG-worthy depth and volume of coverage about that either.
But for sourcing, what we've got here is one deadlinked directory entry that isn't support for notability at all, and one deadlinked (but recoverable via Wayback) National Geographic article that briefly glances off Jallai's involvement in the plane search without being about him in any non-trivial sense, which thus isn't enough to magically vault him over WP:GNG all by itself. And while the Swedish interlang is longer and features more referencing than this, it's still based mainly on primary source directory entries that aren't support for notability, alongside a small smattering of more short blurbs about the plane search that also briefly mention Anders Jallai without being about him, so that article also doesn't have sources that could just be cut and pasted over to salvage this.
As I don't have access to archives of Swedish media coverage, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who does have such access can actually find enough substantive coverage to salvage the article, but nothing in it is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have more and better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Sweden. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Catalina affair#Recovery, the WP:ONEEVENT for which he is notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:49, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Passes WP:AUTHOR, recipient of H. M. The King's Medal which shows notability. Herinalian (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Awards don't clinch notability if your source for the award is the self-published website of the award. Since an award has to be notable in its own right before it can make its winners notable for winning it, the source for an award claim has to be media reportage that treats the award presentation as news, in order to demonstrate that the award is notable in the first place. And that's even more the case for general honors that can be presented to absolutely anybody for absolutely any reason, as opposed to being a defined awards program for achievement in a specific domain like literature or film. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete per G11 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Anahit saribekyan

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

User autobiography - no strong notability; lacking any sources except one. Synorem (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Dance. Synorem (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted by admin Jimfbleak about an hour after this was posted here. — Maile (talk) 20:14, 8 December 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.

SEAMLEXITY

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

No sign of notability. Included maintenance tag for promotional tone. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Engineering. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi @KEmel49

I believe this article meets notability guidelines due to SEAMLEXITY's significant contributions to computational design and BIM in the AEC industry. Projects like the OVAL or this one (local news) or this one (Cyprus Chamber of Engineers) are referenced in notable publications and media. It is also referenced in EEN network . I already added some citations in the WIKI and will assist in editing the article further more to ensure neutrality and compliance with Wikipedia standards Odysseasgeorgiou (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also https://scholar.google.com/scholar?start=0&q=%22SEAMLEXITY%22&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5 Odysseasgeorgiou (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find any independent significant coverage of this firm; doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Looking at the most recently added refs and the links mentioned above, they consist of brief mentions in the context of projects, and content authored by the founder. Schazjmd (talk) 16:09, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. Based on further research, I would like to highlight several points that demonstrate SEAMLEXITY’s notability and compliance with WP:NCORP guidelines.

=== 1. Significant Independent Coverage ===

SEAMLEXITY has been the subject of significant independent coverage in reputable sources, demonstrating its contributions to computational design, digital fabrication, and architecture:

Georgiou, M., & Georgiou, O. (2023). METASCAPES | Architectural Quests in the Metaverse. Published in Architecture and Digital Commons. This paper investigates computational design tools and workflows for creating metaverse content, prominently referencing SEAMLEXITY’s methodologies.

Available here.

Ahmed Fouad, S. M., & Mandour, A. (2021). The Development of Islamic Architectural Elements Using Parametric Algorithms. Published in Engineering Journals. The paper discusses SEAMLEXITY's ZEBRA plugin for Rhino, which is used for facilitating digital design and fabrication.

Available here.

Georgiou, M., Georgiou, O., & Fereos, P. (2021). X-MAX | A Digitally Fabricated, Component-Based, Scrap Metal Assembly. Published on ResearchGate. This work documents outcomes of a computational workshop focused on non-Euclidean geometries, emphasizing SEAMLEXITY’s contributions to digital fabrication.

Available here.

To Agnosto Mnimeio: A Design Honoring the Heroes of Mari. SigmaLive (2021). The article highlights SEAMLEXITY's role in the design of the memorial monument for the Mari heroes.

Available here.

SEAMLEXITY's Contribution to Architectural Design. ETEK Journal (June 2022). Published in the Technical Chamber of Cyprus Journal (ETEK), this article explores SEAMLEXITY's innovative design methodologies and their impact on complex architectural projects.

Available here.

=== 2. Significant Contributions to Industry ===

SEAMLEXITY has made tangible contributions to the AEC industry through its innovations in computational workflows and parametric design:

ZEBRA Plugin: A notable tool developed for Rhino, enabling advanced Moiré animations and parametric design, presented at the eCAADe International Conference in 2018.

Citation: Georgiou, O., & Georgiou, M. (2018). ZEBRA | Computing Moiré Animations. eCAADe RIS Proceedings. Available here.

These sources provide in-depth and independent analyses of SEAMLEXITY’s methods and innovations, supporting its notability. 83.168.54.222 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2d source is a brief mention ("“ZEBRA”, a plug-in for Rhino developed by the Cypriot company “Seamlexity”, is implemented to facilitate the design and digital fabrication processes) The 4th source is about the monument, not the company. The others are authored by Georgiou and are not independent. Schazjmd (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vimukthi Dushantha

AfDs for this article:

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

Still no sign of notability nor significant coverage. Cutlass ^Ciera 17:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sure why we're doing this again - nothing has changed except the subject has apparently paid for more blackhat SEO nonsense. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 17:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Sri Lanka. Shellwood (talk) 17:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I came across this tagged for speedy, but the article is significantly more developed than that version, so I was forced to decline. That said, I was in the process of nominating this myself when I saw User:Cutlass already on it. I'm not seeing anything indepth applied to the page, and my reasonable BEFORE doesn't show much. I get all kinds of COI vibes from this version. Why are we doing this again? Because by deleting it by consensus twice, it will be far more difficult to resurrect it ever again. BusterD (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vimukthi Dushantha meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for public figures due to his significant contributions to journalism, activism, and media in Sri Lanka. Articles in credible sources like Daily Mirror, Al Jazeera, and Right to Life Lanka extensively discuss his work. I propose improvements to the article to further address notability and sourcing concerns. 212.104.231.215 (talk) 21:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG or WP:JOURNALIST.The awards he's won aren't significant to pass WP:ANYBIO.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG, The subject lacks sufficient coverage by independent and reliable secondary sources. Baqi:) (talk) 09:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and the his claim Info Sri Lanka, a prominent news website is a fabrication. The site functions as an aggregator of news links from various news websites in Sri Lanka. – NirvanaToday^t@lk 18:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You talking about infolanka (https://www.infolanka.com/news/) website, not Info Sri Lanka (www.infosrilanka.lk) Rawanasinghe (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then, that's even worse. There aren't any website showing up when I visit that link. https://web.archive.org/web/20240823123803/https://www.infosrilanka.lk/ – NirvanaToday^t@lk 11:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fail WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV other than indirect references. Therefore does not meet WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO criteria. Fail WP:SNG as well. There are no verifiable sources to back up the intro (Vimukthi Dushantha is a Sri Lankan social activist, journalist, writer, and entrepreneur). QEnigma (talk) 10:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kepler-1047 c

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

Non-notable exoplanet, the bibliographies of exoplanet.eu and NASA Exoplanet Archive only show database coverage about it. Fails WP:NASTRO. Might be redirected to List of exoplanets discovered in 2016. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I'm no expert on this topic, but is the following statement run-of-the-mill for exoplanets, or is it something exceptional: "The planet has a fast year of just 3.2 days. It is not far from its star, but only 0.0434 astronomical units from its parent star."? Athel cb (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Athel cb, I have been through the references and surprised to see that none of them mentioned the text The planet has a fast year of just 3.2 days. It is not far from its star, but only 0.0434 astronomical units from its parent star. Also searched the web about that and realised that it's not something extraordinary. Meanwhile the NASA website stated about that Planet[23].––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just found more exoplanets with such info, TOI-2109b, Kepler-78b, K2-137b. Mentioned all could prove that the stated sentence about that specific exoplanet was just a run-of-the-mill.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have quite a lot planets with such low orbital periods, so they are not individually notable. This is not a very remarkable charateristic that is not seen in any other planet. 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a bit unusual in that it's an Earth mass planet orbiting very close to a Sun-like star. There's probably an interesting story in how it got down to that orbit. Perhaps a migrating gas giant that has been stripped of its atmosphere? Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any studies so it's not notable at this point. Praemonitus (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile development framework

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

Cruft-magnet - unsourced and out of date list containing original research. Long tagged as such and nothing has been done to address the issue. Doesn't look as if there's anything of value to preserve by moving to other articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Stephenson

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 14:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - there's some coverage that appears to indicate Stephenson is at least regionally notable, like this from the Newcastle Chronicle, and this in same, as well as coverage in Malvern Gazette of his business ventures outside of the sport, but it's nothing incredible. I do think WP:3SOURCES is met, just about. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:55, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 15:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lock

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

I Googled the guy and could find basically nothing. As far as I can tell this topic does not meet the WP:SIGCOV criteria. Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't searched for sources yet, he might not be notable, but this doesn't seem like someone for whom searching google would be a very effective way of searching. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? Where could we expect to find significant coverage of him? Surtsicna (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Books, old news articles for the region, the like. Google is bad for people like this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Archdeacons are not inherently notable and my search of sources show the subject doesn't meet WP:GNG. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 03:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Unlike bishops, archdeacons are not automatically notable. I looked at Google books, and there seems to be more references to a different person with a similar name and to a canal feature, rather than him. Please ping me if you find anything more. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Toppling of Bassel al-Assad's statue

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

Contested PROD: the reason provided for the proposal was "There is absolutely nothing significant about this article. Does not change a thing about the circumstances of the Syrian Civil War." JJP_{Mas_ter} (she/they) 14:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Bad justification reason but the article does fail to demonstrate why it needs its own article. Just redirect to Battle of Aleppo (2024) Rambling Rambler (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, it's not that significant, a redirect to the Battle of Aleppo article should suffice. – Nar 2608 – 14:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support not worthy of a stand alone article. ByteBaldur (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the article about the battle, I don't think his brother is as notable, Bashar was the leader of the country, this person wasn't. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect:it should be redirected to the battle, bashar's brother wasnt the leader of the country Codonified (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Who is going to search for this? Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article title has been moved to Toppling of Assad regime monuments, which still doesn't need to exist. Relevant content can be merged into Fall of the Assad regime. Tad Lincoln (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was the editor who put the notability tag on the article and the article still fails WP:GNG and the sourcing is only videos and no actual independent sources in the article. Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I disagree about the redirect. I seriously doubt readers will want to look up the toppling of this statue amongst the other things happening during this time. Conyo14 (talk) 04:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Fall of the Assad regime. No reason for merely a redirect as "Toppling of Bassel al-Assad's statue" is an unlikely search term. Wellington Bay (talk) 00:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Fall of the Assad regime. It's notable enough to be covered but not enough to have its own article, at least not yet. Charles Essie (talk) 20:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Róbert Glenda

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

He has never played at professional level and disappeared for over ten years as far as I can tell. The only source I found is a brief mention on Nitra Dnes24. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: There are several website hosted this player at player profile section. see besoccer com, eurosport.com and transfermarkt.co.in.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 16:02, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Irrelevant, they are databases (and Transfermarkt in particular is non-RS). Giant Snowman 15:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
True. I would never use database as reference to footballers. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. All that came up in my searches were passing mentions (1, 2, 3). Of course, the databases linked above do not contribute to WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sino-Kannauj War

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

A mere raid that has been vaguely stretched into a War article. RSes do not refer to it as "Sino-Kannauj War", full of WP:HOAX. The article clearly fails to establish WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 10:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 12:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:@HistoryofAryavart Why there cant be a article? And better check sources and it has a coverage in sources a mere raid doesnt mean it cant have a article and what hoax? whicj info is wrong this Afd seems to based on your POV theres quit ample content for a article title can be changed. Also the theres literally a newsarticle over this in references this suggests that its quit notable.

Edasf«Talk» 12:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC) Edasf «Talk» 12:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing about notability you completely ignored that its even listed at China-India relations article dont think a non notable thing would be listed here. Edasf «Talk» 13:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not how it works. News articles and blogs are not RSes please go through WP:MILNG and WP:RS. I have checked all of the cited sources and non of it explicitly describes "Sino-Kannauj War". The issue of HOAX and GNG still remains unless the article is backed by reliable source that can corroborate to the topic and not some attack or raid. Garudam ^Talk! 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 13:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofAryavart Newsa article isnt only source there and there are also books who are definitely RS by Reliable authors and I have moved page Edasf «Talk» 13:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing to be found about "Sino-Kannauj War" in the sources, quote the sources explicitly mentioning this event. And please do not move the article while the Afd is going on. Garudam ^Talk! 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 13:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heres one Prabhod Chandra Bagchi (2011) "The very same year 647 the Wang Xuance was sent to another imperial mission to Magadha.On his arrival he found that Harsha had died and his minister Arunasva King of Tirabhukti had usurped the throne.The Chinese mission wasnt well recieved its escorts murdered and treasures plundered,Wang Xuance manage to save himself and fled to Nepal which was allied to China through Tibet.There he gathered the milltary support from mercenary Nepali and Tibetan troops and marched on Magadha" Its not full quote theres more but I dont have time you can check the source only.@HistoryofAryavart Edasf «Talk» 13:36, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename There is sufficient coverage for the historical event however the invasion took place purely in the Tirhut/Mithila region of Northern Bihar and Arunasava/Arjuna is described as being the governor or ruler of Tirhut first and foremost hence I believe the article should be renamed to reflect this e.g. the Chinese Invasion of Tirhut.Ixudi (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixudi I am OK for it Edasf «Talk» 14:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well the historians don't even consider the Chinese accounts as reliable or based on historical events but a hoax. For eg see what Majumdar has to say on this event:
- p. 125
  In any case, it is impossible to draw any reliable conclusion from this picture of an invincible hero painted by himself.
- p. 124
  But the Chinese account of the embassy of Wang-hiuen-tse which, as noted above, reached India immediately after the death of Harsha, has preserved some curious details of the history of this period. Accustomed as we are to the exaggeration and self-adulation of the Chinese writers, this account beats all records and reads more like a romance or a string of fables than sober history.
The article is based on a fictional account and the hero (Wang-hiuen-tse) is painted by himself. The issue of WP:HOAX still remains and there's no reason for this article to be kept in article mainspace. Garudam ^Talk! 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 14:39, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofAryavart We can still as a article since you gave several more content if it has coverage then we can keep it after some redraw and your source doesn't completely denies its existence. Edasf «Talk» 14:45, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, the article is purely based on a fabricated account and I have quoted the source to show that it's full of hoaxes, hence Majumdar concludes:
p. 126
On the whole, the story of Wang-hiuen-tse has little historical value, except as a general indication of the anarchy and confusion prevailing in North Biliar and the neighbouring region after the death of Harsha. What happened to the kingdoms of Thaneswar or Kanauj we cannot say, but there is no ground to suppose that Harsha’s death was followed by a political upheaval in the whole of North India.

HistoryofAryavart (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HistoryofAryavart First of all there are other sources as well which do consider it historical and Majumdar is not complete RS since he's no longer a introductory textbooks and his nationalist nature.You need multiple source and Majumdar's interpretations can definitely added in Article but this isn't concrete to delete article. Edasf «Talk» 15:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a case WP:HOAX beacuse the article is based on actual stories. Rather the actual article should be edited to reflect that the events detailed in the stories may not necessarily be historically accurate. Ixudi (talk) 15:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have shown how this Chinese account is not taken seriously. And the event doesn't get enough coverage, much less 5-6 lines of passing mentions which doesn't warrant a standalone article, that said it could have been merged into a parent article. Garudam ^Talk! 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 15:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What 5-6 line passages? There are 5-6 pages of it in sources and we usually have separate articles for wars and on what grounds you consider it incapable your POV? Edasf «Talk» 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And Ixudi already told that it has sufficient coverage even a 5-6 line passage is if it has coverage. Edasf «Talk» 15:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quote that you excerpted from the Bagchi (2011) has no more than 6 lines of coverage. Garudam ^Talk! 10:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC) 18:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thats not full quote and coverage matters. Edasf «Talk» 08:48, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm exactly talking about the "full quote" in the source. Garudam ^Talk! 13:40, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well I have reviewed the sources itself. The topics outrightly fails SIGCOV and the issue of HOAX remains, this topic should have been rather included in parent pages, say Pushyabhuti dynasty but I don't think it clears the certain criterias to have a standalone article. Garudam ^Talk! 13:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam The HOAX is already cleared by Ixudi stop repeating reasonings and again Wars tend to have separate article it helps clear confusion and correct all your signatures above since you changed name and coverage matter. Edasf «Talk» 15:22, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military and India.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:19, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of back and forth, but very few participants. Additional opinions would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Omran Daqneesh

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, lack of WP:INDEPTH, WP:BLP, and no WP:LASTING. Absolutiva (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Absolutiva (talk) 10:30, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 18:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe this should be Keep. Prominent newspapers and news channels have extensively discussed the subject in detail. The coverage significantly (WP:SIGCOV) highlights the individual's identity and contributions, making it relevant and noteworthy for further consideration. Baqi:) (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes kindly provide proper rationale and sources which you believe satisfies the GNG and SIGCOV criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:37, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No coverage past 2017, nothing that I can find either past that date. Could be a few words in an article about the war in Syria but nothing of lasting notability. He was featured in flurry of media, then faded away. Oaktree b (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 15:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VoxelStorm

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

Fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of the company itself. Mika1h (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Mika1h (talk) 12:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to AdvertCity. Company lacks in notability in general but game's article is much more well documented and written, so the latter will do unless the game's article is deleted, MimirIsSmart (talk) 15:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and others. I'm not seeing AdvertCity passing GNG either so why redirect to it? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:10, 12 December 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.

Battle of Belh

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Created by a user known for poorly-sourced battle articles, with four out of eight creations already deleted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Afghanistan, and Mongolia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:MILNG and nothing significant to be found upon searching "Battle of Belh". This could have been merged to Timur at best. Garudam ^Talk! 13:27, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unverifiable and either OR or a hoax. Mccapra (talk) 05:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Standing on the Shoulders of Kitties

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

No sources given, article clearly failing general notability. Nxcrypto Message 11:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, and Music. Nxcrypto Message 11:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Released 2 days ago. Review here: https://movieweb.com/standing-on-the-shoulders-of-kitties-review/. Also see: https://theindependentcritic.com/standing_on_the_shoulders_of_kitties; https://intheseats.ca/out-of-the-trailer-park-our-review-of-standing-on-the-shoulders-of-kitties/ ; https://screenloveaffair.com/standing-on-the-shoulders-of-kitties-does-bubbles-big-break-hit-the-right-notes/ -Mushy Yank. 12:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are reviews from MovieWeb[24] and Film Threat[25]. Also, the trailer's release was covered by Collider[26] and Screen Rant[27], the premiere was reported by CTV News[28], while distribution rights acquisition was covered by Variety[29] and Screen International[30]. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby School Japan

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

This article is about a branch of Rugby School, only opened a year ago. I think that it is WP:TOOSOON for it to be likely to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, and indeed I cannot find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There was an article in The Rugby Advertiser in 2019 about the planned school, but this is local coverage and about a third of the article was a statement from Rugby School. There was an interview with the head in Relocate magazine, but I am not sure that this is a reliable source - the magazine's About talks about sponsored content. There is this article in the Sustainable Japan section of the Japan Times, which is a reliable source, but again it is mostly an interview. There is also an article from the British Chamber of Commerce in Japan, but this is not an independent source. I added a section on overseas branches to Rugby School, and redirected this article there, but another editor reverted this; so bringing it here for the community's view. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Japan, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Rugby School. There is also a Rugby School Thailand which should really be considered together to avoid trainwrecks. Can that be added to this nomination? These are new ventures that purportedly are creating overseas campuses of Rugby school. Rugby is clearly notable, but the only thing making these other sites notable is the Rugby name, which is a clear case of WP:INHERITED. They are, per nom., too new to have gained any independent notability. They should, however, be discussed on the Rugby school page. There is mergeable content and the redirects would preserve former content and provide a pathway for readers to locate the relevant information in the relevant parent article. Spinout could occur if and when they become independenltly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I had redirected Rugby School Thailand too - having put brief details of both schools in the Rugby School article first - but that was also reverted. I had considered AfD for that too, but have not yet had time to carry out WP:BEFORE for that branch and it has been going longer (2017) so there may be more coverage, so was holding off on that. Happy for it to be bundled with this discussion though if people want. Tacyarg (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RottenTomato0222 speaking here: I think both articles should NOT be deleted and be kept as independent articles for the following reasons: Though not many readers might recognise either Rugby School Japan or Rugby School Thailand, some teachers/families who are intended to move to those schools have the need to read about that school online whether if they're reading it on Wikipedia or not. Second of all, just because there's not a lot of articles dedicated to Rugby School's branches in Asia compared to the original school, there are tens of articles online discussing about Rugby School Japan and Rugby School Thailand, so we actually do have loads more to write on the article. Third of all, just because the article's discussion is not widely discussed doesn't mean that the article has to be deleted. As mentioned earlier before, there are people who really needs to read those articles. In addition, other world-famous school from the UK like Harrow School's branches in Asia have seperate articles on Wikipedia; like Harrow International School Bangkok, Harrow International School Hong Kong, Harrow International School Beijing, etc.. Furthermore, other UK boarding schools' branches in Asia other than Harrow School all have an article as well, for example; Haileybury Almaty, Marlborough College Malaysia, and Dulwich College Beijing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottenTomato0222 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It might look a bit messy and have some grammatically incorrect sentences or structures as I was writing that on a hurry. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid at AfD, although here it raises an interesting question. Is this school a campus of Rugby School itself, or is it an international school in the way the Oxford International Schools (or Harrow) international schools, where these are legally independent private schools that affiliate to and adopt the syllabus of the affiliating body (e.g the Oxford Education group)? What is the legal arrangement? The page as it stands reads as if this is a campus of Rugby (which is a reasonably common arrangement, more so for universities). But if it is not really part of Rugby at all, but a legally independent private school that is permitted to use the Rugby name then a lot of what is on the page would necessarily be deleted and it is likely (as for a the Oxford International Schools) that there would not be notability of r an article as it would fail WP:NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answering your question, the legal arrangement is that Rugby School Japan is an independent private school, just like many other franchise schools. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hope that helps. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But the school was set up by Rugby School? Looking at RSJ's website, it says Rugby School Japan is proud to be part of the Rugby School Group, an international network of pupils, teachers and senior leaders. The website for the original Rugby School says Rugby is in the process of developing a family of Rugby schools around the world, following the successful establishment of Rugby School Thailand. So should there be an umbrella Rugby School Group article, if notability is met, and then if we don't find RSJ notable, it can be mentioned there and a redirect in place? Tacyarg (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby School Japan, or should we call it RSJ, was indeed established by Rugby School, but that doesn't mean RSJ is part of Rugby School's campuses. In contrast, Harrow International School Bangkok for example, was established by a British private school, but still has a Wikipedia page on its own, rather than being merged with Harrow School. The reason is simple; going back to the Rugby Schools Group, that is a brand of a school set up by Rugby School, though their schools are still independent. Another reason; many British private schools in Asia might have opened under the name of their original school in the UK, but the operator of the school in Asia are different. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that this was not established by Rugby School at all. It is a venture of Clarence Education Asia [31], who seem to have funded the school and then partnered with Rugby School Group. This is a similar structure used by the Oxford Schools. The school is therefore not a campus of Rugby but an independent sister school that is licensed to use the Rugby name and branding, and follows a Rugby School Group curriculum. What this means is that it is a private for profit independent school. The appropriate notability guidelines are WP:NORG. My searches do not find independent sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH, so we are still not at a keep here. The question is only whether an appropriate merge target can be found. I think there is still a case for a merge with Rugby School under a section called either "sister schools" or "Rugby school group". The alternative is there could be a Rugby School Group article per Tacyarg, and that could then cover all such schools. Failing these alternatives, my view is that it should be deleted as it currently lacks independent notability, but my preference is merge somewhere, and Rugby School remains my preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, Rugby School Japan is an independent school, either if Rugby School established it or not. Any school can be made into an article, even if it's operated under the name of another institution, unless the whole building is a campus of Rugby School, for example. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Fishwick

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

Non-notable footballer. Played for Tranmere prior to the club joining the Football League, and appears to fail WP:SPORTBASIC. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Subject does not have any news coverage. I have also checked newspapers.com but the name is too common and it returns 131 matches. I don't have full access, but I checked some and none were about him.Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't remember what led to my creating a stub of this (pre-League) player. I no longer have a copy of the referenced book. I expect Fishwick's notability, if any, would be clearer when seeing why he was deemed notable enough to have his own section in the book. Can this AfD be slowed from its usual seven days whilst I re-source the book? U003F ^? 08:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question How much research did you do for WP:BEFORE guys? Because I am not sure, but he may have been a Corporal in the first world war and died there at the age of 25. [32], Serving in the East Lancashire Regiment. Baring in mind you are failing him on SportsCrit, fair enough, however he served in the first world war. So I'd assume you would change over to WP:BASIC for a better look. Giving this a chance you really need to review the military career also. Govvy (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any evidence they are the same person. There is a death notice for Cpl Fishwick in the Burnley News at the British Newspaper Archive, but it says he was a weaver prior to enlistment - no mention of him of being a footballer. Searching his name with Tranmere only brings up trivial mentions in match reports. J Mo 101 (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's an excellent find by Govvy. While Mysecretgarden said that the name might be too common, I think Govvy is onto something because this 1891 birth would have been 25 in 1916 or 1917. Being in a Lancashire regiment also makes it likely we're talking about the same person. I think we should hold out for someone to have a gander at the book source, in case it was about Tranmere players who fought in the war. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Ross (Australian sculptor)

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

Talented but by in-house wiki standards sadly NN. sources are passing mention only. Have done a BEFORE but see only gallery listings. Don't suspect WP:BIO. Her work is very very impressive, but not sure a wiki bio is warranted just yet. Would be trilled to be proven wrong. Ceoil (talk) 14:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:31, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I see what you mean, that the works are more notable than the artist. Is it ethical to delete items from an article before nominating it for deletion? Doug butler (talk) 20:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing for this artist found, no listing in the Getty ULAN [33]. The one source in the article isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 01:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hardly a useful criterion. Other Australian non-entries in ULAN are: Robert Hannaford, John Dowie, Charles Abrahams, Leslie Bowles, John Woffinden, Ken Martin, John S. Davie, . . . Doug butler (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  More of a proof of non-notability... Those other articles have multiple sources, this one being debated doesn't. The Getty doesn't index everyone, but not being indexed proves the lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I added example and citations for her public art. The citations show that these artworks exist, but not sure if the show notability--WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Comment This sculptor is represented in about 4 regional galleries and has public art commissions in about 14 city councils. She has been a finalist in at least three art awards. She has had solo as well as group exhibitions. Her work has been reviewed, not just passing mentions. She would be known in public art circles amongst people who commission public art and has some international recognition. As usual I don't think editors should check an Australian's notability by using only US sources or journal aggregators that are US or European-centric. I agree this artist is not nationally well-known, but I want to know what previous commenters are looking for in terms of notability. You have all seemed to use different sources or criteria, some of which may not be relevant. What do you want to see for her to pass your notability standard? LPascal (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2024 (UTC)LPascal[reply]
Comment- LPascal we are looking at WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. You can see that there are specific guidelines for creative professionals, as there is a line between doing one's job well and being notable. you say 4 regional galleries and has public art commissions in about 14 city councils. She has been a finalist in at least three art awards. If you would provide RS for those claims I think it would help the article. Ross' work does not appear to: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not wedded to keeping her article but I can possibly find references/reviews to her work in her artist's file in an art library next week. If these reviews/references show a body of work as per her CV would that get her over the line for WP:ARTIST.? You'd need to wait a week until I can get to her clippings file. LPascal (talk) 09:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment::Ross is a sculptor, so that needs to be taken into account...an expensive creative endeavour and in Australia very hard to sell to major collectors other than public institutions, so her number of public art commissions — seventeen 1992–2019 — is high in the small Australian market for sculpture. I'll check the reviews of her work in major newspapers as listed in her CV https://marsgallery.com.au/usr/library/documents/main/artists/79/anne-ross-cv-24.pdf at MARS gallery, a major commercial gallery in Melbourne. They date back to 1991 and significant Aust. art critics address (Nelson, Lynn, Lancashire, Makin etc.) her work ('(c) won significant critical attention'). McClelland Sculpture Survey and Award (x3) and Moet & Chandon Touring Exhibtion are major events ('(b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition'). Maitland Regional Gallery, Jewish Museum of Australia,in which Ross is represented are notable galleries and inclusion in The City of Melbourne collection is likewise notable. I am not a fan of her work, but I feel after further checks that she meets the notability criteria. :Jamesmcardle (talk) 22:44, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Request According to Ms Ross's website, acquisition of her Bunyip by the American Natural History Museum was covered by the San Antonio Express-News, presumably in 2019. Does anyone have access to their archive? Doug butler (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug butler Looks like the online archives for San Antonio Express-News is available at the https://wikipedialibrary.wmflabs.org/users/my_library/ at NewspaperARCHIVE.com. Keywords Bunyip and Ross doesn't bring up any articles. Double check please. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 20:00, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WAU. Ms Ross, in her website, credits the San Antonio Express-News for the photo of the figure in a display case. Thanks for the link; I found no instance of "bunyip" in that newspaper between 2010 and 2020, but have no idea of how conclusive such a search is. Doug butler (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Please keep this open until LPascal has a chance to check art library next week.--Oronsay (talk) 06:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting upon request. But know that this discussion can be closed whenever a closer discerns a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)</pion[reply]

Pause nomination for at least a week. As mentioned above, research is being done on this. — Maile (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have checked the Anne Ross ephemera file in the art library. Ephemera files contain newspaper clippings, exhibition invitations, CVs, catalogues etc relating to the artist. The files are useful to confirm exhibitions, the accuracy of an artist's CV and to find press reviews in journals and newspapers that are difficult to find online. I found enough ephemera and newspaper clippings to confirm that her CV is accurate (artists' CVs usually are) and that she has featured in the arts pages of The Canberra Times, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald. She appears in the Scheding Index of Australian Arts & Artists, https://artresearch.com.au/results/?criteria=anne+ross and The NAVA Who's Who of Australian Visual Artists. Her public art commissions (outdoor sculptures) are in the collections of 13 individual state/local/government organisations (Meets criteria (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.) Her "inside" art is in the collections of at least 14 galleries. She has been shortlisted and shown in two prestigious sculpture awards: McClelland Sculpture Survey and Award, and The Woollahra Sculpture Prize. Because of her many public arts commissions and showings in sculpture exhibitions and awards, I think she also meets criteria 3. The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. ie her work is obviously well known in public art circles especially in regard to animal sculptures.LPascal (talk) 02:21, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great work @LPascal. A convincing case to keep. Jamesmcardle (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 10:20, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm intending to check hard copy of reviews in the State Library of Victoria artist files, but in the meantime have structured the article to include Anne Ross's recognition and standing and also inserted more references and links to exhibitions and public works. The volume and importance Ross's work and reviews of it by significant critics as Nelson, Lynn, Lancashire, Makin etc. cover the notability requirements on all counts. Jamesmcardle (talk) 12:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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!} 01:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Takeda Awards

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

No evidence of notability for this award. The underlying Takeda Foundation is a redlink (has never been blue). The organization's listed webpage [34] does not list any activity since 2006. That site's lists of awards only include 2001 and 2002 and notes that the award programs are suspended as of 2003. DMacks (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's more likely a promotional article written about that topic with no sign of notability while mentioning the winners excessively.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 10:17, 8 December 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!} 01:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bart Simpson (filmmaker)

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

after doing BEFORE, I am having a hard time to find any sigcov about this producer at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't find the mention of the subject in all sources referenced in the article and before search did not bring anything useful for the sustenance of this article. This producer fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Falls WP:GNG. Ampil ^{(Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns)} 10:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This would come in at number 10 at WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia for longest extant hoax articles if proven to be a hoax.

Jolielover (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to suggest it's not a hoax. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.As the person in question (see my response below @Bearcat, before I learned how to use Bold) I can tell you it's not a hoax. As much as the name takes some time for me to explain every time I meet someone new. Bartsimpsonfilm (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't a hoax, for the record — unlikely as it may seem, it's the real name of a real person in the Canadian film industry, who does have a legitimate notability claim as the producer of a Genie Award-winning documentary film. (Remember that such awards go to the producer of the film, which means he was personally a recipient of that award.) Also, he was born in the 1970s, so he had the name first and The Other One came later, so it wasn't his parents trying to be funny.
While the article was obviously in poor shape at the time of nomination, it actually is salvageable with better sourcing; the key (aside from the obvious need to use much more specific search terms than just his name alone) is that because his strongest notability claim happened 20 years ago, it wouldn't Google well and will have to be recovered from archives like ProQuest and newspapers.com. But I've searched those, and there are viable sources with which to fix the problem, so I've cleaned it up significantly. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also Keep, and thanks to @Bearcat for the rigorous research. I am the person in question who's getting debated about RE: deletion (and yes, this is my real name and I did indeed come first, which is getting sadder to admit by the decade).

My latest documentary is referenced at the link below - The MAD World of Harvey Kurtzman, produced by Intuitive Pictures. We are in production now and are due for release in late 2025/early 2026.

Thanks for your interest.

Link to Telefilm Canada funding announcement: [35]https://telefilm.ca/en/telefilm-canada-funds-the-production-of-20-feature-length-documentaries-in-the-english-market

Link to DOC-NYC Voices of Canada Industry Roundtable 2023: [36]https://www.docnyc.net/industry-roundtables/ Bartsimpsonfilm (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hoax. Real person. Real producer -- who also has been busy directing ("Brasilia: Life After Design" , love this title). I heard this filmmaker on a CBC interview -- he had a sense of humor about his name, saying "it could be worse." 130.208.129.144 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Passes WP:ANYBIO as the winner of a Genie Award.4meter4 (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Bearcat's work. Lucky this didn't happen on 1 April. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Thanks to him for his research work SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:46, 9 December 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.

Lady Tata Memorial Trust

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

One of several Trusts listed on the Tata Group page, none of which appear to be notable. This particular one I cannot locate any significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete

What makes the topic notable is the following information about the Trust:

"The Lady Tata Memorial Trust was one of the earliest philanthropic trusts created to support world-wide leukaemia research. Very little was known about leukaemia at the time of the establishment of the Trust. The Trust provided fellowships and grants to some of the leading international researchers and contributed significantly to the advancement of knowledge about leukaemia."

Even though there is very little information about the Trust in the public domain, in my view, the topic is hugely notable because of the fact that the Trust "has contributed significantly to the advancement of knowledge about leukaemia". So, I strongly oppose the move to delete the article. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for confirming the WP:BEFORE assessment with "there is very little information about the Trust in the public domain." Unfortunately, significant coverage is required so having little information is not going to support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect: No SigCov to justify a stand-alone article. The best option, per WP:ATD-M, would be to merge the content into the Sir Dorabji Tata and Allied Trusts, as it aligns well with the broader context.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cornish Bakehouse

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

Did a before search, and it seems all coverage is WP:CORPTRIV: "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: [...] of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops". Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Aéro-Frêt An-12 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Votorantim Novos Negócios

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies.

This was previous nominated for deletion but had no consensus. I am nominating this again as there's no justification so far to give the subsidiary its own article when article of parent Votorantim Group already exists. Imcdc Contact 06:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Brazil. Imcdc Contact 06:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aptera 2 Series

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of significance. Failed production model. References are company PR, brochures, hype and passing mentions. No secondary coverage. scope_creep^Talk 06:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Sources 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 are all independent WP:SECONDARY WP:RS with editorial staff; some of them covering the demise of the project. These include independent green technology magazines, mainstream media like CNET and KFMB-TV, national magazines like Popular Mechanics etc. These sources have by-lined authors and address the subject directly and in detail. The source analysis by the nominator is off.4meter4 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @4meter4; can confirm sources 1, 3, 4 (EcoWorld, Green Car Reports, CNET) are reliable, secondary, and give significant coverage. @Scope creep yes it failed but it existed and was covered in the news (and is somewhat interesting) so it is notable for a Wikipedia article. "Secondary coverage" means not using the vehicle specs directly, not "Don't use articles that hype the product". Mrfoogles (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is curious that the first Afd was borderline, now is magically keep. I don't think so. The references and coverage weren't examined then but will be now. Reference 1 is a conversation with the founder. It is not independent. Reference 3 is a notice taken from note sent out by the founder, essentially a press-release. It is not independent either. Are you sure Ref 4 is right. It doesn't mention the Aptera 2. I'll go through the references in the next couple of days. scope_creep^Talk 07:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolute WP:CFORK that is unnecessary. This is already covered Aptera Motors#Design history. The first question I have is how reference #4 (CNET) is significant coverage about Aptera 2? Both keep votes reference it yet I do not see any mention of Aptera in that reference. Reference #1 (Eco World) is clearly marketed as "commentary & forums." How is that reliable? Reference #3 (Green Car Reports) is an industry publication and covers the liquidation of the company, only mentioning the prototype they tried to build (which is already covered in the Aptera Motors page. Reference #6 (TechZulu) is another industry publication with no listed editorial standards. This reference (#9 - Popular Mechanics) is a good reference but causes some question as well (it talks about Type 1 but then says a second model is coming out - so, is Aptera 2 the rename of Type 1 or are they separate - if they are separate then all the references above fall apart for notability). I also fail to see how News 8 (reference #11) is significant since the video doesn't even play. To show this is notable for its own page separate from Aptera Motors, coverage needs to meet WP:ORGCRIT and based on what I see it falls well short. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, looking at the Aptera Motors page, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two different concepts so why are saying here "The Aptera 2 Series (formerly the Aptera Typ-1)" on the Aptera 2 page? As it is a different vehicle, the sources above about Type1 would be irrelevant to showing notability for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to previously mentioned sourcing, the Car and Driver review currently in External Links is also a RS and is specifically about the Aptera 2. Being a "failed production model" is very much not a reason for deletion - notability is not temporary and a vehicle does not need to reach production to be notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Car and Driver is good. What is the specific sourcing about Aptera 2 that was mentioned? I will take a look and change my !vote if there is but based on what I assessed above, there is none, especially since it now appears Aptera 2 is separate than Type1 mentioned in the sources above. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The editor visited the Aptera factory, it says so in the article, so that is not independent. scope_creep^Talk 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? The editor did background research, including visiting the factory. Sounds like good research to me. How does this make it not independent? To be not independent you have to show that he used information from the factory even if it differed from information from other places. Stepho talk 11:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No dude. That makes it not independent, therefore unreliable. I've not heard such a load of tosh for about a decade. That is unreliable source. It is NOT independent. You should stay out of Afd. You don't know what your talking about. That is clear WP:CIR issue. I hope you not making that statement anywhere else on Wikipedia or any AFD. That would be a major problem. scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounded a bit harsh. Sorry. scope_creep^Talk 14:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have a strange idea of independent. Ideal reporting is where you get information from as many places as possible - including the factory and his/her personal inspection of the car. Each source is then weighed for reliability (eg manufacturers rarely lie about a car's wheelbase but often lie about fuel economy, emissions and max power). The reporter then makes a value judgement based on his/her knowledge of the general subject (eg Car and Driver reporters know a lot about cars, reporters for business magazines usually know a lot about economics but little about cars). The ideal reporter is free to report on things from the factory (if the reporter agrees with it) and also free to report on anything that the factory does not agree with. Your definition of independent appears to be that no knowledge is allowed from the factory at all - which means that if the reporter even glanced at a press release then it is not independent. What are the chances that any reporter never looks at a press release? Stepho talk 00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reporter you are referring to is a contributor to the publication, not a staff writer. Based on the advertorial wording used in the reference, do you feel this is similar to WP:FORBESCON with little or no editorial oversight?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being a freelance contributor or a staff writer doesn't make any difference. Car and Driver are well respected for unbiased reporting for the reader's benefit and not just parroting the manufacturers. They have staff editors and lawyers to protect that reputation by weeding out uncritical writers and double checking articles before they are sent to print.

Siler's article for Car and Driver is certainly enthusiastic but he also points out several negative things. Eg, unusually wide front track, restricted rear view, poor ingress for the arthritic among us, poor rear hatch access, poor capacitive-touch buttons, 8-hour charge times. This is no blanket endorsement of a factory press release. He obviously wants it to succeed but still calls attention to its short comings. Stepho talk 04:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point. I'm not sure we agree that it "doesn't make any difference" regarding them being a contributor or staff writer though. If it doesn't make a difference, we wouldn't have things like WP:FORBESCON and WP:HUFFPOCON. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The difference matters when there is no editorial oversight - in which case the contributor can say anything. When there is editorial oversight then the editor gets to remove anything/everything that is not inline with the values of the magazine. Car and Driver have editorial oversight and very good values for balanced reporting, so whether the writer is staff or a contributor no longer matters. If the writer submits an unbalanced story then the editor will simply reject it. Car magazines with a good reputation will work quite hard to protect that reputation and will not throw it away on a cheap report. Stepho talk 07:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Forbes and Huffington Post have very good values for balanced reporting and work hard to protect their reputation as well. I do not think that is the issue. The issue is whether contributors to this publication have the same editorial oversight. A reference that reads good enough to print is one thing. A reference that was fact checked by an editorial staff is different. Again, I am not challenging the source, per se, only raising the question. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Visiting the factory would be a good indicator that a journalist found the topic noteworthy actually. However, looking closer at the writer, it appears they are not a journalist with the publication, only a contributor. This could be similar to the case of WP:FORBESCON but don't know for sure. Regardless, it is being challenged by at least one editor so it would help if someone can show that contributors have the same editorial oversight as the journalists ("staff writers") for the publication. MY QUESTION about the sourcing still remains unanswered. What "addition to previously mentioned sourcing" mentioned in the keep vote speaks specifically about Aptera 2 as again, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two separate models and cannot see the significant coverage for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aptera Motors - Some information is already merged but there is more that needs to be moved. Not very clear but it appears that the Typ-1 is an earlier prototype than the 2 Series. Neither reached production but it is still interesting to read about the development of a car. The failure itself can often be notable or instructive - failed because it was too radical? Or not practical? Not powerful enough? Too cramped inside? Not enough funding? Or just plain old bad luck? Stepho talk 08:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It states in the review article in ext links which I looked at in the before, A tour of the spotless Aptera facilities, located in Vista, California, so that is not an independent reference either. I have no doubt the editor got a very clear understanding of what the prototype product is and how Aptera were trying to sell it, to enable him to write his article. Apologies for saying its a prototype. I shouldn't have put it in. They is obviously prototypes on here which are notable but its certainly not this. scope_creep^Talk 08:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- "The writer visited the factory so it is not an independent reference" is one of the biggest "whats?" I've had in a long time on here. I'd seen other people comment on this sort of argument being made on AfDs but didn't expect to actually encounter it being made 'in the wild'. Of course they visited the factory. That was part of the point of the article. The author is independent of Aptera, visiting the factory doesn't magically make them an employee or working for them. Wow. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sarcastic comment by an admin is not becoming. I sincerely hope your not making similar comments like that in other places on Wikipedia. If I had a factory and was expecting an editor/writer of a prominent magazine to come and visit, I would lay out the red carpet with the corporate lunch and freebies and loot bags and there would be an expectation there would be a good writeup. There would be a strong personal relationship there between sales/marketing and their channels. It is human nature, quid pro quo, otherwise what would be the point of it. I can imagine him - oh look here is our shiny new product, isn't it fantastic. Oh, yes it is. Its fantastic. I will write an excellent wee ariticle since you fed me some michelin quality food and gave me a fat loot bag. It is all standard marketing practice so the reference is dodgy and not independent. The meaning of independent doesn't have a scale. Independent means independent. scope_creep^Talk 08:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'm detecting double standards by scope creep. In an earlier comment scope creep said "I've not heard such a load of tosh for about a decade" and went on to say that I should not comment on Wikipedia. Now when someone makes a similar comment on him, then it's "unbecoming". The common thread seems to be that anybody saying anything that scope creep doesn't agree with does not deserve to comment.

Regarding the laying on of lunch, goodies, etc - the onus on you is to provide evidence that this happened (or at least that it is common in the industry), that it influenced his article and (if all this did happen) that this somehow is an argument for deleting our article. You have quite a long chain of unproven connections there.

You keep saying that he wrote an article that was heavily biased in favour of the manufacturer. Reading his article, he points out several flaws with the vehicle - hardly the type of article that someone in the manufacturer's pocket would write.

Are you aware that for the vast majority of magazine reviews on new vehicles, the vehicles are supplied free by the manufacturer for a day or 2. If it is a track event (quite common) then lunch is usually supplied in the form of finger food (eg sandwiches and similar basic food). Press packs are often given out but these are simple pamphlets - not the type of thing to risk journalistic integrity over. Yes, the manufacturer puts on a good face when the journalist comes to the factory. No, they don't layout the red carpet, cordon bleu food, piles of cash or similar bribes. If you think that this journalist was biased simply because he visited the factory then you must also say that every car review where they did not buy the car themselves is also biased and throw out the vast majority of references in the vast majority of Wikipedia car articles. Stepho talk 00:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its a cosy wee world open to corruption and bias at every level. I'll answer this later today. scope_creep^Talk 07:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus yet. But this is one of the strangest AFD discussions I've reviewed lately. There is an established role for freelance journalists that are not employed by a periodical or media organization. I'm sure a lot of accepted references in articles on this project are written by freelancers. No need to dismiss their contributions if the journal or magazine has editorial oversight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Considering what Liz mentioned, The subject passes WP:SIGCOV through sources 1 (also published in Reuters), 3 and 9 with supplementary support from 6 and 11 within the article. Additionally, sources from Motor Authority, IEEE Spectrum, Forbes, Greentech Media 1 , Greentech Media 2, Car and Driver review and Wired provides a well-rounded view of the subject to pass notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 13:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect to Liz, there is certainly a question raised as to the reliability of a freelance writer versus a journalist. This has been discussed for numerous publications, hence the creation of things like WP:FORBESCON. Please do not introduce a fallacy from authority. --CNMall41 (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since the entire point of using references from reliable sources (seeWP:RS, a central pillar of Wikipedia) is an appeal to authority, it seems strange to reject all these references as a "fallacy from authority". Can you tell us which particular references you think are not reliable and why. Stepho talk 22:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fallacy from authority I reference is you using Liz's name as if the opinion is law. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying what you meant by "appeal to authority". However, you are still wrong in applying it in this instance. Liz made her comment. Mentor then said "considering" (ie addressing the point without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with it), did some research on official Wikipedia policies, researched the references and presented their findings for discussion. Ie research, thought and discussion. Stepho talk 02:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without prejudice against a merge to Aptera Motors. The Popular Mechanics and KFMB references, combined with the additional ones listed by Mims Mentor above, would indicate that the article passes GNG. (That said, the car never made it out of the prototype stage and it's unlikely there will ever be much more to say about it, so merging to the manufacturer's article would a reasonable option as well.) --Sable232 (talk) 15:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The references presented above, several of them, at least four of them are press-release based and not worth anything. They are non-rs. I would go through them but its late in the day. I could search for the specific press-release but since the company has went under it would be difficult but not impossible, there is no doubt there is press-release driven articles. A merge is probably the best bet as there is not enough for standalone notability. It all comes from the company, either visits to the factory to show it off, or the usual startup branding that would fail WP:SIRS. scope_creep^Talk 17:07, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the references aboves

ref: [37]. This is all from interviews from former staff. It is not independent.

* ref [38] This is a from a press-release and is non-rs. It is not independent.

* ref [39] A visit to the factory.

* ref [40] Seems to be lifted from comments from the chief engineer. Looks like another factory visit.

* ref [41] An interview with the ceo. Its not independent.

* ref [42] Again, another interview style article with the ceo

* ref [43] Another tour of the factory.

I think they are all tours of the factory, making them all primary. Whether there is editorial oversight doesn't matter, its meaningless as all the information comes from the same place. Similar to fintech and software startups. Nothing known about them when the start, so it is all PR and branding. The type of branding here is factory visits. They are not reliable sources and they are not independent breaking WP:RS and failing WP:V. I've not looked at all references but I suspect its all the same. scope_creep^Talk 23:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your theory that any journalist that has toured the factory, interviewed any company personal or read any company PR is automatically completely controlled by the company is bat-shit insane. These activities are the hallmark of a journalist doing research, not the hallmark of conspiracy theories. The proof is simple, read the articles to see if they are either glowing reports with no faults or if they are balanced reports listing both good and bad points. In that list of references above:

ref: [44]. Generally simpathetic to the company but does point out a few times that some documents were promised but never received - not a comment associated with being in the company pocket. Also written after the company folded, so no kickbacks expected.
ref [45] Just repeating basic facts about the company with little fanfare.
ref [46] Mentions several flaws (creaks and groans, awkward for short drivers, distinct clunking when driving, excessive width, company financial problems).
ref [47] Mentions kinks (awkward for short people, harsh suspension stiff steering).
ref [48] Generally enthusiastic, mentions no faults but it is not overly gushy either. Possibly he did not examine the car himself. Would not call it a paid advert but lacks proper research. Probably a rush job.
ref [49] Same again, lacks independent research.
ref [50] Mentions 8-hour charging time (companies hate this), using the rear hatch is "a Herculean challenge", getting in/out awkward, driver/passenger too close, critical of the capacitive touch buttons on the steering wheel, rear view awkward without the optional camera.

Summary: The first was just a company history (after closure) rather than reporting on the car. Two were lazy reporting and just repeated PR stuff. The bulk of them examined the car itself and gave balanced reports that listed both good and bad points. Stepho talk 23:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was completly controlled by the company but it is very cosy world. It all seems to be "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" and that is sum of it. Its more or less what it seems to be and so far outside in what would be normal accepted practice. And also your confusing information coming from interviews which can't establish notabilty as its primary with descriptive content, as though that matter when it doesn't. The fact they are mention flaws has nothing to do with it. It is not secondary coverage. Where the information comes and how it arrives is critically important for objectivity and independence of thought. That is what Wikipedia strives for, it really is and there is none of it here. I wouldn't use any of these to write a product article. In Wikipedia the length of time doesn't matter as such and it would better is most cases to wait until there is real coverage instead of all pap that comes from the company. Their offering it on a plate. If you can't tell the difference at this point, there is no point in discussing it further. If you cant see it, what is the point. I think you so immersed in that world of accepting this junk that can't recognise there is world where that practice wouldn't be accepted because its a higher standard and you wouldn't recognise it. scope_creep^Talk 22:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you have your theory that anybody who has toured the factory, interviewed company personal or read a press release is an unreliable reference. Your proof for your theory is a subjective feeling of "human nature" but no actual facts. The proof against your theory is the fact that most of those reference said things that the company would rather not have said (flaws, etc).

Primary references come from the company (eg press releases). Secondary references come from a second source (hence the name) that looks at the primary sources (which includes both the company sources, the journalists own perception of the vehicle and any other sources the h=journalist can find), evaluates them with their own judgement and presents the findings, both good and bad. The majority of these references do this.

A few of the references mention no flaws. But neither are they gushing pieces singing the company's praises. To me, they are weak references done by a rushed or lazy journalist. I don't have a problem keeping or losing those couple of references (Green Tech Media). Stepho talk 02:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No not subjective and times have changed and you've missed it. Mentioning flaws is completely unimportant and how is written is not really important in this discussion. You seem to have stuck on this as though as though makes it ok. The NCORP guidelines were updated 2017 by Tony Ballioni amongst other to take cognizance of that fact that if all information comes from one source, then its not independent. That equally applies as the same kind of information, all coming from one place. It makes it primary. Some its unreliable by its definitions. In that NCPORP case it was startups, companies and organisation offering junk that was taken as good refs but rationale applies here as well. Because if the information is all coming from the same place, given by company by rolling out the red carpet then its not independent. Unfortunately those same updates to notability standards doesn't seems to reached here. Where the information comes and how it arrives is critically important to achieve independence and reliabilty. I'm not going to make the argument to you because its like the roads folk, the music/fan folk, and business folk who didn't get it. This an encyclopeadia and it really matters in the long run. scope_creep^Talk 09:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Aptera Motors, with no prejudice against a Keep as per Sable232, Stepho-wrs and others. Mr.choppers | ✎ 15:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Substrate adhesion molecules

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

As I was trying to find sources to improve this page, I realized that almost all usage of the term "SAM" came from before 1992. It was used to refer to Tenascin back when it was called cytotactin, for instance. There are no secondary sources that exist that detail what a "substrate adhesion molecule" is as a family. Either they assign the term in passing when talking about CAMs, or they pick a specific one and label it that. I propose this page REDIRECT to the extracellular matrix page. It has all the necessary info and more, and doesn't try to propagate terms that haven't been in use since the eighties. Innertuber40 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Innertuber40 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Usage for "cytotactin" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20500220_Cell_and_substrate_adhesion_molecules_in_embryonic_and_neural_development

Usage for vitronectin

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12324606/

Usage as a class of cell adhesion molecules

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0046817794900027?via%3Dihub Innertuber40 (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This should REDIRECT to the Extracellular matrix page. "SAM" is an archaic term used by a small group of scientists in the latter half of the eighties, when they were just discovering matrix proteins involved in cell-substrate binding. If you Google substrate adhesion molecules, the modern results will either be recapping old experiments, simply use the term "cell adhesion molecule," or be referring to "self-assembling monolayers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innertuber40 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable justification for deletion, therefore, would be WP:N Innertuber40 (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Extracellular matrix per the above comments. Archaic term; having a standalone article is confusing. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree: redirect. Athel cb (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phiwa Nkambule

AfDs for this article:

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

So this article was created by Phwaice who seems to be a WP:COI user judging by username and behavior. The article was previously nominated for deletion and the consensus was to redirect to a company article that is now deleted due to lack of notability. The article was then reverted by Carloschilo who also seems to have COI behavior.

The issue is this article from a quick glance seem to be nothing more than a PR puff piece for the subject which is basically WP:PROMO. There’s also issue of notability. The vast majority of sources are basically brief mentions of the subject. You have some which are interviews, so they are not independent. The subject is mentioned in a few lists, but these again seem more like mentions and not really in-depth.

This article probably needs to be rewritten from scratch to comply with Wikipedia standards. That’s assuming we get enough independent in-depth sources of notability. Imcdc Contact 03:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, Technology, and Africa. Imcdc Contact 03:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Imcdc Contact 02:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As previously stated my focus is primarily on articles of subjects linked to Eswatini, which are not many unfortunately as the country on has a 1 million population. This country is extremely under-covered. Here are a few examples that show notability of the subject:

1. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Entrepreneurs_Who_Changed_History/vAbnDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule%20entrepreneurs%20who%20changed%20history&pg=PT958&printsec=frontcover

2. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Simple_Algorithms/-IdeEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule%20simple%20coding&pg=PT23&printsec=frontcover

3. https://www.forbesafrica.com/cover-story/2019/10/14/forbes-africa-8-years-and-growing/

4. https://www.forbesafrica.com/under-30/2018/06/04/under-30-technology/

5. https://www.google.co.za/books/edition/Autonomic_Computing/nozJEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=phiwa%20nkambule&pg=PA1946&printsec=frontcover Carloschilo (talk) 09:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the sources above so far seem to be mainly about another subject but has a brief mention on the current nominated subject with most of them just stating his role founding non-notable companies. Also AFD consensus shows lists like Forbes 30 Under 30 is not considered a reliable source in establishing notability since every year there are 1,230 people under 30 years old placed on the list so it gives the impression it is more of a promotional tool. Notability should not be driven by being on the list although some of the objective information may be used to provide further context on the subject. Imcdc Contact 02:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Lance

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet notability requirements. There is nothing in the article to establish notability of this student newspaper, and there is no coverage in non-local sources. Note that The Lance published its last newspaper issue in 2019. The official website (which was updated in a 2020 edit) is for a student news blog with the same name. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason for this to be kept. This0k (talk) 18:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Baseball statistics#Pitching statistics. ✗plicit 00:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Games in relief

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- this appears to be a term for a kind of game, with very limited encyclopedic possibilities. The citations added to the article on Hoyt Wilhelm have been added to his article, where his record was noted by not cited. The only other information is the definition of a game in relief, which has been merged to Relief pitcher, tagged with citation needed. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Glossary of baseball terms per WP:ATD. There is an entry on the term in this baseball encyclopedia where it is treated like it would be in a glossary.4meter4 (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but to Baseball statistics#Pitching statistics, there's nothing to merge. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has my support as nom -- seems like a specialized sub-article and therefore probably a more appropriate place. There would be a risk of someone re-creating the article based on trying to get all the statistics, but the deletion would probably ward them off from that. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Baseball statistics#Pitching statistics, as that is the more specialized target. Hog Farm _Talk 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different Merge/Redirect proposed target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Baseball statistics#Pitching statistics, I agree there is nothing to merge here. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 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.

List of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute fraternities and sororities

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as there is a lack of independent third party coverage providing significant coverage of the grouping. PROD was removed but the issues with the article remain, so bringing it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and New York. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This 1914 book about the history of the college does go into the history of the fraternities at the school. College publications marketed to perspective college students feature the Greek life aspect of the school prominently: [51], [52], etc. Occasionally, the school gets mentions in academic studies on Greek Life like [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], Greek life is clearly an important part of this school's campus experience.4meter4 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article has secondary sources throughout. One is Baird's Manual, the primary source about Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Another is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities, created and maintained by academics and published by the University of Illinois. Regarding, WP:NLIST, that is covered via the Almanac, which provides information by institution. I don't have access to the cited edition of Baird's, but it probably includes information by institution as well. In addition, when the data set is itself notable, combining that group meets standards for stand-alone list articles. Consider, for example, a list of notable alumni from a college; there is rarely a secondary source that covers that list of people, but the included alumni are individually notable.

Since several of these institutional GLO lists have recently been nominated for deletion, it is worth noting that these articles exist as a part of an agreement between WP:UNI and WP:FRAT. The former felt that complete lists of GLO were too much detail for university articles and the latter liked the ability to expand the level of detail, as in the way this article provides details about each GLO. This level of detail appears to be moving this list article toward the direction of University of Virginia fraternities and sororities, which is GA status. With that in mind, this article should be seen as a work in progress that can be moved from list article status, either as is or at a later date. Rublamb (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Given the new sources found, I hope they find a way into the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syuejia Shang Baijiao and harvesting incense

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

I'm not sure if this article would stay within draftspace if I moved it there, given that the creator just moved it all over the place. Not well sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the author of this page, and I sincerely apologize. I was trying to move this article to the main page, but due to an operational error, it was unintentionally moved to two or three other locations. Later, I found the correct way to transfer it to the Wikipedia main page. Sources have now been properly cited. ALFART3594 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are not in fact properly cited. Two sources in a wall of text is not proper citation, as any college student should know. 30 paragraphs of text are completely unsourced, as are three long lists. I don’t mean to be rude, but anyone who’s ever read a Good Wikipedia article knows that this isn’t one. Please start over from scratch. Bearian (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate. But without some policy-based reasons to Keep this article, it looks like it might be heading towards Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Yang, Kate (June 2004). "The Emperor and the Centipede". Taiwan Panorama. Translated by Mayer, David. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "At the end of the ceremony, they always draw water from Chiangchun Creek to symbolize their awareness that "when drinking water, one must remember the source," i.e. be grateful, in this case to their ancestors for pioneering the land that is now their home. The proceedings at the pavilion are referred to as "visiting Baijiao." When the faithful "visit Baijiao," they worship both a god and their ancestors. The ritual is unique among Taiwan's temple festivals in this sense. ... The visit to Baijiao takes place every year and wraps up in about a day, but once every four years Tsuchi Temple elects a new board of trustees and supervisors, and the occasion is marked by the Hsuehchia festival. The main difference between the big festival and the visit to Baijiao is that the procession doesn't just go from Tsuchi Temple to Paichiao Pavilion."
2. Chang, Jung-hsiang 張榮祥 (2024-07-17). "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」連3天海內外宮廟雲集" [National Important Folk Custom 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Held for 3 Consecutive Days, Temples from Across Taiwan and Abroad Gather] (in Chinese). Central News Agency. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」刈香祭典，今天在台南市學甲慈濟宮登場，為期3天，海內外逾100座宮廟、藝陣雲集，鑼鼓喧天，信眾擠爆，熱鬧滾滾。保生大帝台灣開基祖廟學甲慈濟宮今天起一連3天舉辦國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」刈香祭典，由前立法院長王金平擔任主祭官，菲律賓、馬尼拉、新加坡、香港、澳門等海外宮廟也參與這項宗教盛事。"
  From Google Translate: "The nationally important folklore "Xujia Shangbaijiao" Incense Cutting Ceremony was held today at the Xuejia Tzu Chi Palace in Tainan City. It lasted for three days. More than 100 palaces, temples and art formations from home and abroad gathered together. The gongs and drums were noisy, and the believers were crowded and lively. Roll. The Xuejia Tzu Chi Temple, the founder of Emperor Baosheng's ancestors in Taiwan, will hold the nationally important folklore "Xuejia Shangbaijiao" incense cutting ceremony for three consecutive days starting today. Former Legislative Yuan Wang Jinping will serve as the officiant. The Philippines, Manila, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau Overseas palaces and temples also participated in this religious event."
3. Huang, Chao-ch'in 黃朝琴 (2023-04-30). "重要民俗「學甲上白礁」授證文化資產永續流傳" [Important Folk Custom 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Certified, Cultural Heritage to be Passed Down Sustainably]. Youth Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "臺南市「學甲上白礁」去年獲登錄列為國家重要民俗，「學甲慈濟宮」也同步被認定為保存者，今（30）日適逢「上白礁」謁祖祭典隆重登場，文化部頒授重要民俗認定證書，由慈濟宮代表接受，代表民俗文化資產永續流傳，展現臺灣深厚文化生命力。"
  From Google Translate: "Tainan City's "Xujia Shangbaijiao" was registered as a nationally important folk custom last year, and "Xuejia Tzu Chi Palace" was also recognized as a preserver. Today (30th) coincides with the grand debut of the "Shangbaijiao" ancestor worship ceremony. , the Ministry of Culture awarded the Certificate of Important Folklore Recognition, which was accepted by the representative of Tzu Chi Palace, representing the sustainable spread of folk cultural assets and demonstrating the profound cultural vitality of Taiwan."
  The article notes: "「學甲上白礁」從清代發展至今，雖隨著時代演變，但祭典儀式、香境香路及各十三庄宮廟自組之藝閣、陣頭迄今仍維持一定的傳統性，並富含在地文化特色，如儀式性的宮內祭典、白礁亭謁祖祭典；"
  From Google Translate: ""Xuejia Shangbaijiao" has been developed since the Qing Dynasty. Although it has evolved with the times, the rituals, the incense road and the art pavilions and formations organised by each of the Thirteen Village Palaces and Temples have still maintained a certain degree of tradition. It is also rich in local cultural characteristics, such as the ceremonial palace ceremony and the ancestor worship ceremony at Baijiao Pavilion;"
4. Chuang, Yao-tsung 莊曜聰; Chen, I-wei 陳苡葳 (2024-04-18). "台南「學甲上白礁」3天遶境蜈蚣陣揭序幕" [Tainan 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' 3-Day Procession, Centipede Formation Kicks Off the Event]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」昨起為期3天遶境，共有來自海內外105間宮廟及上百文武陣頭、藝閣共襄盛舉，打頭陣是唯一以人力扛抬的蜈蚣陣，因少子化、人力難覓還差點開天窗，在各方支持下總算順利出陣。"
  From Google Translate: "The nationally important folk custom "Xujia Shangbaijiao" started yesterday for a three-day tour. A total of 105 palaces and temples from home and abroad and hundreds of civil and military formation leaders and art pavilions participated in the grand event. The leading formation is the only centipede formation that is carried manually. Due to the declining birthrate and the difficulty in finding manpower, we almost had to open the skylight. With the support of all parties, they finally got out of the battle successfully."
5. Wen, Cheng-heng 溫正衡 (2022-09-28). "台南300年歷史祭典「學甲上白礁」 9月獲登錄國家重要民俗" [Tainan's 300-Year-Old Festival 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Registered as a National Important Folk Custom in September] (in Chinese). Public Television Service. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "歷經1年停辦，1年縮小規模的學甲慈濟宮上白礁，今年4月9日到11日恢復舉辦，熱鬧非凡。活動中不只有傳統藝陣、廟方還上將軍溪畔舉辦「上白礁」謁祖祭典，象徵飲水思源、不忘本精神，而今年9月更通過文化部審議，成為國家重要民俗。"
  From Google Translate: "After a year of suspension and a year of downsizing, the Tzu Chi Palace on Pedra Branca was resumed from 9 to 11 April April this year, and it was a bustling event. The event not only featured a traditional art array, but the temple also held a "Shangbaijiao" ancestor worship ceremony on the bank of the Shangjiang River, which symbolizes the spirit of drinking water to remember the source and not forgetting one's roots. In September this year, it was approved by the Ministry of Culture and became an important national folk custom."
6. Wang, Han-ping 王涵平 (2024-04-17). "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」今起遶境 105間宮廟參與" [National Important Folk Custom 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Begins Procession Today, 105 Temples Participate]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」遶境祭典今起為期3天，來自國內外105間宮廟參與，蜈蚣陣出發遶境，大批信眾湧入爭拿神童賜福糖果、鑽轎腳，19日將至頭前寮白礁亭謁祖、請水火。"
  From Google Translate: "The nationally important folklore "Xuejia Shangbaijiao" circumambulation festival will last for three days today. 105 palaces and temples from home and abroad are participating. Centipede formations set out to circumambulate the territory, and a large number of believers poured in to compete for the blessing of the child prodigy. Candies, diamonds on sedan chairs, and the 19th is about to arrive at Touqian Liao Baijiao Pavilion to pay homage to ancestors and invite water and fire."
7. "臺南學甲上白礁" [Tainan Xujia Shangbaijiao] (in Chinese). Radio Taiwan International. 2024-04-14. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "每一年的上白礁活動及四年一科的刈香從未間斷，也呈現學甲慈濟宮保存傳統祭祀儀典的努力，以及三百多年來各方信眾自發性、持續性地參與，具諸多在地特色，例如儀式性的宮內祭典、白礁亭祭典、將軍溪畔的「請水火香」；香陣隊伍中的輦宮文化、真人藝閣、文武陣頭，宋江陣、蜈蚣陣、報馬牛、藝陣;各庄頭與信眾設置點心站等。"
  From Google Translate: "The annual Shangbaijiao activities and the four-year incense cutting have never stopped, which also reflects the efforts of Xuejia Tzu Chi Palace to preserve the traditional sacrificial rituals, as well as the spontaneous and continuous efforts of believers from all walks of life for more than three hundred years. Participation has many local characteristics, such as the ceremonial palace ceremony, Baijiao Pavilion Festival, "inviting water, fire and incense" by the Jiangjun River; the chariot palace culture, real people's art pavilion, civil and military formations, Songjiang formation in the incense array , Centipede Formation, Bao Ma Niu, Art Formation; each village head and believers set up refreshment stations, etc."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Xuejia Shangbaijiao (traditional Chinese: 學甲上白礁; simplified Chinese: 学甲上白礁) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard My one concern is your reliance on Google Translate for a non-Latin based writing system. Google Translate has gotten more accurate throughout the years, but given that languages arose from natural intelligence, I'm still hesitant to rely on artificial intelligence/machine translation.

However, I still encourage you to add the sources to the article, particularly if you know just enough Chinese to know the translations are reliable. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 09:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a second review of these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the subject of multiple in-depth articles in independent sources.

1 - Taiwan Panorama, in English and partly about the festival and partly about the history; not sure how reliable this particular site is or where the original Chinese (this is a translation on the site)
2 - Lengthy, Taiwan Central News Agency article entirely about the festival. A quick read shows nothing of concern about the translation
3 - Youth Daily news - short article entirely about the festival
4 - United Daily News - medium-length article entirely about the festival
5 - Public Television - short article about one annual instance of the festival
6 - Liberty News - repeat of #4
7 - Radio Taiwan International - short article about one annual instance of the festival

@I dream of horses Cunard does a lot of valuable work surfacing sources and I've never seen an issue with the machine translations they present at AfD discussions. I'm not sure where the "if you know just enough Chinese" comment comes from, but it seems misplaced here. Oblivy (talk) 02:23, 9 December 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.

Cihan Erdal

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

WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable for his 9-month imprisonment by the Turkish government, the news coverage of him mostly starts and ends within that period. Being one of about one hundred political prisoners caught in a government crackdown in a country that has been experiencing a democratic backsliding for over ten years now is not a very solid claim of notability. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politics, Turkey, and Canada. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not sure getting arrested for your beliefs is notable. Certainly doesn't meet academic notability. Coverage is about the arrest, but I don't think that's enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I notice there is some book coverage in google books by some major academic presses. For example: [63], [64], [65] The diversity of the sources and prolonged coverage over a couple years suggests that the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Cihan Erdal would pass WP:NEVENT. Perhaps repurpose this an event page instead of a WP:BLP?4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that these sources are enough. Erdal was cited as a contributor in the second source, so it's no independent. He is also cited in the "acknowledgments" section of the third source, so the same thing applies. The first source appears to mention him only very briefly. Badbluebus (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Lalli

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former lacrosse player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, New Jersey, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I know nothing about this sport but here are some more sources: [66], [67], [68], [69], [70]. I'll let others decide whether these count towards notability or not. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello and thank you for your response. The first two are passing mentions and thus not significant coverage, while the next three are not independent of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The coverage in the article combined with the more than 100 sources covering him via Newspapers.com demonstrate that the notability standard is met as a professional athlete playing at the top level of his sport. Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please share any SIGCOV you might be able to find. JTtheOG (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes please bear in mind to provide sources with SIGCOV for better analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 8 December 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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Go Off Queen

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

Singular episode of Canada's Drag Race season 5, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Almost all coverage is just recaps of the episode, not actual reviews, or other non-trivial coverage with any substance. Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5. RachelTensions (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion nomination spree is not necessary. Just redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5. I started the page and you have my permission so AfD is not necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BLAR'd as article creator has stated that the "spree" of AfD could be redirected at Special:Diff/1261803036/Special:Diff/1261803444 RachelTensions (talk) 01:41, 8 December 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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Slayoffs: Teams Edition

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

Singular episode of Canada's Drag Race season 5, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Almost all coverage is just recaps of the episode, not actual reviews, or other non-trivial coverage with any substance. Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5. RachelTensions (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This deletion nomination spree is not necessary. Just redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5. I started the page and you have my permission so AfD is not necessary. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLAR'd as article creator has stated that the "spree" of AfD could be redirected at Special:Diff/1261803036/Special:Diff/1261803444 RachelTensions (talk) 01:43, 8 December 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 Fusion Academy. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Futures Academy - California

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

Insufficient sourcing. The article claims it is part of Fusion Academy now, but I can't verify that. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Fusion Academy that mentions it (and has a source, albeit a primary source - an announcement) that verifies. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a business that owns schools. It isn't a school. It's a clear NCORP fail. As far as a redirect per above, what I just wrote also applies to the proposed target article. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:11, 13 December 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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minhi Wang

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

Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".

Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show. RachelTensions (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:48, 8 December 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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Helena Poison

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

Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".

Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show. RachelTensions (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:50, 8 December 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. Sources found. Please add them to the article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hodobana Cave

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

I can't find a reliable source, and the one given is a passing mention, as I have access to this textbook. I would be ok with a redirect, but don't know a target. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources exist, it's just that most are in Romanian (and several of them fall in that gap of "too old to have been published online, too young to be public domain", which doesn't make finding them online any easier):

SIGCOV: in Damm, P.E & Mitrofan, H. (2005). Peştera din Pârâul Hodobanei. Speomond 9 pp.15–19 & the Hodobana listing on speozet.ro, editor Paul Damm. (Both in Romanian)
SIGCOV-but-no-access: Vălenaş L.(1982) Consideration preliminaires sur les problemes crees par la tectonique active de la Peştera din Pîrîul Hodobanei (Monts Bihor). Nymphaea, t.X, 183-194
Possible SIGCOV, but no access to verify: Mitrofan H. (1985) Acomodarea de adio, Bul.CCSS, 9 p.119-130
Possible SIGCOV, but no access to verify: Tulucan, T. (1986). Clasificarea genetică a fenomenelor endo-vulcano-carstice din România. Aspecte ale repartiţiei acestora în lanţul Munţilor Carpaţi. Buletin speologic informativ FRTA-CCSS, nr. 10, p. 121-135
Additionally, sigcov in English by Liviu Vălenaş (WP:SPS, yes, but by an expert--his 1982 publication on this cave (listed above) is listed in practically every source that pays even a passing mention to the Hodobana Cave. Also has various other published articles in subject-relevant journals including Theoretical and Applied Karstology and Speomond, as well as multiple Nymphaea yearbooks.)

AddWittyNameHere 07:25, 8 December 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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tiffany Ann Co.

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

Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".

Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show. RachelTensions (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:50, 8 December 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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perla (drag queen)

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

Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like almost all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".

Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show. RachelTensions (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:52, 8 December 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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjina DaBish Queen

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

Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race and Call Me Mother. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".

Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show(s). RachelTensions (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:52, 8 December 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. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xana (drag queen)

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

Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".

Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show. RachelTensions (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:53, 8 December 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.