Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Purge server cache

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:29, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 00:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Previously at AfD in 2006, the article claims that the film has "garnered major media coverage and was screened at numerous local and international film festivals to great response". No actual sources to confirm this. No sources were provided at the previous AfD. The best claim to notability is being a finalist at Australian Effects & Animation Festival (AEAF): [8]. NFILM doesn't mention being a finalist as an indication of notability, only a major award win. Even if this was counted towards notability (which I'm not), it wouldn't be enough on its own. Suggesting redirection to Cultural impact of Star Wars#Fandom, fan films and fan edits. Mika1h (talk) 23:54, 5 November 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 Sarai Alamgir#Villages. Liz Read! Talk! 03:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No refs on the page for a long time. I'm not seeing RS that show WP:V or notability, but I don't speak the relevant languages. A redirect to Sarai Alamgir might be suitable if the details can be verified, although this place is not mentioned at the target as far as I can tell. JMWt (talk) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:46, 5 November 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.
Sistani of Golestan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is very difficult to understand. Some people moved from Sistan to Golestan for reasons that are largely lost in translation. Is this movement notable? Between Farsi and Russian sources, hard to say. I don’t think our readers are well served by having something so garbled in mainspace, so suggest draftifying for further work. Mccapra (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 23:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article fails WP:GNG and not updated since 2017. Simione001 (talk) 22:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Created by a single purpose editor. All the provided sources are directory listings and not indepth. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. BoardGameGeek lists reviews from HALL 9000 and Rainy Day Games but they don't seem like reliable sources. Suggesting a redirect to Mosaic as an alternative to deletion. Mika1h (talk) 15:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have completely rewritten this article and removed the copypaste tag. I was able to find one review on a editorially independent German game review site. There may be more sources out there, especially on European websites and in European magazines. Guinness323 (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think H@LL9000 is a reliable source? It seems to be a self-published source. It isn't listed at WP:BGS. I don't see any credentials for the reviewer to qualify as "an established expert on the subject matter": [9]. Even then 1 review isn't enough. For example, I looked at magazine scans at Internet Archive, and found nothing: [10]. --Mika1h (talk) 19:47, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 22:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Really cannot see any case for a separate article; this was until recently a redirect to Bourne, Lincolnshire. Which seem s appropriate. TheLongTone (talk) 12:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. Skynxnex (talk) 13:28, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The Austerby is described as a hamlet under the entry for Bourne in a Lincolnshire Trade Directory and appears on older Ordnance Survey maps. Austerby without "The" is a street name in The Austerby, Bourne. The ward's full name is Bourne Austerby. Pevsner has an Austerby Manor House as a titled entry, but notes it under Bourne. In a recent WikiProject UK geography discussion on whether UK wards required a separate article, most contributors thought they should be subject to passing the GNG - but one experienced editor was of the opinion wards come under WP:NPLACE and have a presumption of notability, so not clearcut. Close call but on balance, I support the nominator's redirect - to Bourne, Lincolnshire, though may change to keep, if further sources are put forward. Rupples (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 22:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Actually labelled as "St. Marys Ch." on topos from the 1950s and earlier, it is indeed St. Mary of the Knobs Catholic Church, which after 200 years has a big barn of a church, a school (which they took back from the county) and a large cemetery. No town though. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is about an unreleased film which does not satisfy film notability. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself has received significant coverage by reliable sources. A review of the sources shows that they are all announcements or press releases about the film or its songs. The first five references, in four different media, are essentially identical, which is best explained that they are the same press releases to different media.

Reference Number Reference Comments Independent Significant Reliable Secondary
1 The Hindu States that movie will be filmed. No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release. Not for this purpose Yes Yes
2 cinemaexpress.com States that movie will be filmed. No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release. Not for this purpose Yes Yes
3 thesouthfirst.com States that movie will be filmed. No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release. Not for this purpose Yes Yes
4 www.business-standard.com States that movie will be filmed. No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release. Not for this purpose Yes Yes
5 The Hindu Same as 1 No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release. Not for this purpose Yes Yes
6 timesnownews.com States that movie will be filmed. Probably. Not for this purpose Yes Yes
7 Times of India Passing mention of a song. Maybe No. Passing mention. No Yes
8 cinemaexpress.com Press release about a song. No. No Yes Yes
9 cinemaexpress.com Another press release about a song. No. No Yes Yes
10 news18.com An announcement about the film. Probably. Not for this purpose. Yes Yes

There is also a draft; the draft and the article are by different authors. The information in this article and in the draft can be merged in the draft, and the draft can be submitted, with reviews and other quality sources, when the film has been released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of notability separate from Elvis Costello. Most information of importance already covered in Costello's page DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did contribute some a bit to the article a few years ago, including adding the NF image and some sources. The only basis I'd argue the inclusion of notability would be the fact that the Attractions have been called one of the best backing bands in music history, but as the others have said, about 90% of their career is tied to EC. With that being said I think it would be fine to merge. – zmbro (talk) (cont) 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . This band were the backing group to a leading New Wave singer, which surely makes them notable. YTKJ (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I'm not sure if I understand the logic there. Nobody's denying Costello is notable, but they haven't done enough notable on their own to justify their own article. They need to have independent notability.
    In the same way as how WP:BANDMEMBER doesn't give every member of a notable band its own, a backing band needs to be able to stand on their WP:BAND criteria seperately from Costello if they have their own article DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take your point, User: DeputyBeagle. Having looked at WP: BANDMEMBER and read the first item on the list of notability criteria under WP:BAND, I can say that I would not be opposed to a merge with or redirect to Elvis Costello. Just so long as the outcome of this discussion is not deletion - the band were too closely linked with Costello for that. YTKJ (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources show this is clearly notable!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D- Aside:@Liz, hello, if the undue bold mentioned in a recent message concerned this page, I am afraid it was not my deed but an unvolontary consequence of an edit by@YTKJ (fixed) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

An entirely blanked article because it fails WP:NBIO and has WP:COI issues. Somehow, nobody thought about making a deletion discussion throughout all of this process. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ping @Left guide and @Arch2all to see what arguments they have. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the redirect, because it linked to a page which is not directly related to Francis Wynkop. I haven't deleted the previous content. It is not an acceptable solution to create misleading redirects in this case. Keep the old content or delete the whole page, if no one can create acceptable content here. Arch2all (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wynkoop is with 2 Os; and the redirect (although I think the page should be kept) was not misleading. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect per the edit summary argument which is still fully valid:

    fails WP:NBIO, virtually all of the coverage available for this person is paid sources, passing mentions, and questionable sources that don't count towards notability

    Also possibly the product of COI/UPE based on the banned article creator's history. Left guide (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure your general assessment of the sources as a whole is correct but WP:NPEOPLE indicates that persons meeting the following criterion may be considered notable: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here. Your redirect was not misleading (see above) but I consider it is not necessary.
    Also, @TeapotsOfDoom pinging the 2 contributors who redirected/blanked the page respectively might be seen as inappropriate, although it was limited, open and neutral in its wording, as the audience might fall under the category "partisan". I am certain you did it in good faith and both users were not selected for their opinion on the subject but their opinion on the subject was obviously clear to you before you pinged them. Thank you all the same.
    Anyway, despite strong indications of notability, I stand by my procedural SK !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment, I see no grounds for a speedy keep as BLAR is normal part of editing. Please focus on notability and not procedural issues. Star Mississippi 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But I will focus on procedural issues, though. Please look at the history of the page and of this AfD. And please read my comment with more attention. "Blaring" is not an issue. Blanking a page, however, is not, I must insist, normal part of editing. At all. And nominating a blank page, even in good faith, is sufficient ground for SK in my view, at least for procedural keep. See first !vote and see nominator's rationale. So, as your comment is apparently made in quality of administrator and my input seems to be the only thing you notice here, please kindly read: Wikipedia:Page blanking. It's a guideline. As for the rest, I mentioned notabilty too, myself (twice), but AfDs are not always about notability only and when a procedural flaw is patent, it is relevant to mention it and it is permitted if not recommended, to !vote accordingly. Thank you for your time and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The history is accessible and anyone participating in an AfD should look at the current and past state of an article when evaluating an AfD (Prod, MfD, etc.) for necessary information. There are no procedural grounds that invalidate the nomination. If Wynkoop is found to be notable, it will be retained. If not, it won't be. Neither instance requires a procedural restart to the discussion, which might be the case if there were Rev Del or other factors that impacted non admins from seeing the history. My comment is that of one admin, you're welcome to continue asking for others to weigh in. I think your (collectively) time would be best spent assessing notability. Drive by comments (not yours, the one you refer to) are regularly disregarded by closers. Star Mississippi 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if blanking is OK with you and nominating a blank page as such too, perfect, but you might want to change the guideline then. As I've already told you, I've already replied in regard to the notability issue with 2 comments, that you apparently haven't seen. But I'll do it one more time, although I think I am wasting my time with a completely irregular debate. Frank Wynkoop is a notable architect, creator of various very notable works, some listed on the page, with solid references, and he thus clearly, fairly and easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and in particular the criterion I quoted above, but let's go, I'll quote it again (if anyone mentions bludgeoning, I'll direct them to you, hope we agree on that): "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here: https://www.atomic-ranch.com/interior-design/designers-craftsmen/frank-wynkoop-the-butterfly-house/; Dramov, Alissandra, and Momboisse, Lynn A.. Historic Homes and Inns of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Arcadia Publishing Incorporated, p. 8 (quoted on the page and perfectly acceptable); https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/ad-goes-inside-carmels-iconic-butterfly-house; Papp, James. San Luis Obispo County Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, 2023.p.121 ; Engineering News-record. (1962). McGraw-Hill, p. 50; Landscape Architecture: Home landscape, Publication Board of the American Society of Landscape Architects, 1980, p. 164.; etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No concern with bludgeoning. You're making the case that he's notable - great. That's what the closer will need. It's not an irregular debate. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is there any reliable indept sourcing for any works apart from the Butterfly House? On a cursory look I've not seen any. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I remember correctly, the Seaburst House did, but the source was on the Internet Archive so I don't have access to it at the moment. It does have at least one piece of SIGCOV here. The Centralia Fox Theatre has SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fwiw, I've paged through newspaper hits for variations on his name & architect and found virtually nothing beyond he was the named architect on a number of schools. Best school coverage I noticed was Lakeside School was inspected by county groups (Modesto Bee And News Herald Newspaper Archives February 6, 1948 Page 17) which appears to have a few paras (can't read properly the scan quality is so poor). There's also a couple of Proquest hits mentioning his work renovating Bakersfield Hall of Records (Repository of county records celebrates 100 years of history. Shearer, Jenny.  McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington. 24 Jan 2009. & Best buildings of downtown: Take the tour. Self, Jennifer. TCA Regional News; Chicago. 18 May 2016). I'd suggest the possibility of a merge with Butterfly House (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), including a para or so about his life and other projects. With architects very predominantly known for one building that usually seems the best approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    A merge makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the sourcing points to the fact he was just a local, run of the mill architect, without any significant coverage of him that would go beyond routine local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I've looked through the sourcing here and in the article - the best sources basically say he designed a house in Carmel, but don't really elaborate on him at all. The article uses a lot of short, routine newspaper clippings such as paid obituaries and marriage licenses to pad it out, which don't count. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This architect designed a number of notable structures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which apart from Butterfly House? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the subject. Whether the current contents of the page are blank or not matters not a whit, as Star Mississippi pointed out. And once a valid view to delete has been entered, an improper nomination is no longer reason for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peruri 88 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article generally does not meet the WP:NBUILDING or WP:GNG guidelines. Had the building been constructed or been under construction, it might have qualified under these guidelines, as it would be the tallest building in Jakarta and likely attract substantial coverage. Unfortunately, it remains only a design proposal from 2012, and 12 years later, there have been no further updates or developments on this plan. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If proposing a Merge or Redirect, please spell out the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 20:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No refs on the page for a very long time. I don't speak relevant languages but I'm not seeing the substantial RS needed to meet the notability criteria JMWt (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No references, clearly not notable and needs significant cleanup- no infobox. This feels more like a draft. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) Cooldudeseven7 join in on the tea talk 11:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a half-assed copy and paste (and translation) from the German Wikipedia, including the contents. The first paragraph of the history in the German article matches the one here. Procyon117 (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. I mean, it's a disaster right now, but sources [11] definitely exist for this [12] [13] [14] from just a brief search. Ignore the bad page grouping the coverage isn't just in the highlighted bits, lots of full page coverage. This took me less than five minutes. Lots of seemingly substantial hits in Google Books and I didn't even go past the second page of the Swiss newspaper archive. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There's a significant coverage at page 23 of this source coupled with the other source PARAKANYAA pointed out. These are enough. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - From what we have so far, this is marginal, but as a rule of thumb, this is a school with 1,000 on role, open since 1966. My expectation is there is more than we have found, and so I am ready to !vote keep. The first thing to note is the German Wikipedia article is much fuller [15] and I have added an inter language expand template to link it to the page. But then, looking at the sourcing on that page, I was disappointed to find it was all primary and thus not much use for notability purposes. So then I looked at what PARAKANYAA found. I cannot review AC 41, but that issue has an article about the architecture of schools. Thus the coverage is, I expect, about the architecture of the new school building, which would accord with the date, as this was when the school was founded. That is one interesting source. Then there are three articles from Der Bund. Der Bund is a newspaper local to Bern. The first is about a stir caused by a couple of students doing chicken embryo experiments. It looks like this kicked off an animal rights kerfuffle, but was a storm in a teacup. What it does not have is anything we can write a school article from. The second tells us that in 1976 the school hosted some modern art by an artist. It is not a permanent fixture, and unless the school remains a home to works of notable modern art, I don't see how that could be used in the article either. The third is an article about cycle routes and the school gets a passing mention as a destination. So I wouldn't say any of those local news articles count towards notability. But again, that is on strict application of GNG or NORG. What the articles do show is that the school gets repeated mentions in local press (as you would expect) over the course of years. I expect there will be notable students, and other coverage. The architecture source could be counted as one (although is the interest in the building sustained?) The article can be expaned from the German page, but sourcing remains problematic. Problematic but not impossible. We should probably keep it. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, there were a lot more hits on both Google Books and the Swiss newspaper archive I looked at, I just grabbed the ones that had headings that talked about it on the first page. I will check again later today. Switzerland had at the time a relatively peculiar media ecosystem where there were only a handful of non-regional papers; I believe Der Bund was fairly prestigious at the time but I'm basing that off a 1960s article I read a while back so I don't know how applicable that is. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to remind all friends of the following. WP:ORGCRIT (which applies to schools) insists that coverage needs to be significant. The nutshell at the top of WP:ORG insists that the coverage must not be trivial or incidental. So the first question is whether the sources offered above are trivial and incidental or substantial. I say that coverage about an art exhibition is trivial. I say that coverage about a minor event is incidental. I say that any further coverage about ex-students is trivial and/or incidental. I know this is a hard standard to reach but this is the current consensus at WP:NSCHOOL. It has to be substantial. A history of the school. Substantial news articles about the school. Are there likely to be those in existence? That’s the only question we are to answer. I say no. Unless someone can prove that there have has substantial coverage of this kind, then we are clasping at straws and we should !delete until such time as third party RS give this kind of coverage. JMWt (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there likely to be those in existence? I think I was clear that my weak keep is based on my belief that the answer to that is likely to be yes. But certainly not proven to be. I would certainly support a relist for a week to allow for more source discovery. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you think it is likely to be yes? Unless you can show that there is an offline book on the history of this school, it seems to me that the only argument you are making is because of the age of the school substantial coverage must exist. I don’t think that’s a given at all. It’s entirely possible that the only coverage going back decades is trivial. And the onus is on the !keep voters to show that the sources exist - even if none of us can actually access or open them - in order to WP:V the contents of the page as well as to show it is notable according to RS. JMWt (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was quite clear on the basis of my comments and see no need to re-iterate. The US embassy in Switzerland host this speech given at the school [16]. Also there is a history, in the form of a documentary (a secondary source) here [17] but as it is a visual documentary it gives little to write an article from. There were public viewings of this film in at least 3 Bern cinemas. The 2016 celebration this was made for may well have elicited other materials that might be useful for the article. Finally, although I mentioned NORG, and those are the appropriate SNGs for schools, note that NSCHOOL says a school must meet either NORG or GNG. We are not even at a clear GNG pass yet, but based on everything I have seen, I doubt this school will fail. There is a certain amount of language bias here. An American school of this calibre would have attracted a string of keeps by now. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. There are press reports below the information about the film on that website, that appears to suggest that it is notable. JMWt (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To be pedantic, NORG says schools "must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page), the general notability guideline, or both", not that NORG is the only test for schools. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 20:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:ROTM lawyer, and no-one knows what a "Blacksmith Mayor" is. This seems to be a soubriquet bestowed upon him by the creating editor, who created one or more walled gardens in and around Carmel-by-the-Sea, with distinctly useless hyperlocal referencing. WP:NOTINHERITED applies - look at the list of people he knew! Fails WP:V, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Run of the mill bootcamp, coverage is all highly routine and of questionable independence. I can see maybe one source that's barely usable, but the rest are far short of what we'd need for NCORP, and we definitely need multiple. It might be possible to redirect this somewhere, but I can't think of any plausible targets. Also probably going to nom Chester Ismay later. Alpha3031 (tc) 10:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Eisenmann, Thomas; AlQahtani, Halah (January 2017). "Flatiron School". Harvard Business Review. Archived from the original on 2024-07-21. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      This is a 19-page Harvard Business Review case study of Flatiron School. The abstract notes: "In late 2016, the founders of Flatiron School, a startup offering 12-week coding bootcamps, are formulating their growth strategy. Their new online-only program has matched the excellent job placement results for their in-person bootcamps. Should Flatiron shift investment to aggressively expand online or grow online and in-person bootcamps in tandem? Should they pursue opportunities to sell online programs to universities and corporations, in addition to their direct-to-consumer offer?"

    2. Mitchell, Josh (2016-08-12). "Coding Boot Camps Attract Tech Companies". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2024-06-18. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "In a graffiti-splashed classroom in lower Manhattan, students are learning to write computer code at a private academy whose methods and results have caught the eye of Silicon Valley and the Obama administration. The Flatiron School’s 12-week course costs $15,000, but earns students no degree and no certificate. What it does get them, at an overwhelming rate, is a well-paying job. Nearly everyone graduates, and more than nine in 10 land a job within six months at places like Alphabet Inc.’s Google and Kickstarter. Average starting salary: $74,447. ... At Flatiron, students spend 10 to 12 hours a day for 12 weeks on projects such as building a duplicate version of online-review site Yelp from scratch. The school’s staff calls tech firms throughout the week, both to promote their graduates’ abilities and to learn employers’ constantly shifting needs, including what software they use."

    3. Johnson, Sydney (2017-10-20). "Who's Holding Coding Bootcamp Accountability Accountable?". EdSurge. Archived from the original on 2024-08-20. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "That showed this week when New York-based Flatiron School, a coding bootcamp, was fined $375,000 by the state’s attorney general for misleading advertising and operating without a license. Flatiron is hardly the first bootcamp to come under fire for falsely advertising its outcomes. What makes this a particularly ironic case, though, is that Flatiron is part of the Quality Assurance Taskforce, a consortium of 25 organizations that include non-profit universities, investors and coding bootcamps and has a stated goal “to drive industry-wide accountability and transparency” for non-traditional learning providers. ... Regardless, Flatiron’s membership in an accountability program didn’t render it immune from its own violations and a resulting inquiry by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman."

    4. Lohr, Steve (2017-08-24). "As Coding Boot Camps Close, the Field Faces a Reality Check". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2017-08-25. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "The Flatiron School in New York may have discovered one path. Founded in 2012, Flatiron has a single campus in downtown Manhattan and its main offering is a 15-week immersive coding program with a $15,000 price tag. More than 95 percent of its 1,000 graduates there have landed coding jobs. In late 2015, the co-founders, Adam Enbar and Avi Flombaum, decided to try an online-only offering, Learn.co. The tuition is $1,500 a month. Students go at their own pace, and on average complete the course in seven months, putting in about 800 hours. Tuition charges stop after eight months — and there are instructors online 16 hours a day for help and advice. ... The school was the subject of a Harvard Business School case study, published this year, which found that the early success of the online-only course has “expanded strategic options for Flatiron.” But just how much is uncertain. “It’s pretty clear that they can do it at the scale they have,” said Thomas Eisenmann, a professor and lead author of the study. “What’s not clear is whether it can go from a hundred or a few hundred to thousands and thousands.”"

    5. Swarns, Rachel L. (2014-06-23). "Creating Unexpected Opportunities in a Recovering Economy: Flatiron School Program Expands New York's Web Developer Ranks". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2016-04-26. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "Then a friend invited her to a meet-up for computer programmers at the Flatiron School in Manhattan. ... At the Flatiron School, which trains people in software coding, Ms. Eady met female programmers and programmers of all shades. She met musicians who were coding, finance guys who were coding. She met creative people who talked about building things — new apps, new websites, new ways to tell stories. ... When she discovered that the city was offering fellowships for people interested in learning coding at Flatiron, she jumped at the chance. So did about 1,200 other applicants. The program is run by the New York City Department of Small Business Services, which contracted with Flatiron to offer a free, 22-week course to New Yorkers who earned less than $50,000 and had never worked as web developers. (The course normally costs $12,000.) Twenty-eight people made the final cut, including Ms. Eady."

    6. Mullin, Joe (2017-10-19). "One of the original coding schools must pay $375k over employment claims: New York's Flatiron School was ordered to alter website, hit with a hefty fine". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2023-06-10. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "Flatiron's application for licensing its second campus, opened in 2013, didn't go smoothly. In June 2016, Flatiron reached out by e-mail to inquire about its second license. New York's Bureau of Proprietary School Supervision responded two months later with a cease-and-desist letter telling the school to stop operations. Flatiron didn't stop operations while it was getting its licensing in order, so the Bureau held that the school's second campus operated from 2013 until 2017 without a license."

    7. Thompson, Clive (2019). Coders: The Making of a New Tribe and the Remaking of the World. New York: Penguin Books. pp. 352–353. ISBN 978-0-7352-2058-4. Retrieved 2024-10-31 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "Avi Flombaum is trying to figure out one of these new routes. He's the founder of the Flatiron School, a boot camp that takes people and, for about $15,000 in tuition, puts them through an intense 15-week training curriculum. When I visit their campus in the Wall Street district of Manhattan, about 200 students sit at long tables, working in pairs as they puzzle through the nuances of Ruby. One student is sketching out a snippet of code for his partner with a dry-erase marker, writing right on the table itself. ... He wound up getting a bunch of his students jobs, and thought, hmm, maybe he could scale this up. He and a partner launched the Flatiron School in 2012, and since then it has graduated almost 2,000 students. Flatiron is, like many boot camps, renowned for being an absolute cram of knowledge. Before admission, students are encouraged to complete a free 15-week online course that introduces them to the basics of Ruby or JavaScript. While they're in session, many stay late into the evening, working on projects with colleagues. About half of the students are women, and most are young, including students who finished college but decided coding was a better bet for employment than the subject they majored in; others had been in the workforce but didn't like their job and wanted to switch careers. One recent student came from a pig farm in Texas."

    8. Sprinkle, Timothy (2015). Kelley, Erin (ed.). Screw the Valley: A Coast-to-Coast Tour of America's New Tech Startup Culture: New York, Boulder, Austin, Raleigh, Detroit, Las Vegas, Kansas City. Dallas: BenBella Books. pp. 82–83. ISBN 978-1-940363-30-1. Retrieved 2024-10-31 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "That's the approach that Avi Flombaum is taking at his coding startup, the Flatiron School, which moved from the Silicon Alley district near Union Square to the southern tip of Manhattan in late 2013 as part of a city-backed program to bring hipper, more growth-oriented companies to the Financial District. After working on a series of startups, he created the Flatiron School in 2012 after teaching a few programming classes on Skillshare (which is run by a friend) and helping out at General Assembly. The whole operation is self-funded and it charges about $10,000 for a three-month, full-time course that promises to teach normal people how to code, regardless of their background."

    9. Kessler, Sarah (2013-04-18). "How Flatiron School Makes New Programmers–In Just 12 Weeks". Fast Company. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-10-31.

      The article notes: "In September, he cofounded something between the two extremes. Called the Flatiron School, the program offers 12 weeks of full-time, intensive instruction (plus pre-work) “designed to turn you into a web developer” for a $10,000 tuition fee. The school’s only classroom, located in a walk-up near Madison Square Park in New York City, looks more like a startup. Some students work at Ikea desks pushed together to create one long table. Others sit on a sofa with their laptops. About 80% of the class has a background in either writing, music, or photography. Two are pregnant. One is a former professional poker player. Another is a founder of SparkNotes."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Flatiron School to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:16, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm locked out of my library account because I didn't reset my password when they asked me to (oops, though I really do wish they didn't make me do it every three months) so it might be a few days before I can look at the Harvard Business Review article, but I had seen the news articles, and especially the Fast Company one seemed pretty rubbish to me (like, in terms of meeting SIRS. I'm sure it's interesting to people outside of that context). It's mostly quotes, the genre is more in line with a human-interest story, so while it does have a little bit of secondary content, I don't see it meeting the other three criteria. Alpha3031 (tc) 03:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The Harvard Business Review study is pretty convincing on its own. It gets plenty of coverage in books, largely as case studies, but those are still significant. Newspaper sources need some careful evaluation, but the sources provided by Cunard are multiple, include articles in papers of record, and appear to be independent. There is secondary information here, and so GNG is quite clearly met, and these reviews are good enough to meat WP:ORGDEPTH too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A critical assessment of Cunard's sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 20:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Rightfully prodded by User:Spiderone back in 2009. The claim to notability, playing 6 games in Japan's second league and 1 cup game, is very weak. The sources (including those found in ja:wiki) are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 20:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Promotional article from an SMM company using press releases, interviews, product and facility launches, and other announcements. No coverage in reliable sources. No coverage in independent reliable sources, fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi, these coverages are all reliable, they are posted on reliable media sources like news medias, print magazines. please feel free to check all the links before making a decision. Pitchonepr SMM (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
at the very least Delete the sections of the article that are just listing products, but the article as a whole reads somewhat promotional. Gaismagorm (talk) 17:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KeepLeaning keep. I cannot evaluate the reliability of most of the sources used in the article but some of them sources that look alright, like Rest of World and News18. The topic of the article seems notable. Jeraxmoira, are you saying that all of the sources are unreliable? Can you explain why you think so? Needless to say all the promotional fluff that is not supported by sources or is supported only by the company's press releases should be removed. Alaexis¿question? 22:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the proper process for dealing with the WP:COI has not been followed by Pitchonepr SMM, I urge them to disclose their conflict of interest immediately (full disclosure, I came here because asked me a question at my talk page). Alaexis¿question? 22:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alaexis, the Rest of World article is an interview and the News18 article is a press release. They do not pass the WP:SIRS check that is conducted for articles about organizations and companies. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeraxmoira, yeah, you're right about these two sources. And what about this piece? It seems to address the subject directly and in depth. Alaexis¿question? 22:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a very good source with a byline and it also seems to be a magazine feature. But, I wouldn’t be okay with it, as it’s an interview that would fail the WP:SIRS check. i.e., it is not completely independent of the article subject. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my !vote to Leaning Keep. I understand your points but still think that this topic is notable. Alaexis¿question? 08:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just reminding participants that a promotional tone and unencyclopedic sections can be edited out, and are not a valid reason for deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 20:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a pitcher leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar situation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball career double plays as a right fielder leaders, which resulted in the lists by position being trimmed and merged to List of Major League Baseball career double plays leaders. The top 100 players at each position, split into their own articles, and then a list of other hall of famers at their positions and relevant stats, is more narrow a scope than is appropriate. All of these are basically copies of leader tables (link) from Baseball Reference. The top 100 players at each position, in their own lists, is excessive, and Wikipedia is not a database. Proposing that the relevant lists be trimmed and merged to their own sections at List of Major League Baseball career putouts leaders. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a catcher leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a first baseman leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a second baseman leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a third baseman leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a shortstop leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as an outfielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a left fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a center fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of Major League Baseball career putouts as a right fielder leaders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iikka Miettinen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable football manager, WP:TOOSOON at best. Held positions such as analyst, U19 assistant, assistant and U19 coach. The sources are not independent or significant; the YLE piece is not about Miettinen, but about Roberto Mancini with Miettinen's reports about the manager. The Aamulehti piece is about an U17 club tournament, there's nothing notable about that. Geschichte (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unfortunately, I don't see this player meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, spending one season in Singapore and then moving on to the fifth tier of Japanese football. Geschichte (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails GNG, I'm finding only passing mentions in much larger articles (and not many of them, either). AntiDionysius (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Society for Navigation on Essequibo and adjacent Rivers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible copyright infringement. The Dutch Wikipedia article was deleted because it was not clear where and when the text was first published and by whom; copyright infringement could not be ruled out. Same applies here; the first version of the english-language text is a straightforward translation from a Dutch original, possibly written by the same author of the Wikipedia articles, that appears to have been published in 2021 by the Bibliotheek van Zeeland. It has to be assumed that the Bibliotheek van Zeeland is the owner of the copyright. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the deletion discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia. And paragraph 3 and 4 of this publication, is the original version. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Transportation. WCQuidditch 00:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until the copyright issues can be resolved and the page rewritten. JMWt (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I will trust Ruud's research on the copyrights. Thank you for investing time in this, Ruud! No objection to draftification, if someone wants to work on this. I have basically moved texts around so did not mitigate any copyvio issues. Only structural ones. gidonb (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Much appreciated, @Gidonb! I have mixed feelings about this. The topic of this article, SvE for short, is notable. Thanks to your effort to write a lead section, it survived the first AfD discussion. I am sure that researchers on slave trade would be very interested to know more about this trading company, that was small and short-lived, but certainly relevant. What needs to be clarified is if this article, published by Zeeland Library, is copyright protected. The third and fourth paragraphs, as well as the literature and references, are identical to the first version of this WP article on the SvE. If I understand the disclaimer correctly, the text is not intended for commercial use and the library does not take responsibility for improper use. In my view, the text cannot be published as is on Wikipedia. The Encyclopedie van Zeeland, another publication by Zeeland Library, also carries the same text. Since the EvZ does not have a disclaimer, we have to assume that the EvZ is copyright protected. For a Wikipedia article on SvE, the text needs more work. In my view, for example, the section on Essequibo at the start of the fourth Anglo-Dutch war, is only indirectly relevant for the SvE. The two main sections of the article really are two different topics. Unfortunately, this article cannot be cleaned up. It has to be deleted for copyright violation. A new article has to be created from scratch. I will have to leave that to someone else. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 14:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be some consensus here that the topic itself is likely notable. If that's the case, copyright violations, if any, can be removed editorially. Feel free to trim the article down to a stub if needed. No need to wait until the AfD is closed. We can then delete any revision that included the violating content, without the need to remove the subject. Please note that per WP:DRAFTNO, draftification is not a valid approach to dealing with copyright violations.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 19:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is no SIGCOV coverage of the subject, failing to meet WP:GNG. Does this one award make her notable? I don’t think so, because if you look at the article Miss Tourism International, most titleholders do not have a Wikipedia article. Therefore, I believe the subject fails to meet WP:ANYBIO. GrabUp - Talk 19:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Failed a WP:BEFORE search, and poorly sourced. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 19:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi what is a WP:before search? 82.6.40.205 (talk) 20:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A WP:BEFORE search is a search done before you nominate an article for deletion. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 23:19, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bangalore Education Society, Malleswaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. One source is a directory listing, the other is not significant coverage of this school. Since the last AfD we are a lot more stricter on school notability. LibStar (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd and brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging @MelanieN: the only participant in the previous AfD who is still active.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× 19:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

I could not find any SIGCOV sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject. The article primarily cites unreliable sources like Tellychakkar and IWMBuzz. The one reliable source, Bollywood Hungama, does not provide significant coverage of the channel; it merely announces its launch. All sources are simply announcing the launch. Totally fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. A redirect to its parent company, Sun TV Network, might be a better option per WP:ATD. GrabUp - Talk 18:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources are primary sources that do not show notability. Only has 9 appearances at 5th tier of English soccer. Demt1298 (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was a useful list in the past, but it became outdated and is hardly updated. The number of transiting exoplanets has grown massively, so it is nearly impossible to maintain this list. Just to fill up the missing entries it would take a huge effort of many people and months, and given that only 200 people see this list every month this effort would not be rewarded. The Exoplanet Archive already do the job to catalog these planets, making this list useless. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

With the number of planets detected by radial velocity growing more and more every month, it will be very difficult to maintain this list. It barely get updates and views and has little utility, anyone searching for radial velocity planets could search the NASA Exoplanet Archive instead, which is far more complete than this list. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable Canadian rock band. GamerPro64 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Was unable to find any sources to this publishing house to show notability. GamerPro64 18:29, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daveed (2025 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreleased film, nothing especially notable about the production, therefore does not meet WP:NFILM, specifically WP:NFF, as an as yet unreleased film. Should have remained in draft space but has been moved back to main space, so deletion is required. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the notbaility of prodcution, The film was distributed by Century Films which is the distributer of Malaikottai Vaaliban, Perumani and John Luther etc. These are the details I got from the producers social handles. Arjusreenivas (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Notability" would rather be established through sources independent of the subject. (Not saying that what you are saying is not true nor that it is not interesting) Mushy Yank (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Thank you for your Participation in this Discussion, Please Check sources, I think the article have more than enough sources. Arjusreenivas (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mount St. Francis, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here GNIS and the USPS conspire to make up a "community", because the actual "community" here is the seminary itself. There is a post office, and it is in the buildings of the seminary, which sits in majestic isolation at the end of a long driveway, surrounded by a great deal of forest, as it always has been. One may decide that the facility itself is notable, but that's a different article. The fact is there's nothing town-like here, and this article should not exist. Mangoe (talk) 16:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will add that this was originally about the seminary, but was turned into a place article on the strength of the post office presence. We've had other cases, however, of post offices in places which have no associated community. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anti-Russian violence in Chechnya (1991–1994) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:FRINGE theory and also violation of neutral point of view.--Fenikals (talk) 10:55, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, doesn't really seem like a fringe article, and I don't see how it violates NPOV. Some explanation would be good.
Gvssy (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with the statement above, this article is written using different sources, highlight the aspects in which you feel that the article violates WP:NPOV.
Dushnilkin (talk) 20:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Unsubstantiated claims, no evidence presented. The article is based mostly on solid sources.
Alaexis¿question? 22:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No doubts, there was a lot of violence in Chechnya in 1991-1994, just as in many other countries. But was it specifically anti-Russian ("Russian" means ethnicity I assume) or against non-Chechens in general? Or was it at all, as a coherent subject described in RS? I do not see anything stronger that RIA News and propaganda claims that were used as a pretext for starting the First Chechen war. My very best wishes (talk) 03:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is not factual, it just lists Russian claims as to supposed persecution of ethnic Russians in then de facto independent Chechnya. We know that the 1990-s in ex-USSR were a tumultuous time marked, among other things, by high a level of crime and violence, but this article completely fails to show on any factual material that level of violent crime in Chechnya was any higher than elsewhere in post-Soviet countries, nor that non-Chechens suffered from it disproportionately compared to Chechens, nor, even less, that it was culturally or racially motivated and targeted specifically against ethnic Russians. The article does not cite any Chechen sources, and most of its sources are Russian official and pro-government media, that cannot be reasonably seen as a reliable source of information, especially on topics such as this, and especially now that we already know that those claims of persecution of ethnic Russians were used to create ideological pretext for the First Chechen War, the MO that Russian propaganda has employed many times since then. As such, the article fully satisfies the definition of WP:FRINGE and breaks WP:NPOV, and has no business to exist in Wikipedia in its current form. Perhaps some parts of it can be merged, with a bit of rewrite, into First Chechen War#Origins.--Goren (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SYNTH. Was there news about crime in Chechnya? Did Chechnya declare independence from Russia? Were ethnic Russians victimized by crimes? Yes, yes, and probably yes. Drawing connections between these ideas is a combination of Conspiracy theory and Russian propaganda. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Reliably sourced article that is supposed to stay. Your disagreement with the content should be resolved on talk page, not AfD. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep - maybe it should be part of First Chechen War? Not sure about the NPOV issues, im not a topic expert, but unless the article is truly beyond repair, WP:TNT should not be invoked. Some of the links are hard to assess as whether they are reliable or not, especially as some are specifically from the Russian state government Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ola and others seem to make a point. I still have no clue though how to evaluate the claims in the article and if WP:TNT could be invoked, but I will withdraw my vote for now.
    I will comment that nobody else has used WP:TNT argument, and if the article is notable, it likely should be kept on that basis alone and allowed to be editted and fixed by wider wikipedia community. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete The article’s content heavily relies on sources that are either state-sponsored or lack independent corroboration, specifically Russian government claims that have been widely critiqued as propaganda. Scholars have argued that these narratives were used to justify military actions, as seen in other contexts like Donbas, where Russia similarly accused Ukraine of anti-Russian "ethnic cleansing." Dunlop, for instance, who could be considered an absolute expert in Soviet and Russian politics/conflicts observes that such reports "could scarcely be imagined" as anything other than a tool to provoke conflict. The article lacks reliable, independent sources confirming such high levels of anti-Russian violence and over-relies on Russian official narratives. As such, it fails to meet the standards expected in journalistic, scholarly, historical, or Wikipedia contexts. As others have pointed out, the article does not establish that violence in Chechnya disproportionately targeted ethnic Russians or was driven by racial animus rather than broader post-Soviet instability. As it stands, the article primarily echoes state propaganda without balanced perspective or credible verification, making it unsuitable in its current form. Additionally, I have presented substantial evidence on the talk page, dissecting several of the article’s claims as fringe or unreliable. Ola Tønningsberg (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Janicke Askevold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think she meets WP:NACTOR, no evidence of significant roles. Directing non notable films doesn't really add to WP:DIRECTOR. And only 1 hit in google news, which is unusual for someone with a career in Europe. LibStar (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

BLP tagged for sourcing issues since 2010. Only source is from her employer which lacks independence. Not clear that the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 02:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@dxneo Michael is citing an WP:SNG which is another accepted pathway to establishing notability other than WP:GNG. This is perfectly fine, although I note that the article currently cites no independent sources supporting the SNG being cited. We still need independent sources to prove an SNG.4meter4 (talk) 22:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looking for editors to supply other sources that could establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:56, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there more sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No evidence of meeting WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Most sources are primary or YouTube videos. A WP:BEFORE search finds one article [18] which does not contain significant coverage of the subject. – Pbrks (t·c) 15:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 3 sources provided are primary. Created by a single purpose editor so possible promotion. LibStar (talk) 03:43, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet the people notability guidelines as mentioned by LibStar. I did a few Google searches, and the results were minimal to say the least. Nothing that indicates significance or notability as a person. Sirocco745 (talk) 04:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get more eyes to look at the sources presented?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Appears to be a rail spot: right now it's overrun by sprawl from Louisville but go back into the 1950s and there's nothing there but the rails. Mangoe (talk) 15:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Repost of previously deleted and salted article WP:REFBOMBED with passing mentions and press releases of individual cities becoming international cities for peace, which don't really provide significant coverage of the organization as a whole. Even the one "publication reference" that I was able to access through The Wikipedia Library doesn't provide anything close to significant coverage. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Pppery, for the feedback. I understand the concerns about notability and the type of references currently used. I am working to find more sources that offer comprehensive coverage of International Cities of Peace as an organization rather than passing mentions of individual cities joining the network.
I believe International Cities of Peace has demonstrated significant global impact as it has been active in hundreds of cities worldwide, promoting peace initiatives and even achieving Special Consultative Status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. I’ll focus on finding additional independent, reliable sources that address this organizational reach.
Thank you again for your guidance, and I’m open to any further suggestions on how to ensure the article meets Wikipedia’s standards. WAASI TECH (talk) 05:38, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above reply came up as 76% AI-written on gptzero.me. Left guide (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I will monitor and help with this. I have read the article and find the organization has merit. Thanks to Wassi Tech and Pppery for the discussion. I will check to see if guidelines are followed. Be back soon. Vritta100 (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Initiated three strategies for keeping this article:
1. I am researching a broader sourcing of references for the organization. To date, as noted in the Article, coverage of International Cities of Peace is included in many global media sources, including the BBC, The China Daily, the Westerly Sun, Ashland, Oregon News, Belfast Live, Irish Central, iTV, New Horizon, and many others; Publication mentions: Weifang Openings, Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace, and Conflict, International Peaceful Cities Series. What is included has value but more will be needed.
2. Will help edit the article for complete adherence to Wikipedia protocols. Suggestions are welcomed from other editors. This will, hopefully, be completed over the next week.
3. I will investigate the overall vision, mission, and goals of the organization. This NGO is in Special Consultative Status with ECOSOC and has representation at the United Nations in both New York and Geneva. The intent of the organization is to create value at the grassroots level. The organization is fifteen years old and has shown growth. Clarity is needed but I'm willing to put in time to make the Article meet Wikipedia standards.
This will take some time. I hope we editors can have a bit of patience before deleting because the above strategies, hopefully, will clarify and add value. Rather than delete, improve. Back soon. Vritta100 (talk) 08:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Have completed in draft form more substantive, non-promotional copy and will implement with REF, etc. Still sourcing known hard copy publications but waiting on verified citations. Ready to add seven new articles from several countries, including Ghana, UK, Denmark, Togo, and United States. Going well. Wiki protocol followed in all. Other help will be welcomed, especially from potential Lexis-Nexis support. Let me know. Thank you. Vritta100 (talk) 01:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Major edit and minor edit, Sunday, Nov. 3rd. Text more substantive and to the point. Citations follow Wiki guidelines. Resources include multinational news media, including Ghana, Togo, China, United States, Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Publications and journals with articles and mentions included, particularly a series of books entitled "International Cities of Peace" as a result of International Cities of Peace working with UNESCO Chair of Peace Studies. In addition, impact shown with practical work in five Cities of Peace: Argentina, Denmark, Nigeria, China, and Kenya. Improved statements of vision and mission, along with organizational structure. Much research done to verify information and citations. Thanks to WASSI TECH for initiation of the page as well as Pppery for notification of problems. Will work with all editors on improvements. Please remove the Deletion notice and Deletion listing. Vritta100 (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This is not a distinct phenomenon, but rather a local name for swell surge used in coastal Kerala, also known by various names in other parts of the world. Presenting it as a distinct phenomenon is scientifically inaccurate. Additionally, this is not the Malayalam Wikipedia. Per WP:CFORK, this is an unnecessary content fork. The Doom Patrol (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fair enough, and I agree that this would be better treated as a more general topic, but I note that Swell (ocean) does not actually contain the term "swell surge", and does not seem to cover this type of phenomenon. Thus more a case for rewriting and generalizing than for redirecting or deleting? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:36, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plunder of Murshidabad (1742) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • First of all, the article is written in the form of a fan-made story, attempting to villainize an entity (or perhaps show off? There are numerous instances in articles about Indian military history where users have included shocking or vulgar acts committed by militants).
  • WP:CITEKILL has made source analysis more complex, but once unreliable sources were cleared, the analysis became much easier. The article clearly fails to meet WP:GNG, as well as old sources falling under WP:RAJ and WP:AGEMATTERS have widely been used (caused the reason for the put down of the last proposal, and i was on a break)

Analysis:

  • The New Cambridge Modern History Vol. 7 (1713-63)* by Lindsay, J. O., Ed:

The book only mentions "Murshidabad" once, with the context found in the parent article on Maratha invasions of Bengal.

  • The same applies to *The Marathas - Cambridge History of India (Vol. 2, Part 4)* by Stewart Gordon;

It mentions the event alongside the "Maratha invasions of Bengal," which, indeed, should also be referenced here. A separate article is not warranted for this event, as it is a minor occurrence within a larger conflict—specifically, a plunder. Such events do not meet the minimum notability standards. In fact, an entire page from a reliable source is missing in this case. Additionally, the use of a military conflict infobox is unnecessary here, as it follows the same problematic pattern seen with articles like "Battle of X" or "X-Y Wars" in Indian military history. This approach has caused numerous issues. In conclusion, the article fails to meet notability standards and is poorly written. The content could easily be integrated into the parent article instead. Imperial[AFCND] 14:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Yet another non notable NPL team. As per the other NPL teams, does not meet WP:GNG and should never have been created in the first place. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Here we have a case where it was the GNIS compilers were a bit too trusting, for the source is not the topos, but is instead an 1876 map with (presumably) a dot on it. No topo shows anything here until it gets back-added from GNIS, and the cited source fails verification: the page in question is about the founding of the city of Louisville and doesn't mention this place. I searched the rest of the book but all mentions were of people except one for a street where a church was located. Mangoe (talk) 13:48, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Failed WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria showing no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject other than passing mentions Paper9oll (🔔📝) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This claim to notability, playing a total of 620 minutes in Argentina's league, is weak. The only possible WP:SIRS material I found is ESPN Argentina which tells that he debuted for Arsenal de Sarandí in 2015. Corresponding article on Spanish Wikipedia is an unsourced dumping ground. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 13:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as a former WDF World Championship runner-up and World Masters semi-finalist, there appears to be a great deal of significant coverage of the subject in Welsh (Llanelli Star, South Wales Echo) and other (Liverpool Echo, Aberdeen Evening Express) papers, but a lot of it is hidden behind a paywall. If I can get access to these papers later in the week I'll assess the coverage and update my vote; if anyone else has access to them it may be worth a look. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Registering a keep vote in light of the below comment, but will update further if I get granted access to the newspaper archive for the aforementioned articles. ser! (chat to me - see my edits) 21:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Significant coverage here and although my BNA access has expired, here's a story titled "Top of the World: Marshall James", which is almost certainly sigcov. He was second-best at the world championships! BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a six paragraph article that summarises a six year career really "significant coverage"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Is a 300+ word article on the then-second-best darts player in the world, as well as what appears to be a feature on 'Top of the World: Marshall James', count for notability? Of course it does. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. Are you seriously suggesting he was better than Phil Taylor? Two articles do not make significant coverage, especially when one of which you have admitted you have no idea what it even is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. – I'll admit I'm not super familiar with darts, but didn't James finish as the runner-up at the World Championships? Wouldn't being runner-up at the World Championships be second best in the world? And two articles can absolutely be significant coverage; the general notability guideline says that's all that's required for notability (two pieces of coverage). What do you think the odds are that a story titled, "Top of the World: Marshall James", is not significant coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He finished runner-up at a (not the) World Championship and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing of note ever again. Does a darts player from Llanelli having potentially one article in a Llanelli newspaper, and a six paragraph article on a darts website, really count for notability? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Does having significant coverage from two independent outlets for a runner-up at a World Darts Championship count for notability? Absolutely if you go by GNG, which only requires two significant sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So, to keep up-to-date. That's one "significant" source. And one source you freely admit you haven't read. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're allowed to use common sense. The odds that both the 'Top of the World' source is insignificant and that there's no further coverage of him anywhere is incredibly small, especially given that Ser! has found paywalled articles in four additional newspapers. That you're unable to answer whether you've done any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all for over one hundred darts articles you've rapidly nominated or proposed for deletion is concerning as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice personal attack there. Not content with doing it on my own talk page you now choose to do it here too! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Pointing out that you've refused on three occasions to answer the basic question of whether or not you've done a BEFORE search is not a personal attack... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You assuming that I haven't, and constantly repeating the claim, is a personal attack. What on earth makes you think I haven't? Because you found that the British library has an article in the Llanelli Post about him from 27 years ago? 🤣 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ItsKesha: What on earth makes you think I haven't?because I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that the articles are old, and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that I need to AGF – and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you told me to get off your talk page – and then here you called it a personal attack, and when asked ... you responded that "What on earth makes you think I haven't? 🤣" – this absolute refusal to answer the question while nominating / proposing hundreds of articles for deletion is disruptive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    OK 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is the entirety of the BNA article, content on James bolded:

    [D]arts ace Marshall James added another trophy to his impressive collection recently - after winning a world championship. Marshall was a member of the Wales short man squad that won the world championship in Perth, Sydney, recently. Another player from the area Eric Burden was also in the side with the others being Sean Palfrey of Newport and Martin Phillips from North Wales. With 35 countries taking part Wales beat a star studded England side in final by nine legs to six. Wales came away with three gold medals and one bronze. Marshall lost in the semi-final of the Embassy Gold Cup singles on Saturday to world number 1 Mervin King 2-1. Another Welsh player Shaun [sic] Palfrey went on to take the title beating King 2-0 in the final. Marshall was recognized for his achievement this week when he was chosen as winner of the Walter Hughes Cup, one of the Brin Isaac Memorial Fund awards.


    I'm not convinced ~4 sentences in an un-bylined hyper-local blurb announcing his darts competition results for that week counts toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - My main concern here is that DartsNews is not obviously a reliable source and some work needs to be done to establish whether it is or isn't. My real sticking point on any bio article is "can we write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject", and if Dartsnews is reliable then probably we can. BeanieFan11 - any views on this? FOARP (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really need to figure out how to get re-subscribed to the BNA; there appeared to be a decent bit of coverage there (highly likely enough to write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject, I'd say)... As for Dartsnews, they appear to have an editing staff. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - Mostly just on AGF, give-keep-a-chance grounds. DartsNews gives sigcov but feels like a peripheral source even if it is a WP:NEWSORG. There is no BIO equivalent of WP:AUD and local coverage shouldn't be excluded entirely, so I see no reason to dismiss coverage just because it was in a Llanelli newspaper, but it is also borderline for WP:SIGCOV. The real question for me is "can we have an article that isn't just sports-stats", and we just about can. Since the internet archive is now working again (albeit slow) I did a little search there and I see that, except for mentioning him a couple of times when discussing other players, he isn't listed in this book about the top 50 darts players, so I think that safely answers the question of how great this guy was. FOARP (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of discontinued Guinness World Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Starting AfD page after objection to deletion Dingers5Days (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe this article meets WP:NLIST. There are reliable sources mentioning a specific discontinued record, but not as a list. I have only found articles from Mental Floss [25], Grunge [26], and Cracked [27]. Cracked has been considered generally unreliable, and the other 2 are not listed on WP:RSP. Dingers5Days (talk) 16:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the other two are not listed at RSP doesn't mean they are unreliable. ―Panamitsu (talk) 21:46, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Mental Floss and maybe Grunge are just on the respectable end of tabloid news, but maybe combined with Guinness themselves discussing the topic[28], it's a significant concept?
I would note that lots of articles about individual stories would seemingly have an opportunity to mention the idea that Guinness often discontinues records, but they don't, at least not directly: [29][30][31] Wizmut (talk) 19:40, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge There are far less notable articles out there. If the consensus will say that it should be deleted, I believe that the contents should be moved to the entry of Guiness World Records. --Misiek1997 (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I think they're definitely notable enough, it's just that the sources are a bit weak. Micahtchi (talk) 08:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. – The Grid (talk) 14:06, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge whatever is pertinent into Guiness World Records might be the best choice, though some of the entries on this page, such as the "human mole", or "fastest yodel", reads more like trivia than pertinent encyclopedic facts related to Guiness. TH1980 (talk) 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and Merge - I'm not convinced by OTHERSTUFF arguments, and I'm not convinced on notability either, but it does seem possible to source this in a verifiable way so it can still be put (where applicable) in to Guiness World Records. I also note we don't have a list of Guiness world records, which seems like something that could be created in future which would hold this information. FOARP (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suggesting a redirect to Fairfax Media § 2014 to 2018, with potentially some content merged to that section. I cannot find anything else useful, and keeping in mind that The Sydney Morning Herald is not independent of Fairfax, I find it unlikely this would benefit from a standalone page. Alpha3031 (tc) 10:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Fairfax Media. The parent company is notable and this is mentioned there. Notability is not inherited, and there is no indication of independent notability here. Various hits are just links to the website, passing mentions, or their own news articles (primary). So there is not sufficient sourcing to support a claim of independent notability. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AccessArt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I stand by my original PROD reason, which was that it seems unlikely there will be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG.

The Guardian article cited is written by Briggs and seems to be more about her opinions on art than the organisation itself. All the other coverage I've been able to find such as this 2002 article also from the Guardian barely goes beyond mentioning the name.

Deprodded with the reason charity affects education and culture for millions of young people nationally, which is a valid CCS preventing A7, but WP:NONPROFIT are still required to receive significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, which I have not been able to find. There are some brief mentions in trade journals, but they rarely go beyond just a name check. Alpha3031 (tc) 09:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:43, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article came up at ANI, due to an IP address making inappropriate edits, and on closer inspection I don't think that the subject is notable. The article asserts that he has lectured at a couple of academic institutions, but he doesn't appear to be currently employed at either of them, and that wouldn't constitute an WP:NPROF pass anyway. His dismissal from a railway engineering firm was covered in the national press, but WP:BLP1E. He has written a book, but the reviews I'm finding for that are written on activist websites, railway fan forums and the like - it's not an WP:NAUTHOR pass. That leaves us with the idea that he is notable because he is interviewed in the press from time to time about matters concerning railway transportation; I'm not persuaded that that constitutes notability for our purposes. He may become notable in the future, if his writing attracts significant critical attention, but to my mind this article is premature. Girth Summit (blether) 11:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Week redirect to Peter Hendy#Network Rail, where his sacking is covered. Despite enjoying his work, I have to agree that at present Dennis doesn't quite have enough coverage (per WP:BLP1E) to merit a standalone article (although I personally don't think he's too far off). Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 13:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Doesn't seem to pass author notability for "How Railways will fix the Future", this is the only sort of "critical review" I could find [35] and I'm not sure if that even counts as a RS. Getting fired isn't terribly notable. I don't see him passing academic notability either. I'm not sure what's left for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just to be clear, I think trains are great, and the subject's advocacy and passion are probably for the good. But being interviewed a lot, getting sacked for maybe not choosing his words carefully enough, and writing one book with apparently one review (in something called Counterfire, "a revolutionary socialist organisation committed to transforming our society from one based on the profit motive to one built on the needs of working people" [36]), aren't even close to notability material. It's worth pointing out that the subject himself has edited the article recently, so we can assume that any worthwhile sources are already present in the article. EEng 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just to be fair, as far as I can tell, Dennis only made two edits in August, which amounted to a change of the nationality of his father, which in the timeline of this article doesn't seem very recent. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't implying there was anything wrong with his edits. My point was simply that you can count on the subject to have added to the article any missing significant sources about himself, if any existed. (Or he might have raised them on the talk page.) EEng 16:47, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dutchess County Department of Emergency Response (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a county-level government agency lacking in-depth secondary source coverage to meet WP:ORGCRIT. AusLondonder (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Someone has a penchant for creating rivalries left and right. This is one of the rivalries that seems to lack real substance, violating WP:OR. Many other made-up international team rivalries have been deleted in the past, including England–Croatia, Argentina–Germany, Thailand–Vietnam, Brazil–Sweden and indeed Algeria–Nigeria (and many more). Geschichte (talk) 09:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unanimously deleted in the first AFD. Therefore echoing User:Spiderone's words from then; "I can't find much to support the existence of this rivalry, let alone its notability. See WP:NRIVALRY; rivalries are not inherently notable and GNG needs to be met. In this case, it doesn't appear to be met." Geschichte (talk) 10:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep – Both teams are members of the ASEAN Football Federation and had officially faced each other 55 times since 1956. Both teams had established a long rivalry due to them being close to each other geographically, and since they frequently face each other in the important games of regional tournaments such as SEA Games or the AFF Championship. The match between both teams is considered as the "El Classico of ASEAN". References about this rivalry in English may be limited, but in Thai or Vietnamese, the number of references covering this subject is immense. For example, in Vietnamese : 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 . During the press conference for friendly game between Vietnam and Thailand in September, Vietnam national team coach Kim Sang-sik also said "The relationship between Vietnam and Thailand is a rivalry like the one between South Korea and Japan, it's a regional rivalry." 7. - Lâm (talk) 17:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arthur H. Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ancestry.com and The Peak Seeker are not reliable. Highpointers.org is the official highpointing organization so should not be used here. The only seemingly reliable source here is The Oregonian. Unless more coverage can be found, I feel like Arthur H. Marshall's achievements are better discussed briefly in the highpointing article instead of in its own article as notability seems weak. The current state of the article is certainly not sufficient and is written poorly. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.capecodtimes.com/story/news/2000/10/29/for-certain-class-climber-life/51015049007/
https://books.google.com/books?id=BZQSAQAAIAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=2vZvAAAAMAAJ
https://www.theday.com/news/20170425/reaching-the-top-of-america/
I believe the in-depth coverage on him in the Oregonian, and multiple sources crediting him with the first in the US to reach all the tops and receiving coverage multiple times spanning years apart is an indication of notability and I feel he meets Wikipedia:SPORTSPERSON
Graywalls (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Although I nominated the article for deletion, I think with some further improvements it can be kept with all these sources. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another non-notable individual, but may together with the two other such articles perhaps be merged into one? Barely anything can be said about the individual Theodore, the topic of the article, who died aged 1 or thereabouts. What the articles (and the sources) really are about is Jackson's treatment of or position towards Native Americans. Fram (talk) 12:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 13:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though I have trouble seeing how consensus will be reached if people don't include more policy-based reasoning, particularly regarding notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect, for now, to Andrew Jackson#Family, where all three of these children are mentioned. Subsequently, editors may want to merge parts of them into a yet to be written article about Jackson's treatment of and relations with Native Americans. Notability is beside the point: these children are not covered by sources because of their individual characteristics but only in relation to Jackson; they exist in sources only as (minor) aspects of his biography. Since Wikipedia follows its sources, we must do likewise. Sandstein 21:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sad story which may be a paragraph in some other article perhaps (but where?), but not a notable subject on its own. Fram (talk) 10:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: President Andrew Jackson was somewhat unique in his adoption of native American children. All of these should be kept: Theodore, Charley and Lyncoya. The issue with merging is that it would be too large for many readers. This is a substantive part of Jackson's life and should be kept. — Maile (talk) 15:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aside. I object to the word "captive". That doesn't jibe with this article or Theodore's. Neither was captured by Jackson, and it seems to me to be a POV slur against him. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarityfiend It's funny, after reading the sources published in the last 20 years, I think I object to calling Lyncoya his "adopted son" but that's mostly me being emo and a different discussion that probably happens on generational timescales. ANYWAY, I assumed it would get moved at some point and I am very excited to see what another brain thinks of. My only caveat is that Theodore is not confirmed to have been Muscogee, and based on cultural norms of the time, was very possibly given as a gift/tribute by an ally (see Charley), so the title shouldn't be Theodore (Muscogee). I don't think it abrogates him being a captive that Jackson didn't personally throw a net over him and carry him home--Jackson had possession of a bunch of orphaned babies that didn't belong to him because he was a local warlord running a race war--but it doesn't need to be in the title of the article. But I don't know what else to use. Halp? jengod (talk) 14:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • ADD: We could arguably merge them both into Lyncoya as subsections. I didn't do that in the first place because these two were separate human people with distinct stories and their burial in brittle letters and footnotes for much of the past 200 years was not accidental. They were very intentionally excluded from the narrative. jengod (talk) 14:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC
Clarityfiend,Jengod: Another thought comes to mind here: we look at this through the eyes of our era. There is a old tradition in Hawaii, even now, called Hānai (informal adoption) whereby parents gave their children to others to be raised. One of the reasons in earlier years was because you weren't likely to go to war against someone who was raising your child. Hānai is still practiced there, for a variety of reasons. We don't know the background (do we?) of why Jackson got these native American children. But there might have been reasoning for it. — Maile (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more input and perhaps a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 13:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not notable besides its brief appearance on Angry Video Game Nerd. Fails WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 13:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This was deleted before with far less to establish notability (and I would have agreed). Having recreated the page, I would now argue that there is more notability to the game than just AVGN. The soundtrack is regarded by multiple outlets as notable for its bad quality, and a Venezuelan university report mentions its legacy of bringing attention to games in Venezuela. Whether AVGN promoting it led to more people paying attention shouldn't imo be a disqualifier. JSwift49 20:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC) Note to closing admin: JSwift49 (talkcontribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Keep. A decent amount of sources demonstrated its independent notability, even if the article does require some rewrites to be in a more readable state.
By the way, article had been marked with copyright violations due to the article previously hosting lyrics to a song from Arthur which is obviously still copyrighted and the lyrics are still in article history. It has no effect on this article's deletion. MimirIsSmart (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JSwift49. Æ's old account wasn't working (talk) 23:31, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There's very little actual substantive coverage, and what does exist isn't enough to build an article on. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The problem is that the game's notorious audio is well-known but the citations in the article do not provide much coverage of any other aspects of the game, little that there is. Most of the sources are listicles, which is fine, but their purpose and content is mostly alone to state that the menu music sucks. I don't think a passing academic reference is good evidence that it's brought attention to Venezuelan game development. VRXCES (talk) 09:12, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that the basic coverage of other aspects of the game is to be expected, as the game is known for being exceedingly simple (drive the bus back and forth and honk the horn). So the soundtrack is the main aspect of notoriety, though you also have AVGN, the academic reference, Niconico News with dedicated coverage of the game at large, plus some of the listicles discussing the soundtrack also mention the gameplay.
    Screen Rant says the game is "on the list of must-play games for YouTubers, Twitch streamers, and retro enthusiasts interested in the more bizarre parts of gaming history."
    There were also two books/reference guides? in Japanese about CrazyBus written by the same person; however I could only find previews of a couple of pages.
    JSwift49 14:49, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AVGN is non-RS per WP:VG/S unless it's widely reported that the AVGN review itself is notable. For the others, again, what mention there is of the game is trivial or not really reliable. Screen Rant mentions it very briefly in passing. And I can't see any evidence those books have anything to do with the game from the links supplied? VRXCES (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But we have an academic source covering the AVGN interview, and Screen Rant additionally gives Crazy Bus five sentences on its list of worst soundtracks?
    Re. the books, the page previews I found confirm they are about CrazyBus (they are both linked in the article). JSwift49 11:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When the article was first created, I argued that there was enough coverage of the game by sources to warrant inclusion. The addition of further references demonstrates this. --NoonIcarus (talk) 15:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The Spanish Wikipedia article has seven references. Left guide (talk) 06:13, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: According to Perennial Sources, ScreenRant is only marginally WP:RELIABLE and there's no consensus on Vice. That leaves only the BBC. Still, I'm all for giving this article a chance, especially if more and better sources can be found.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Julia Waters Tillman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does fail WP:GNG and WP:NSINGER. Couldn’t find as much reliable coverage as possible. Only in online books that credit her and her sister Maxine as background vocalists on an album. Discogs has all the credits, but still not best suited for the article. There are no record chart records of her either. TheGreatestLuvofAll (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject fails WP:NPOL and after [5 attempts at AFC], the article finds it's way to the main space. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was created by an editor with an initial undisclosed conflict of interest (they have since identified themselves as a paid freelancer), and appears to be solely maintained by that editor (who continues to engage in a business relationship with the organization). Company also fails the notability test. TheMediaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable singers. Fails WP:GNG. BBQboffingrill me 07:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The duo are well noted upcoming artists in the field of carnatic music

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

Redirect to Kempegowda 2 removed several times by user. This is the only article created by that user.

See the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Dubbed films do not get articles. Dubbed films do not get articles in any circumstances. The icing on the cake is that the last Zee News source upon translating in English says that It was made as a Kannada movie with Shankar as the director. Recently this film is being released in Telugu with the title Yamadhira. The original text was శంకర్ దర్శకుడిగా చేస్తూ కన్నడ సినిమాగా తెరకెక్కించారు. తాజాగా ఈ చిత్రాన్ని తెలుగులో యమధీర టైటిల్‌తో విడుదల చేస్తున్నారు.

The 5th source (TFPC) despite being potentially unreliable also confirms the same. Yamadheera is a Kannada film made by Vedala Srinivas as producer and Shankar as director. Our Telugu actors Nagababu, Madhusudan, Ali and Satya Prakash are acting in this movie.

@Ravensfire:, I already created the discussion, but this user is adamant, do you think it could be a case of WP:COI? DareshMohan (talk) 07:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NMG. Singer has no music chart entries, certified units, major award wins, etc. The promotional content tag has been on the page since 2010 and there aren't any reliable sources for this singer to verify anything written in this article. Frankly, it would be better to repurpose this page for the other singer named Angel Taylor from Trin-i-tee 5:7. The other Angel Taylor (from Trin-i-tee 5:7) has music chart entries and award wins. Sackkid (talk) 06:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quite true. You are arguing that she doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO, and I am arguing that she meets the minimum notability of WP:GNG. Two different things. Binksternet (talk) 19:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meramec Valley Christian School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My WP:BEFORE search did not turn up any coverage that would indicate that this organization meets WP:GNG or WP:NSCHOOLS. Hog Farm Talk 04:27, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not a G4, but no indication the issues raised at the prior AfDs have been addressed. A search is hard due to the name, but no indication of N:CORP. Star Mississippi 02:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prior to me leaving a !vote, I am hoping you can point out the WP:THREE you feel meet the guidelines outlined in WP:ORGCRIT? I have started going through the references but there is a lot of churnalism and routine announcements so hoping as the creator you can point me in the right direction. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CNMall41 There are many reliable sources but I will point out these sources to claim notability:

--Curvasingh (talk) 02:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Groww is India's largest stock broker right now. There is no point in nominating this page for deletion. Saura376 (talk) 10:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC) Saura376 (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An analysis of the sources mentioned above may be helpful in determining whether they count or establish notability of the company in question.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:25, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Forbes India is not Forbes. It must be evaluated with care. This reference was previously assessed and I would agree with that assessment. The reference looks like it was written by the company itself based on the details information, quotes, and use of images and infographics that are promotional to the company.
2. LiveMint - I would not consider this source reliable at all. I can go to Fiverr or Upwork and pay to have my own article written for the publication. Not saying this one is, but do not trust a publication that doesn't always differentiate between paid press and organic press. If it is found to be reliable, this particular reference is similar to the Forbes India one above. Tons of quotes and graphics for the company.
3. Times of India - This is a reference published since the last AfD discussion. Clearly falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA so not reliable.
4. Forbes India - This one is similar to the other Forbes India reference. However, the promotional tone appears to be from the publication's own research as to why the company won the award. It also appeared in print version so I would say this would be within the rhelm of ORGCRIT.
5. LiveMint - Same as 2.
6. Economic Times - Falls under NEWSORGINDIA. No byline and the first sentence starts with the location the news is coming from, indicating a press release or churnalism.
7. Business Today - Interview which would not meet ORGCRIT
8. Money Control - Same as LiveMint.

I can only see one source that would probably meet ORGCRIT. I also see a heavy push by SPA's and likely COI editors in the previous and current editing. If kept, the page will need cleaned up for NPOV. If deleted, salting may be in order to save time of volunteer editors. If anyone wants to discuss the individual sources assessed above please do so as I may have missed something and will gladly look at any additional information. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:51, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CNMall41 Here is one article from Forbes, not Forbes India -> https://www.forbes.com/advisor/in/investing/groww-vs-zerodha/ --Curvasingh (talk) 00:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:FORBESCON. Source is not usable for notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kings Kids Africa Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. Lots of blogs and mentions but nothing significant in reliable sources that would meet the WP:ORGCRIT standard. CNMall41 (talk) 04:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nominating yet another one of my articles for deletion for the same reasons: it fails WP:NSUSTAINED too. Most of the coverage for this event is only when the flooding took place, and that's about it. There's this article regarding the aftermath, but other than that, there's nothing else to be found. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Floods in the United States (2000–present), but given that this event kinda occurred in a localized area, I'm unsure if that's a good alternative for deletion in this case. Either way, this fails WP:NEVENT on the basis of sustained coverage, which this article doesn't really have. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG (WP:NBASIC). Closest I could get to finding sources that establish notability for this football player are databases and statistics, which do not constitute in-depth, significant coverage of the subject. Nothing much outside of that in Russian either. ~ Tails Wx 03:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable political candidate and journalist. Wellington Bay (talk) 03:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He's a non-notable failed political candidate. Unless he sets a record for most loses, he isn't notable. He is a fringe journalist, not considered mainstream. Abebenjoe (talk) 08:31, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: the above should be counted as Delete. Wellington Bay (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think his notability goes beyond his political candidacies, due to his controversial view points. He's gotten a lot of attention, and as a result there are quite a few reliable sources to draw from.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. People do not get articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability bar at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one, while candidates get articles only if they already had preexisting notability for some other reason that would already have gotten them an article anyway.
    So the only basis on which he might qualify for inclusion is as a journalist, not as a political candidate, but this article is not establishing that he would have any strong claim to passing our notability criteria for journalists. Even the stuff about his controversial views hasn't been a big subject of reliable source coverage in its own right, as I'm not finding a whole lot of coverage and analysis about his journalistic career: even on a Google search I'm just seeing mentions of his journalistic work as background in the campaign coverage, and glancing namechecks of his existence as a person with opinions in coverage of events he had opinions about, neither of which are support for notability as a journalist. But I'm not finding hits where "Anthony Furey says controversial thing" is the subject of any significant coverage in its own right, which is the kind of sourcing we would actually need to see to support notability on that basis.
    Also, note that this article usurped an already-existing redirect to Aussie rules footballer Tony Furey, which is not proper Wikipedia process — even if there were a strong basis for an article about Anthony Furey as a journalist, it would have to be created at a disambiguated title, not as a hijacking of a redirect that was already in place to represent somebody else, and then we could have a renaming discussion about whether he was sufficiently notable to take over WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the name or not. But we should delete this first, and then restore the redirect to Tony Furey afterward, rather than leaving this inside the redirect's edit history. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Previously discussed at 2023 Toronto mayoral by-election, where his performance was not considered notable enough for an article to be created. I do not consider that he is a) notable under WP:NPOL (he hasn't won two elections, winning under 5% of the vote (just about finishing 4th) at the 2023 Toronto mayoral by-election) b) notable under WP:JOURNALIST (he is a newspaper columnist) Turini2 (talk) 16:13, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Solo leveling: Unlimited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient differentiation from parent article Solo Leveling; should be merged into that article. The sources given are also insufficiently reliable and do not prove notability per WP:RS. seefooddiet (talk) 02:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

An article for the same topic was previously deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Korean excrement balloon incident. I don't think this current new article adds much more to the discussion than what is already on Balloon propaganda campaigns in Korea. The current article title also isn't great; should be sentence case as it isn't a proper noun, and this isn't a single incident: it is a series of incidents. seefooddiet (talk) 02:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was recreated under a different name shortly after being deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ajja Jhala. The creator has used a different set of sources that still do not show evidence of notability. The page creator has wisely foregone the fantastical non-independent sources discussed in the previous AfD, but we still get nowhere close to WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. A brief analysis:

Bottom line: this appears to be an effort using WP:SYNTH to fabricate notability out of a series of passing mentions, many in sources of questionable reliablity. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

BreakThrough News is not sufficiently notable to merit its own page. Most WP:RS which non-trivially discuss BTN explain that it is an appendage of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, to which this page previously redirected. I support reverting the page to a mere redirect. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging users: @إيان: @Superb Owl:. SocDoneLeft (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: It's notable; it has about 897K subscribers on Youtube, 500k on TikTok, 250k followers on Instagram, and 160k on Twitter/X, and its coverage has been embedded in articles on legacy media such as The Independent.
The main problem with redirecting to Party for Socialism and Liberation is that it's the POV of the The Daily Beast and The Jerusalem Post, two sources most editors consider biased or opinionated.
إيان (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Echoing يان's concerns, the subject obviously meets notability criteria. And with respect to votes to redirect: it's clear that redirecting to PSL would be a violation of NPOV from the outset (even before considering the sourcing, as explained by إيان).
On that point: if BTN doesn't disclose its funding sources (as seems to be the primary issue), then that should be explained in this article, using a variety of sources.
I can think of several reasons Wikipedia users deserve to be able to search for and find an article on BTN (this article) independent of information about PSL. For example, any discussion of putative links between PSL and BTN seem most appropriately discussed in the BTN article; depending on the nature of the particular link, it's possible that such a discussion would be considered irrelevant in the PSL article (and therefore not persisted).
Separately, but related: it is true that this article needs more content and more sources; but also, the related articles suffer from several deficits that likely make it more difficult for just anyone to come along and improve its content (i.e., by seeking related information in sources used in related articles). Daily Beast and JPost aside, it appears that the article about Neville Roy Singham is affected by a mixture of sourcing that includes dubious sources like New Lines Magazine, published by a think tank hosted by an essentially illusory university (FXUA, with fewer than 50 students) whose president is also the founder and president of that think tank.
In short: there appears to be an opinion-laundering war going on, and editors need to be able to keep these articles distinct in order to avoid hijacking attempts by any of the groups that might be involved.
--ΝΗΜΙΝΥΛΙ 21:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]