Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 21	July 23 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Feminist Majority Foundation

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

Not much claim to notability besides helping publish a notable magazine, Ms.. Article credits FMF with helping get several pieces of notable legislation passed, but does not cite a source proving that they played a large role in passing that legislation. I can't really find any in-depth coverage on Google, and the pre-internet coverage cited on the page isn't very convincing. An editor removed my PROD on this page on the basis that they found two new sources on Newspapers.com; however, one of those sources is a profile of Mavis Leno that simply mentions FMF in passing, while the other is about women's groups more broadly, only briefly mentioning FMF in a paragraph about its president Eleanor Smeal. The editor who removed the PROD suggested a redirect to the magazine's page, which I wouldn't be mad about, but I think Smeal's page would be a better redirect target. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Organizations, Politics, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. There is definitely some notability here although it might or might not be enough for an article. The Google Scholar search turns up two papers with the name of the organisation in the actual title: [1] and [2] in two different publications. One is unrelated to the magazine, which seems to point away from that as a merge target. There is also some Google News coverage but a lot of it is passing mentions. Here is some coverage of a lawsuit they brought [3] and [4]. Is it enough for a keep? I'm not sure, but it's definitely close enough not to be a delete and probably also not a redirect, at least not without merging some of the content. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CougarTech

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

Not a notable group. A high school FIRST Robotics Competition team; no independent coverage in the article. [5] (a local weekly) was the best search result I could find. Covers multiple school districts, so neither is a plausible redirect target. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and New York. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is nothing to suggest its notability. The existing two sources in the article are as good as minus zero and there are no sources elsewhere to improve it. This clearly fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable at this time; lacking WP:SIGCOV from independent, reliable sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 09:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Callahan

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Not all senior government officials are notable enough to justify a WP article. Mentions of Callahan in WP:RS are WP:TRIVIAL related to his WP:ROUTINE job duties and not WP:SIGCOV focused on Callahan that would establish his notability. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 01:17, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - sufficient sources are included in the article to satisfy notability.XavierGreen (talk) 14:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see little justification for deletion - he held the position. Political? OLDGUY50 (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also see little justification for deletion as he held the position and was within the agency for 25 plus years. 198.100.2.74 (talk) 16:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— OLDGUY50 (talk) • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic

Comment. So far no policy-based justification or RS presented to justify keeping. Only source with WP:SIGCOV in the article is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION and an official biography. Longhornsg (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skwatta Kamp

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC with no notable discography or chart activity, while their "numerous awards" mentioned in article include only two regional ones. Article has been a poorly-sourced stub since its 2015 creation, and searches turn up the usual niche sites (YouTube, Bandcamp, Genius, et al.) or stories about member deaths. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 00:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability criterion 3 of WP:BAND (Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country). [6]. Also got coverage from national circulation media, including The Sowetan.[7] [8][9][10] [11][12], and they are described in those RS as "legendary" and "revolutionary" indicating that they meet WP:GNG. Also not sure why all the stories about their members dying etc in WP:RS are not indicative of notability as per nom. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies as well. Park3r (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CEFR companion volume

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

The article does not meet WP:GNG and is poorly written. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Notaoffensivename (talk) 02:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:12, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge into CEFR what is referenced (80% is unreferenced or irrelevant). 04:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Merge the only 4 references to CEFR. Plutocow (talk) 04:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the vauluable, and reliable segements into CEFR. Bunnypranav (talk) 06:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting here that a Merge to CEFR is impossible as this page is a Redirect. If you have the right script installed, the link shows up as green. Did you mean another target article? Please check target articles before proposing them so that they are feasible tartgets. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Just

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

Fails WP:BASIC. References are trivial mentions; can't find anything else about him. Declined AfC draft that was moved to mainspace by the creator. Borderline A7. C F A 💬 23:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Searching for this individual yields very little on google. I don't see how this could ever be sourced so that it meets notability requirements. Garsh (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the sources cited present nothing to indicate notability. Of all, only one mentioned the subject and that is even an interview which is not RS. Again search performed returned nothing. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Pennsylvania. Shellwood (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bert Hellinger

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

Fails WP:BIO, WP:NACADEMIC, etc. I see no real argument for notability. Text is plainly WP:PROMOTIONAL. See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Family Constellations jps (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and South Africa. jps (talk) 22:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Family Constellations

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

It has been some time since I have seen an article so thin as this. An amalgamation of a lot of ideas of Bert Hellinger ~~who may be notable in his own right~~ (edit: I decided that he is not notable either: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bert Hellinger) but this idea of his seems to have generated very little interest and notice beyond the typical "don't fall for scams" notes and some poorly-considered publications with basically no citations. If we were to remove all the WP:CRUFT, we would be left with a simple statement that "Family Constellations is Bert Hellinger's attempt to do therapy." That's all that I can see sourced properly. Not suitable for Wikipedia. jps (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Psychiatry, Psychology, and South Africa. jps (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adonis Amaya

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The most I found were a few sentences of coverage here. JTtheOG (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and California. JTtheOG (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of sports teams named for the phoenix

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

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sports teams named Trojans or Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_sports_teams_named_Spartans, this article lacks any sources discussing the grouping and as such WP:NLIST is not met here. A WP:BEFORE didn't reveal anything that could establish notability either. Let'srun (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, notability lacking. Dmoore5556 (talk) 00:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this looks like textbook WP:OR. Left guide (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep maybe turning it into a disambig. Firstly, it's different from Trojans or Spartans because phoenix club is a separate concept in sports. As a result, there is a significant amount of clubs named Phoenix in one of many spellings (Phoenix, Feniks, Fénix, Phönix), which at least creates a legitimate disambiguation. I don't mind converting it into a disambig but it is too long to be merged in an already huge main disambig Phoenix — NickK (talk) 07:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie D'Souza

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable comedian; refunded after soft deletion but no changes made since article was restored. Fails notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:ENTERTAINER. The vast majority of sources cited in this article are Q&A interview/podcast interviews and thus ineligible to count toward notability as primary sources. There are a handful of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in sources like this and two Chortle reviews for D'Souza's Fringe performances. I would need to see additional WP:SIGCOV for this to clear the bar, and BEFORE searches (both at time of original nomination and after the refund) did not turn any up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Still no sourcing to speak of, [13] is a brief bio for a comedy festival. Other than that, what's used in the article is as the nom describes, brief mentions or un-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,bunch of non RS sources from non notable podcasts, show announcement. Fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 07:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strengths test

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

This reads as an advert hiding as an article. It is only about one product, and I do not see this as a neutral article that should be in Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Psychology. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious advertising, poor sourcing. -- asilvering (talk) 04:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely not a purpose to advertise. Tried to be as honest and objective as possible. Don't have any affiliation with them. For the sources, I followed a reliable list for guidance to add relative and reputable sources. ScirIvan (talk) 06:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ScirIvan, the sources are things like "18 Free and Paid Personality Tests To Find Your Career Fit". These aren't reliable sources. The kind of thing we'd be looking for with this is academic sources discussing the test or the use of the test. -- asilvering (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to personality test. High5 Test is the correct name of the subject of the article, and "Strengths test" could refer to CliftonStrengths, Strength Deployment Inventory or other similarly named assessments. The available coverage does not indicate that the High5 Test is notable in itself. There is scholarly discussion of a "high five model" (Cosentino and Solano, Quito-Calle and Cosentino, de la Iglesia and Solano), but there is no evidence that this discussion is of the High5 Test/High5 Strengths Test. Some promotional coverage like the Indeed sponcon mentioned above; some potentially fringe coverage in PositivePsychology.com but it's more of a WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Book results are also trivial, passing mentions. So I don't think the subject matter is notable but there's a case to redirect the title. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as independent notability not established. Citations included appear to be mostly listicles and pay-for-play content. I see no reason to redirect since I don't think "strengths test" is a particularly common search term (and it doesn't seem to be a big target from the article stats). jps (talk) 23:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jared Mazzola

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 20:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Brief ESPN bio [14] and routine transfer mentions [15], neither of which are useful for notability here. Sourcing in the article is of the same quality, non-helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 21:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdali Hospital

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

Still not notable. The last AfD (when the article was named Abdali Medical Center) was 5 years ago and the decision was to keep the article although it is notable that there was a number of editors saying it met GNG but didn't/wouldn't consider whether the sourcing met NCORP criteria. Nothing has changed in the meantime for me. This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the references have content that meets these criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Health and fitness, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Ivory Tower (album)

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

I'm not sure if this album is notable. There's a PopMatters review and there's a brief review in HM (magazine) (page 32). According to the Wikipedia article, there's also a Kerrang review, but I wasn't able to find it; according to oldies.com music mail-order company, it at least contained the words "Taking driving riffs and breakdowns from emo and the huge radio-hugging choruses of, say, Journey or Mister Mister, Orange County quintet Takota are on to a winner on this, their debut album." Other than that, there's a Punktastic review, consisting of 10 adjectives, there's an Alternative Vision review (listed as generally unreliable on WP:A/S), and there's a NeuFutur review, a publication I hadn't heard of until today. toweli (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, United States of America, and California. toweli (talk) 16:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This was a pretty good BEFORE, which it would be good to merge into the Takota article at least. There is also supposed to be a review printed in this edition of Burn. Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 20:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High School Football Heroes

AfDs for this article:

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. There is a Punknews staff review of one of their releases. toweli (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, rather minor ska band. Does not meet any criterion of WP:NBAND. Geschichte (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Hero Squad toys

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

Only has one source and seems to violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Toys, and Lists. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 10:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American National Ballet

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

Non-notable ballet company. Checking it via WP:BEFORE shows the only WP:SIGCOV there is the failed company from South Carolina, as it is a subject of a murder case. None of those are for this company. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Organizations, and Minnesota. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is about all I could find for the first version of this dance group [16], no sourcing otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mishri

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

Delete:Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV Imsaneikigai (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Colors_TV#Current_broadcasts (listed there with a source) or to Lakshmi Baramma#Adaptations (not mentioned there yet but maybe better target), at least until more coverage exists (the program is recent); but not opposed to Keep given the coverage that the production received (not great sources but could justify a page imv if other users agree). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Caffrey

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

Fails WP:GNG non notable TV character Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish-Georgian War (1921)

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

Looks made up, couldn't find any WP:RS on this supposed "war". Article was filled with non-WP:RS/WP:VER issues which I have now removed, so there isn't a single actual WP:RS in this article currently. This is not surprising, considering the WP:TENDENTIOUS track record of the creator of this article, see [17] [18] and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BaharatlıCheetos2.0. HistoryofIran (talk) 18:03, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Georgia (country), and Turkey. Shellwood (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I spent some time reviewing this new article and came to the conclusion it was probably nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 21:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find sources as well. Aintabli (talk) 06:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not able to track down any supporting material of any merit. This reads like a nationalist screed.Insanityclown1 (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Poorly sourced; all sources seem to be Turkish articles and pages of questionable reliability; some of them are not even verifiable, as the links seem to not work at all. Piccco (talk) 13:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Population Connection

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

Hasn't gotten much news coverage or done anything especially notable. Of the few sources cited on this page, several are the group's own website, and I can't find anything much better on Google. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let America Vote

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

Let America Vote got some national media attention when it first launched, but that's mainly a function of having a good publicist and the fact that the group's founder, Jason Kander, was coming off a high-profile Senate run. The fact that they seem to have gotten barely any national coverage since their launch (nothing cited on this page and I couldn't really find anything) shows they aren't really notable. Most of the coverage I could find was primarily about LAV's partner group, End Citizens United. The editor who removed the PROD on this page recommended a redirect to Jason Kander#Let America Vote, which I agree with. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason Kander#Let America Vote per nom. Presently not notable enough to warrant a standalone page. Sal2100 (talk) 18:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jason Kander#Let America Vote: As the editor who removed the PROD, I agree that the subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV at this time. Redirect as a WP:ATD with no prejudice against recreating a standalone article in the future should better sourcing emerge. Let'srun (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above makes the most sense to me. Woko Sapien (talk) 13:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collective PAC

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

Pretty much all in-depth coverage I could find on Collective PAC were either about its founders (Stefanie and Quentin James) or articles where its founders were quoted, with a short snippet mentioning that they founded a PAC. You could make a decent case that Stefanie and Quentin James are notable, but the same can't really be said for Collective PAC. An editor removed my PROD from this page on the basis that they found a more recent source--a Hill article from 2024 with 1 sentence mentioning Collective PAC and a brief quote from Quentin James. Most coverage I could find of this PAC is like that: an article about PACs more broadly that simply mentions Collective PAC in passing. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sarla International Academy

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

Fails NSCHOOL, GNG and no SIGCOV found anywhere. Only source is a dead PRIMARY link. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, India, and Uttar Pradesh. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organization. Poor sources on the page with no significant coverage. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Jones (physician)

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

Creator blocked for UPE. No coverage of the subject easily found and cited sources don't seem to say anything about the subject but I'm out of my depth assessing notability in this field but none of the clams in the article seem extraordinary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Australia, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did some digging, which was a little interesting because of overlap with his name and that of at least one other person. The cited papers on the page currently have very few citations. IMO there is not anywhere near enough here for WP:NPROF. I also don't see any reviews for his book for WP:NAUTHOR. Qflib (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Cayce

AfDs for this article:

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

Highly promotional page for non-notable director, recreated and moved to mainspace after soft deletion in 2023. No evidence that he passes WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:FILMMAKER. There is no evidence beyond WP:USERGENERATED IMDb that he co-directed Trapped: Haitian Nights, the one notable production in his filmography, or that his direct-to-video "A Day of Trouble" premiered at Cannes. Sources are all press releases, WP:INTERVIEWS and similar primary sources, as well as a handful of tabloid items disallowed for notability under WP:SBST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hardly any coverage of his career, some confirmation here in regards to a sexual assault allegation [19], which doesn't help notability (beyond confirming his work). The sources used in the article are as described by the nom, non-helpful. Vaguely PROMO as well. Oaktree b (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mattix Corner, Indiana

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

Bake calls this a "village", but I find no corroborating evidence; indeed, I'm getting nothing but clickbait. Aerials and topos show a crossroads, not a town. Mangoe (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a couple of houses near the crossroads, but only around 5 or 6. Maybe it used to be bigger? Bake appears to cite WPA, which from the bibliography is the Works Progress Administration, in either "Indiana: A Guide to the Hoosier State" or "Indiana Writers Files of the Federal Manuscript Project", likely the first. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Searching inside the first "Mattix" does not appear. The second I can't find. Mrfoogles (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alyy Patel

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

WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for activists or writers. As always, people are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about their work in reliable sources independent of themselves.
That is, you do not make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to itself as proof that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing her writing to coverage and analysis about her writing, such as news articles about her, analytical reviews of her writing in newspapers or magazines or academic journals, and on and so forth -- and you don't make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to the self-published websites of the organizations she has been directly affiliated with, you make an activist notable by sourcing her activism to third-party coverage about it, such as news articles about her, book content about her, and on and so forth.
But this is supported entirely by primary sources with absolutely no evidence of GNG-worthy coverage shown at all: 11 of the footnotes are just the publication details of her own writing, and a 12th is just the publication details of an anthology that one of her pieces was in; one is a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person, which would be acceptable for use if the other sourcing around it were better but does not help to get her over GNG in and of itself per WP:INTERVIEWS; another is just a YouTube video clip of her speaking, which she self-published to her own YouTube channel; and all of the rest is content self-published by non-media organizations she's directly connected to -- which means absolutely none of the footnotes are GNG-compliant at all.
Again, the notability test doesn't reside in the things she did, it resides in the amount of GNG-worthy coverage she has or hasn't received about the things she did, and nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced better than this.
Also note that normally I would just have sandboxed this in draftspace as improperly sourced, but another editor has already done that and the creator just immediately unsandboxed it right back into mainspace without actually improving the sourcing. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of sourcing; there are simply no stories about this individual in RS. This [20] is a student newspaper and this is primary [21]. Most of the sources used in the article aren't useful either. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masada myth

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

This new article falls short of Wikipedia's content policies in several critical areas: WP:NPOV, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:VER. Firstly, the article relies heavily on broad claims and does not really verify its arguments with credible, independent sources. There are assertions of "fabrications and omissions" which are made without scholarly backing, making the article’s claims questionable and unneutral.

However, the main point is that the very definition of this article selectively promotes one point of view over the others regarding what exactly happened in Masada. The academic debate is mostly around the specifics of the siege's conclusion: whether a mass suicide and final battle happened as Josephus says, or if something else happened, since there are neither confirming nor refuting archaeological evidence for what happened to the rebels (the siege itself is firmly evidenced). If we fix this POV issue, this article will become an overview of the debates surrounding reconstruction of the events on Masada, which does not need their own article. Other issues presented as part of the myth (myths are generally not neccesarily entirely fictional), like whether the Jews in Masada can be considered freedom fighters or not, remains mostly subjective.

Given that Masada is well-documented and discussed in better-defined and more comprehensive articles like Masada and siege of Masada, the academic debate surrounding its end and its symbolism in modern culture should be presented there. This would ensure that the discussion of the Masada myth is presented within the broader context of scholarly debate. HaOfa (talk) 14:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. HaOfa (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. HaOfa (talk) 14:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's first paragraph is odd. They describe assertions of "fabrications and omissions" which are made without scholarly backing, yet the article’s very first footnote contains a quotation from Nachman Ben-Yehuda, professor emeritus and former dean of the department of sociology and anthropology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem from 1996: "On the professional level, we now know that the Masada myth is a particular selective historically invented sequence (narrative) based, partially, on Josephus Flavius's account, minus some very important details and supplemented by items ranging from a rather liberal interpretation of his writings to sheer fabrication".

The decision not to read the article carefully enough before opening this discussion may have resulted in the misunderstanding shown in the second paragraph of the nomination. There is no scholarly debate on this topic. The questions mentioned by the nominator have nothing to do with this topic. This topic is about the version of the siege story created by early Zionists for nationalism purposes which markedly differs from the only historical version of the story in existence, which is Josephus’s version. The differences between the two versions is summarized at Masada myth#Table of elements. The sources show that this national myth topic is much more notable than the actual siege itself. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep, article is well-sourced. the very definition of this article selectively promotes one point of view - it discusses the myth, and because this myth exists and is discussed in multiple scholarly sources, the topic passes notability guidelines. It can be see as a Legacy section for the main siege of Masada article, but because of its length it's better to have a separate one. Artem.G (talk) 15:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete, I agree the content should be much more balanced and that discussions of Masada in Israeli culture should be described as part of the article on Masada where it has more relevant context and all the relevant views.

OdNahlawi (talk) 16:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Info on the myth should be included under the main topic, either "Masada" or "Siege of Masada," alongside the main scholarly opinions and with stronger sourcing (if exists), as some of the claims made here are controversial and lack balance. Masada#Legacy could be a good option. PeleYoetz (talk) 20:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination is faulty to say the least, there is no "academic debate" over the siege's conclusion and the matter is referenced as a national myth promoted by the Zionist movement in the UNESCO world heritage nomination for Masada. Clearly meets GNG and the material is more than sufficient to justify an independent article.Selfstudier (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting this. For others’ ease of reference, relevant excerpts are shown below. Onceinawhile (talk) 12:56, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MASADA: PROPOSED WORLD HERlTAGE SlTE by the State of Israel, 2000

p.4: Josephus Flavius’s account of the revolt of the Jews, who realized that their end was near and preferred to commit suicide and die as free people as opposed to the option of living in slavery and degradation in Rome, became in the 20th century the Myth of Masada. The Myth was one of the corner stones of the Zionist Movement, whose desire was to renew the Jewish life in Zion, which is the Land of Israel. The pinnacle of the identification with the Myth, as an example of valor and sacrifice, was during the Second World War.

p.41: Masada in the Zionist Ethos: The story of Masada - the suicide of the Jewish Zealots who preferred to die as free people and not live as slaves in Rome - which is called the myth of Masada - affected the Jewish pioneers in the years before the founding of the state of Israel, in 1948. The call of the Jewish refugee in the poem written by Lamdan in the early 1920s “Open your gates, Masada, and I, the refugee will enter”, became the cry of the Jewish pioneers for freedom. For them, only the land of Israel is the real refuge, which was forged out of agony. Lamdan coined the famous phrase “Masada won’t fall again”. The most significant example expressing the identification with the myth of Masada was during World-War 2, when Romell’s troops threatened from Egypt in the south and the pro Nazi Vichy regime threatened from Lebanon in the north. The Jews in Israel felt sieged like the Zealots in Masada: struggling for liberation and ready to sacrifice their lives for it.

p.44: It’s true that the development of Masada site derives partly from the myth and the movie…

Keep The OP seems to be confusing NPOV with notability. Even if there were NPOV concerns, this is not a reason to delete an article. The thirteen sources the article has clearly pass GNG. As for the nominator's claims of NPOV and there being an "academic debate" over the subject, the RS's presented in the article are not in debate, and the nominator has not presented any RS's that are in debate. Gödel2200 (talk) 16:08, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Closing this a bit early. Consensus is clear and overwhelming. No need to drag this out. Ad Orientem (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Communist Party

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

Organization formed yesterday, and no indication of notability per WP:ORG or WP:GNG. They have a website with a declaration and a currently empty map of chapters. All I can find on them online is a few posts on social media, less than a day old. Ineligible for speedy A7 or a move to draft, as it was a 2003 redirect to Communist Party USA. Wikishovel (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. Wikishovel (talk) 14:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say to delete the article. Let's at least wait a bit and see if media outlets report on this. If they don't report anything in, say, a week, then we can delete. I personally don't think the article needs to be deleted instantly. Give it some time. This is a more minor story compared to everything else happening in the USA, and I don't blame the media for not instantly reporting on it. SSBelfastFanatic (talk) 14:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, give it a week for sources to come in. Zenphia1 (talk) 16:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed GyopoSeraph (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ – The party is absolutely not notable enough to have an article at the moment. If sources do report on it, great; it can be moved back into mainspace. If not, it can be deleted. Loytra (talk) 15:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any sources to prove notability. Do not agree with @Loytra as there's no point in draftifying article lacking any information and references.Vorann Gencov (talk) 15:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I think I agree with you. I change my vote to delete. Loytra (talk) 15:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It appears to be a split from the CPUSA, so if it has not yet achieved notability it can be merged into History of the Communist Party USA under WP:WITHIN. Special:Contributions/TheSands-12 15:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSands-12 (talk • contribs) [reply]
It shouldn't go under the history of the Communist Party USA. It's not a split and it's not significant. It seems like it's a crypto currency scheme as well with opportunists like Jackson Hinkle involved. SalladTX (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely zero connection to crypto currency other than the use of a blockchain which is a thing entirely separate from crypto currency itself Ryz3nGlory (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The cypto currency was autogenerated by a memecoin website that scrapes twitter trends and turns them into coins. GyopoSeraph (talk) 10:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, no references. A line about it on the CPUSA page would probably be enough. Sophie (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into History of the Communist Party USA. Zenphia1 (talk) 15:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous votes. Judging by the lack of any media attention, this party split is not notable on its own. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into History of the Communist Party USA, as suggested above. --Psammeticus (talk) 19:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into History of the Communist Party USA. No sources whatsoever and no establishment of notability. — Czello ^(music) 19:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:RS in article that need transfer to History of the Communist Party USA. SocDoneLeft (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Unique enough to be notable Braganza (talk) 21:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Define "unique". NightJasian (talk) 11:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Improve - Please see Talk page on the actual article for an explanation. I believe this article can become a much better article but may require restriction to prevent political bias or vandalism. Please insert into WikiProject Socialism as High Priority. Madamepestilence (talk) 22:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Makes zero sense to rank it High Priority within the Socialism project, or any level of priority at all. No notability has yet been demonstrated. LaborHorizontal (talk) 02:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with History of the Communist Party USA or Jackson Hinkle per previous votes. Mt.FijiBoiz (talk) 22:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not relevant and clear vandalism being pumped by spam accounts on X/Twitter as can be seen in posts such as https://x.com/VanCommunist/status/1815489685567017259 69.113.236.98 (talk) 23:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are sources supporting including this in the History of the Communist Party USA then I'm open to changing my mind but I don't believe that this even reaches that threshold. andrew.robbins (talk) 23:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This needs to go. I also couldn't find any sources supporting this party's notability. It'll probably be expanded upon later if it gets the appropriate press, but definitely not now. — That Coptic Guy^{ping me!} (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've just deleted the 'controversy' section which was added very recently with an admission by the ip that they had no references. Someone with more knowledge on the subject may wish to look at all the other recent edits to decide what is (and isn't) vandalism,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knitsey (talk • contribs) 23:37, 22 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>[reply]

Delete A fringe alt-right online sect has some of its leaders meet one day and make a website. That does not mean it is notable at all. If Party of Communists USA could not get an article, this "party" certainly should not, particularly considering that there is no proof this is actually a physical organization. Also, 75% of the signatures and organizations mentioned in its founding document either do not exist or publicly indicated that they never signed on to join this "party." The only reference which even mentions this organization is self-published. This has no place on Wikipedia. SociusMono1976 (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article keeps getting vanadalized Bubblesorg talk — Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)^<diff>[reply]
Delete - This party is largely a social media phenomenon and not a notable political actor in its own right. Compare this to, for instance, DSA's ongoing influence in protest organizing, labor organizing, and electoral politics, or CPUSA's historical influence as a major source of radical action in the 20th century. Socialist Alternative has been significant in Seattle's local politics, and the PSL has done substantial protest organizing. On the other hand, ACP has yet to demonstrate any significance. At most, it might deserve a mention on Jackson Hinkle's page, maybe a mention on CPUSA's page if notability can be demonstrated (though I would even note that many of the locals listed as signatories for its founding publicly denied involvement; and still no media has reported on this "party" as far as I know). LaborHorizontal (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I have to agree with this sentiment. I say we give them a week, maybe two. If nothing comes of it, delete the article and make a brief mention on Hinkle's page. Madamepestilence (talk) 03:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well I left a message in the discussion page of the article but I still have to say again, I dont get why you insist on this so much. It is just another Internet "movement" based on no serious ideology but frustration, which not really lacking in the current American political climax; I dont understand why you believe it can achieve anything. Based on how they are on Twitter, I hope they wont do anything in real life, these people are dangerous.

Aside from all that, this article is self-published and not notable yet mean not notable and shouldnt be kept for any duration of time. The most worrying thing is this article can legitimize them as well as make precedent for future similiar article. NightJasian (talk) 12:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A flash-in-the-pan event happening a day ago on some parts of political Twitter. No indication of importance. Stranfreid (talk) 02:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)— Stranfreid (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

It doesn't appear to have any real chapters, some of it's claimed chapters have apparently come forward denying any association. I personally think delete until it's actually something real. PierreTheTsar (talk) 04:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at the very least draftify. A google search revealed no reliable coverage of this party. I don't have a Crystal Ball, so its possible that coverage of this party will emerge. Especially if they nominate a candidate a President for president. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The organization will obviously continue to grow, it just started. It is real. HDGVII (talk) 05:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)— HDGVII (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Any source to back it up? NightJasian (talk) 11:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify unless there are more sources about the new fringe sect. Ahri Boy (talk) 08:16, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nowhere near notable enough, no SIGCOV, no serious argument to keep. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The party has been confirmed to exist by the CPUSA themselves. GyopoSeraph (talk) 10:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seeing a Party created "2 days ago" on Wikipedia is really bad. Do we know who created this page, is it a member of this Party. The US and the world have millions of political parties, that come and go yearly, in real life and on the Internet. This party has nothing notable and definitely, most of us are here because we saw them on X. We can delete this and re-create it if they ever have an infuence. NightJasian (talk) 11:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources showing notability of the subject required for an article. That the organization verifiably exists is alone not enough to have an article without any notable coverage.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've also speedily moved and redirected this title back to the actual notable subject it previously pointed to, as this was a reasonable term for users searching for that subject, particularly during a high profile election, and should not instead be used as promotion for a non-notable organization. I've added a parenthetical disambiguation for the time being.--Yaksar (let's chat) 11:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your good faith move: please don't move an article in the middle of a deletion discussion. If it's kept, it can be moved when the discussion ends. Wikishovel (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asking genuinely, not in disagreement -- is that a policy? I do believe I've seen plenty of move discussions where a subject created over the title or redirect to an actual primary topic gets moved, rather than get a guaranteed 7 days as the new primary topic, but perhaps I'm mixing up.--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

quoting WP:AFD:

While there is no prohibition against moving an article while an AfD or deletion review discussion is in progress, editors considering doing so should realize such a move can confuse the discussion greatly, can preempt a closing decision, can make the discussion difficult to track, and can lead to inconsistencies when using semi-automated closing scripts.

Wikishovel (talk) 12:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would also oppose a merge to the notable party's page unless there is actual independent discussion in reliable sources (and regardless, it would perhaps be more suitable for the page of the party's founders, should that sourcing emerge).--Yaksar (let's chat) 12:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is currently no significant coverage of this organisation in independent, reliable sources. The only sources that actually discuss it are its own posts on its website and social media. Two of the sources this article cites don't even mention it. Merging is a non-starter, as there aren't currently any independent, reliable sources that can be used on other articles either. --Grnrchst (talk) 12:31, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough to warrant its own page. Of the four sources linked, only two are actually related to the "party", and one of them is a Twitter/X post. May warrant a mention in the Jackson Hinkle page, but no more than that. Sisuvia (talk) 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable and self-promoting. Garnet Moss (talk) 15:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The lack of any secondary sources about the party itself rather than the figures in it blatantly violates notability criteria. A discussion can be had about potentially including it as a section in another article once/if there are secondary sources. Quinby (talk) 15:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't even merge: This party doesn't have any reliable reporting except from primary sources, it is not even notable enough to be merged into History of CPUSA or Jackson Hinkle. Personisinsterest (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Though this organization has some mildly notable figures behind it (which are notable for internet activism as opposed to IRL work), this org has not done anything significant, has not raised significant money, has not produced significant thinkers or unique thought. It hardly deserves an article, especially given the lack of anything happening in actual CPUSA. I do feel like the ACP for now might be a worthy footnote in the CPUSA page. However, this shouldn't have an article for the same reason we don't give every 20k follower X influencer an article unless theyve actually done something significant — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lohengrin03 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 23 July 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.

SMK Seri Kembangan

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

Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines ; most of the secondary sources cited are paid materials by Multimedia University (see WP:SPIP.) N niyaz (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I cited most of the secondary sources in the article. I would like to ask the nominator for deletion N niyaz, is it possible to list some of the secondary sources that you claimed are paid materials by Asia Pacific University? KjjjKjjj (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay @KjjjKjjj I made a little mistake there, what I meant was Multimedia University. Also the school receives no significant coverage and most of the sources are just mentions. Unfortunately what's best is to make it a redirect.

https://www.wilayahku.com.my/smk-seri-permaisuri-antara-13-sekolah-angkat-mmu/

https://sinarbestari.sinarharian.com.my/ipt/sekolah-angkat-mmu-persiapkan-pelajar-ke-arah-digitalisasi N niyaz (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@N niyaz: If I'm not mistaken and correct me If I'm wrong, both of the sources you said have no mention of being paid. KjjjKjjj (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KjjjKjjj You could already tell by the topic and style of the writing that it is a press release/paid article. Trying to find a paid article disclaimer in the sources is just stupid. N niyaz (talk) 06:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple secondary sources, passes WP:NOTABILITY at it's barest. KjjjKjjj (talk) 14:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Checked the sources listed in English. None of them provide significant coverage, just mentions or sponsored content/press releases. Cannot check sources in Malay, hence weak. Tried to find some more coverage for this article, but failed. Vorann Gencov (talk) 15:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mt. Nebo, Valencia

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

Does not satisfy WP:NPLACE only sources I found is WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the place Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Asia and Philippines. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Valencia, Bukidnon as per WP:NPLACE "disputed regions". Don't see any point in merging due to the lack of information. Vorann Gencov (talk) 16:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nori Bunasawa

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

The article seems to have started out as draft created by 110347nbtough in November 2020, who subsequently seemed to claim they were Bunasawa himself over on Wikimedia Commons here and here. The draft was then approved by DN27ND about a month later, even though the DN27ND account was only four days old and seems to have no experience as an WP:AFC reviewer. Moreover, DN27ND is an WP:SPA whose primary focus on English Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons and Japanese Wikipedia has been creating/editing content about Bunasawa; in other words, it seems that the account was specifically and only created for that purpose.

I wasn't sure about the subject's Wikipedia notablity per WP:BIO and asked about the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts#Nori Bunasawa. DN27ND was pinged into the discussion but never responded. It was then suggested on my user talk page that the article be nominated for deletion. I tried some more WP:BEFORE but found nothing resembling significant coverage. I also tried looking at the Japanese Wikipedia article ja:樗沢憲昭 and the Egyptian Arabic Wikiepdia article arz:نورى_بوناساوا but found nothing resembling significant coverage being cited in either of them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Potential COI issues aside, the subject evidently seems to be a notable coach at Olympic and World Championship level, and for US colleges. Other pursuits as a magazine publisher/author and film consultant (?) would probably not rise to notability themselves, but the coverage for all three careers being mostly in 50+ year old newspapers – paired with the subject being otherwise covered by not only non-English, but non-Latin-alphabet, media – would be the AGF reason for fewer substantial sources (which is satisfactory here). The article could do with some clean-up, but from a glancing view I would also say it is not short on sources for its coverage, and that the coverage generally indicates notability. Kingsif (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conflict of interest. I'm not getting paid by Bunasawa. In order to get leads on sources and information, we do have a working relationship (as a reporter would on their subject) where I could reach out and obtain information. I do have drafts of other judokas in the works but am working on securing their contact information in order to get additional leads to sources and information.

There are multiple sources online in various languages (English, Japanese, Russian, etc.) which indicates notability.

Bunasawa's involvement as a leader of judo in the USA

https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2016/may/12/ichiban-sports-complex-shares-strange-s/

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qNUDAAAAMBAJ&q=bunasawa&pg=PA38&redir_esc=y#v=snippet&q=bunasawa&f=false

Bunasawa as a co-novelist

https://www.abebooks.com/9780964898424/Toughest-Man-Who-Lived-Nori-096489842X/plp#:~:text=A%20book%20about%20Conde%20Koma,force%20in%20the%20martial%20arts.

Bunasawa's involvement in "Dead or Alive"

https://www.judoinside.com/judoka/90786/Noriaki_Bunasawa/judo-career

Bunasawa and José Padilha

https://www.instagram.com/p/Crg9KAmBek5/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

José Padilha as the director on the BJJ-Judo movie project

https://www.imdb.com/news/ni62362469/

https://about.netflix.com/en/news/jos%C3%A9-padilha-attached-to-write-and-direct-feature-film-dead-or-alive-with-greg-silvermans-stampede-for-netflix

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/narcos-director-jose-padilha-tackling-netflix-jiu-jitsu-movie-dead-alive-1181926/

Nori Bunasawa's involvement in the movie industry

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm12094236/

Russian sources on Bunasawa's movies

https://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/4294861/?utm_referrer=www.google.com

https://en.kinorium.com/2680888/cast/

Japanese sources on Bunasawa's accomplishment and career

Shindo, Kenichi (October 3, 2020). "青春スクロール市立浦和高校". Asahi Shimbun.

Kudo, Raisuke (September 10, 1969). "日本代表決まる". The Judo Shimbun.

https://www.judo-ch.jp/result/ajsc/men1970.shtml

Russian news media company reporting on Bunasawa's comments and opinions

https://sputniknews.jp/20190902/6634165.html

Bunasawa is notable for his involvement in the sport of judo and for his involvement in the movie industry.

There are no COI issues and I sent him a draft on the article as a courtesy, in order to have a working relationship with him for leads on additional sources and for information regarding judo sports figures of which there will be wiki articles published in the future. DN27ND (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also advised Bunasawa and his newspaper/magazine publishing team to create a wikipedia account in order for them to release some of the photos that they own to wikimedia commons. DN27ND (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I received information that Nori Bunasawa and his newspaper/magazine publishing company owns the photos that he uploaded and that were deleted off of wikimedia commons. DN27ND (talk) 06:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that he is in the process of consulting with his lawyers based in the USA. DN27ND (talk) 06:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being paid is not the only criterion for conflict of interest. See WP:EXTERNALREL. I think the fact that you have a working relationship with this person and especially that you showed the subject of the article a draft itself (presumably for feedback, considering you asked for leads on missing info) is concerning.

The tone in the article has issues with WP:WTW; "dream team", "talented group", "further his education" are unencyclopedic and lean towards WP:PUFFERY.

Whether or not there actually is a COI is debatable, but even the scent of one can ruin your credibility on Wikipedia. You really should be more cautious in future. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"dream team" is a common phrase that was originally used to describe the 1992 Basketball Olympic team which swept the competition, and then has been adapted by culture to apply to various sports and teams to mean a team that has won by a large margin over opponents. Given the context and the results of the 1969 World Judo Championships in Mexico city, (this only happed twice in the history of the sport) this is an appropriate phrase to use to describe the events.

The phrase is also used in other wikipedia articles

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men%27s_Olympic_basketball_team

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_men%27s_national_basketball_team#Dream_Team_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_men%27s_Olympic_basketball_team

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FIFA_World_Cup_Dream_Team

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_men%27s_national_sitting_volleyball_team

and the list goes on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Team

Would it be puffery to describe the 1992 US Olympic dream team as "talented"? Or would it be appropriate to describe any other sports team as talented on wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_men%27s_Olympic_basketball_team

"Opposing teams were nonetheless overwhelmed by the talent of the American roster, losing by an average of 43.8 points per game"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_men%27s_national_basketball_team#Dream_Team_II

"The team assembled by USA Basketball for the tournament in Barcelona in 1992 was one of the most illustrious collections of talent assembled in the history of international sport"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_United_States_men%27s_Olympic_basketball_team

"USA Basketball officials sought to construct the team dubbed Dream Team III (Dream Team II was the moniker of the lesser-known 1994 FIBA World Championship team) with a winning combination of veteran players from the 1992 Dream Team that won the gold medal in Barcelona and some of the league's best young talent."

"When the first ten players of the 1996 United States Men's national basketball team roster were announced in the summer of 1995, that young talent, and first-time Olympians, included the likes of Penny Hardaway, Grant Hill, Shaquille O'Neal, and Gary Payton"

Regarding the phrase "further his education", there are sources that Bunasawa attended these universities after receiving a bachelors degree. If that isn't further one's education, then what is?

Are you saying that journalists never show their subjects a draft to ensure the correct sequence of events?

Please advise. DN27ND (talk) 11:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're not journalists. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. We're actually allowed to describe people as talented, but not in Wikipedia's voice per WP:NPOV. You have to attribute those kinds of opinions to notable people, like "journalist x described y as talented". 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:25, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also "Dream Team" I can concede on, but other flowery wordings I'm relatively confident in. When you're already bordering on having a COI, you should be paranoid about writing stuff that borders on excessively flattering or flowery, but you're not doing adequate due diligence. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The selection of the word "talent" in that context was to summarize the accomplishments of those selected to be on the 1969 Japan World Judo team and in that particular year. How else would you summarize a collection of people that had multiple world titles, and had multiple Olympic gold medals? In retrospect, even most of the alternatives selected as backups went on to win world titles in subsequent championships. To choose the "talented" word, is this not appropriate considering the results that these players had?

Considering the results of sporting competitions, is it "flowery" to describe Lebron James, Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, Cristiano Ronaldo, Lionel Messi, Muhammad Ali, Mike Tyson, etc., as talented without having to say "journalist x described y as talented".?These sporting figures have won multiple world and Olympic titles in their respective sport.

At the end of the day, we are not journalist but the human aspect still applies. Courtesy and respect towards one's subject goes a long way. Just because a writer chooses to show courtesy and respect towards the subject he is writing about, it doesn't mean there is a COI.

If a person chooses to take more college courses after achieving a Bachelor's degree, how would you describe that if not "furthering his education" ? There is newspaper evidence that Bunasawa was taking more university level courses while simultaneously coaching the varsity judo team.

Could you give other examples of "flowery" wording from the article? DN27ND (talk) 18:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no "personal, religious, political, academic, legal, or financial" COI. It is common in journalism to keep good relationships (ie protection of anonymity of whistleblowers) with one's subjects/sources in order to further obtain information from them. There is precedence (especially in sports) of subjects denying access of information to journalists who may be rude, disrespectful, etc. Some of the information taken from newspaper sources, sports media sources (ie ESPN) require journalists to be able to contact sports figures for information. DN27ND (talk) 11:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, we're not journalists 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not journalists. The info on wikipedia articles are not primary sources (birth certificates, actual signed contracts, actual college diplomas, identity cards, actual competition brackets etc). These are citations to newspapers and magazines, which are written by sports journalists or reporters. These are secondary and tertiary sources.

If wikipedia contributors are able to use primary sources, it would make writing these articles easier and actually more accurate (since I could just upload the proof)

Even though we are not journalist, having courtesy and respect towards one's subject could yield leads to information which would make summarizing events easier and more accurate. DN27ND (talk) 18:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Since wikipedia contributors aren't allowed to upload primary sources, in essence we are using journalist's opinions (ie journalist from the NY times, OC register, People magazine, Asahi Shimbun, Wall Street Journal, etc) as sources of evidence. Do you think the vetting process to obtain a journalist / reporter pass from these companies is strenuous?

In essence, it would be way easier, "neutral", and encyclopedic if wikipedia contributers were able to use primary sources as evidence rather than secondary, or tertiary sources written by "experts" hired by these media companies. DN27ND (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the results of the 1969 Judo World Championships

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1969_World_Judo_Championships

Is that not a podium sweep where one team had a decisive victory over the other teams? That is the time of only 2 times this has happened in the sports history. If the phrases "dream team" or "talented group" is not appropriate to describe the sporting results. Perhaps those words need to be censored from all other wikipedia articles about sports where these words have been used to describe competition results. DN27ND (talk) 12:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That 1969 World Judo team had multiple World and Olympic champions on them. In the sport of judo, the World Championships are regarded as a more difficult achievement than the Olympics due to their respective qualification processes. DN27ND (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are also many other newspaper and magazine articles that show Bunasawa's notability on the wikipedia article.

Rezell, John (March 3, 1988). "Top Judo Instructor comes to the defense of self-defense". Orange County Register.

"Judo". Orange Network. 385: 7. April 2023.

New Judo Instructor at 'Y' Here". Indiana Evening Gazette. February 21, 1975

"Instructor on Show". Rogers Daily News. April 1975.

I could scan these newspaper articles and send them to you. Or you can go into the library archives and look them up yourself. DN27ND (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: I didn't question the person's notability. I'm questioning COI and your understanding of Wikipedia's editing style. These walls of text and excessive bolding are not necessary; I can read. 104.232.119.107 (talk) 13:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the original poster (Marchjuly) did question notability and it is part of this page's discussion

"I wasn't sure about the subject's Wikipedia notablity per WP:BIO and asked about the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts#Nori Bunasawa. DN27ND was pinged into the discussion but never responded"

People have occupations, other obligations, and commenting on wikipedia doesn't pay the bills. I'm not sure if Marchjuly was expecting an immediate response or what? DN27ND (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

João Paulo (footballer, born June 1984)

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT, Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources. Google search on the name brought back nothing other than database sources. Soccerway link on the page with the corresponding DoB confirms he played one season in the Portuguese third tier in 2013-14. C 679 11:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. C 679 11:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator, clearly it does not satisfy WP:SPORTSCRIT Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 12:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete indeed missing the WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. (To complete what nom said there are also user-generated sources next to the database references, even though that doesn't change anything). — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CD Operário#Notable players. I found no indication that he meets WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 16:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1xbet

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

Nomination to deletion initiated due to:

1) WP:NOTNEWS + WP:NOTBLOG: Wikipedia article is not list of press releases and company's announcements. Notorious 1xbet Wikipedia article written like a regular report by marketing specialist to his boss about Brand marketing activities. Not any single sentences applies to WP:Notability, except Controversies (See WP:NOCRIT, which means all article's reliable sources cannot refer only Criticism) and information regarding fraud activities.

2) Cross-Wiki WP:SPAM activities, including WP:Salting by Ru-Wiki Admin, FR-wiki, many other wiki(s).

3) WP:G5: decent contribution since creation by network of sockpuppets headed by User:Keith161; Refer to Meta-Wiki's Project Antispam.

≈ In conclusion, delete/draftify and wait to further re-creation by experienced and recognized author on WP:AFC in completely encyclopedic style with many independent and reliable significant coverage references on each sentence. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. Indiana's Football (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The 1xBet article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines through its detailed documentation of the company’s background and significant milestones, such as partnerships with FC Barcelona and Paris Saint-Germain, this appears to be in a similar fashion to other gambling companies such as Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred just to name a few. These sections and the controversies sections are supported by reliable, independent sources, ensuring unbiased verifiability. The content is not a list of press releases but a factual account of the company's history, developments and controversies which are crucial to understanding their impact in the industry. Any promotional language can be adjusted to enhance the encyclopedic tone and neutrality of the article. Bringmethesunset (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1xbet does not look ready for mainspace, but it's notable enough to be draftified, it has to be handled through AfC. Also just because other stuff exists doesn't mean that 1xbet has to have a page in mainspace in such blatant promotion condition. TBH, Bet365, DraftKings and Betfred not doing cross-wiki spam (as 1xbet did), so they exist.

Secondly, notice WP:COI and try to improve the page in constructive way instead of defending blatand promotion. How about Draftify 1xbet and together work on the development from scratch (with other editors on WikiProject Companies) for 4-5 months before it will accomplish all Wikipedia guidelines and policies? So anxious to get an answer. Indiana's Football (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not saying that because other gambling company articles exist that this one should. It was a response to you calling into question how the article is written. My intent was to give other examples within the gambling niche that have the same structure, e.g. 'Lead', 'History', 'Sponsors', 'Controversies' sections, etc.

I agree with you that the 'Controversies' section is important. However, it needs to be a part of a balanced article, and suggesting that the article should only be focused on controversies is in blatant violation of WP:NPOV and WP:CRITS. I want to call into question what your motive is and why it is so important to you that the article only focuses on controversies and nothing else? Do you have a vendetta against the company that influences this need for a negative bias?

I can see another user has left a comment on your talk page stating that you shouldn’t be jumping into areas that are unsuitable for new editors, as this defies Wikipedia guidelines. Unless you have been blocked before and this is a new account you have created? Your account is about 20 days old, but you have the knowledge of an experienced user – something doesn't add up, and you have all of the telltale signs of a sock puppet. Bringmethesunset (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the 1xbet page history, User:Keith161 after puppet User:Timtime88 fallen down, created another one called Bringmethesunset to continue promoting corporate brand by loading indefinite number of press releases. Blatant promotion, probably even WP:SALT can be applied. Can you feel puppet's pain across the screen so he hurry up to defend 1xbet here? Request to check page history, user contributions and CheckUserIP could be applied. Indiana's Football (talk) 16:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Rodgers

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

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede 66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is clearly stated in lede and documented in Antarctic Magazine. There are two other sources that seem to be reliable secondary sources but they're based in New Zealand so I'm not familiar with them (Newshub and The Spinoff). Finally, Rodgers was born before 1950 and it's more difficult to find reliable secondary sources for women from this time because they were less likely to be written about. Nnev66 (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Being born before 1950 is not an excuse for lack of sources. LibStar (talk) 23:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least three sources and I found a couple of others but all are noting the same milestone, that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Is the issue here that this isn't notable enough or there are not enough sources discussing this milestone in depth? There might have been more in depth sources if she had been born later, which I believe is why WikiProject Women's History makes that distinction. Nnev66 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If she was born in 1920 I could understand. "that Rodgers was the first New Zealand woman scientist to winter over in Antarctica" is in itself not a claim for notability. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought more about this and appreciate points on all sides. If Rodgers had wintered-over in 1989 this would not be notable. To me she's notable because she broke the glass ceiling. She pushed on in the face of obstacles and became the first woman to do this. I've tried to add more details to the article to draw this out. I wish there was more in-depth coverage but there are four sources that appear to be reliable. Note in the past couple of months I've been monitoring AfD and AfC women scientist pages and I try to improve them if I think there's notability. It's more difficult to follow the breadcrumbs for those born earlier in the 20th century - just not as much is written about them. Nnev66 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although a weak keep. I agree that first women to winter-over doesn't seem super notable, but there is one comprehensive source with good biographical info and she is regularly mentioned in reliable secondary sources (together, meeting WP:BASIC). Plus, there's the fact of a geographical feature and one of the Scott Base labs being named after her. All up, I think there's enough. Chocmilk03 (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that there's a paragraph on her in Call of the Ice, which I've just added as a source to the article. It doesn't add very much to what's already in the article, though, apart from that she'd already been in summer '76/77 (which makes sense, presumably you'd do that before going for winter). Chocmilk03 (talk) 02:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge She's the first woman to winter-over specifically at Scott Base. Others came before her in Antarctica more generally; there are also many thousands of named Antarctic landforms, so I'm not convinced this is a basis for notability for a standalone article. Reywas92^Talk 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think she's more the first New Zealand woman to over-winter: Scott Base being the NZ Arctic base makes it almost the same thing but "first NZ woman" has a greater significance. PamD 15:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls short of GNG. Not really sure what can be merged to Scott Base in an encyclopaedic fashion. If someone can show a draft/example feel free to ping me and I'll reconsider. Also she isn't a scientist, but that isn't an issue if the article is merged/deleted. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I think a good case has already been made by others that this BLP doesn't have significant standalone notability and what is being used to assert notability is more superficial than it appears. I would be edging towards delete with that in mind, but merge seems like a really good option here in terms of WP:CONSENSUS and weighting policy/guideline since content on Rodgers is so closely tied to the location based on this article. It's a bit of case of WP:BLP1E otherwise, so the paragraph in that source would be the most I'd see moving over there (and probably less). KoA (talk) 17:49, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment after relisting. Just reviewed this after the two relistings below. I think this one is still pretty clearly in the merge category from a WP:PAG perspective, especially since a keep would run into issues with WP:BLP1E policy. At the least, keep does not seem like a valid option here, and if this person ever becomes notable for more that would justify an article, it can easily be unmerged. Until then, there's always going to be policy tensions with this subject, KoA (talk) 15:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, seems to be a good amount of coverage for WP:GNG.David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 04:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far, it appears to be keep or merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:07, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or maybe Merge: it's a borderline case, but I think there's enough WP:SIGCOV to keep the content, if not to have a standalone article. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago and North Western 7009

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

Redirect I had set up was reverted. Subject lacks independent notability from the EMD SD50 and should be redirect to that topic. No prejudice to a merge. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Transportation, and Illinois. TarnishedPath^talk 09:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to ~~EMD SD50#Preservation~~. Level of detail in the article is fannish overkill for what is a perfectly ordinary example of the model. Mangoe (talk) 16:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer redirect to Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives per below. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to EMD SD50. Agree with the nom, however the article presents us with some information and references which would totally enhance the quality of the former. Vorann Gencov (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives. Some of the background information from the article is also suitable to add to EMD SD50, but I think it makes the most sense to redirect to the locomotive's entry in the table on the museum article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no issue with a redirect to Illinois Railway Museum#Locomotives as an alternative to my suggested redirect above. TarnishedPath^talk 13:07, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Atilla (Turkish Invasion of Cyprus)

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

This article should be deleted, as it seems to overlap with Turkish invasion of Cyprus. LR.127 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Cyprus, and Turkey. LR.127 (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:REDUNDANTFORK Aintabli (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. D.S. Lioness (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village Green, Christchurch

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

No longer notable after the earthquakes. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Queen Elizabeth II Park as AtD. Notability should not be lost once found, but I can't find enough WP:SIGCOV for the Village Green in the first place. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:33, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I wanted to point out the same. Something or someone cannot lose their notability. Schwede 66 08:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Sammyrice:. A NZ cricket topic up for deletion. Are you able to find anything to expand this? AA (talk) 19:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – ground is widely covered by The Press with enough coverage elsewhere to meet WP:SIGCOV, the "No longer notable after the earthquakes" is an odd argument. --JP (Talk) 13:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jpeeling I agree with you that the "no longer notable after the earthquakes" argument is wrong, provided there was notability to begin with, But to the extent the Press articles offer WP:SIGCOV of any facility, they seem to highlight Queen Elizabeth II Park, not the Village Green venue in particular. Do you have sources that show specific coverage of the Village Green versus the broader complex it was part of? Open to switching my !vote but I need to see some SIGCOV of the specific venue rather than the complex it was part of. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoldMyne TV

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

Non notable online TV that received only passing mentions in all sources referenced. The claim of winning award does not improve its notably because the award categories are clustered with other supposed winners. Other available sources not cited in the article only give passing mentions in reference to interviews conducted by the subject. But those do not count for notability. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another of my favorite constant topics which come up here often; Yet Another Non-Notable Nigerian YouTube Music Show®️. Nate • (chatter) 17:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Playboy Interviews

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

This list is very incomplete, and only includes interview subjects for some years in the twentieth century, and none in the twenty-first century. The only sources are the Playboy magazine archives in which the interview appeared, so that there is no independent sourcing to establish list notability.

The article has been expanded and is in the process of being completed. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as nominator. This might be a useful list article when completed. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Popular culture, and United States of America. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:38, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Page is under construction and other editors are welcome to help complete the list. The main Playboy article frames the value of the interview to the success of the magazine. The Playboy interview is known as one of the most thorough features delving into celebrity, politics, sports, and current affairs. Over the next few days, the list will be completed and additional sources will be added for notable interviews which have been quoted in other media. Let's give this some time to be built before deletion. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 06:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The table is already well populated considering the task at hand and would only improve given more time to add content and additional references. The sources only being Playboy magazine archives in which the interview appeared makes good sense as the way to develop this article currently. Rockycape (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Incomplete is never a valid reason for deletion. Notability is though. I see The Rolling Stone Interview that mentions why the interview section is notable, then links to some interviews. Doesn't list all of them, which is odd, no selection criteria listed. Anyway, nothing else at Category:Interviews is like this. Are we going to list every magazine there is, and all the famous people they interviewed? Dream Focus 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this magazine's interviews, several sources point out that the magazine's body of work has had the same cultural impact. Ref: (1) (2) (3). Other sources are cited in the article. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can see the great amount of work that @GimmeChoco44 has been doing. Dont see anuthing wrong here in temrs of notability either. Vorann Gencov (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HARDWORK applies. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Strong keep; HEY, WP:NLIST applies. If we start deleting incomplete lists or articles, then the whole thing can go straight to the bin.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is an insignificant list that doesn't merit an article but is probably a violation of WP:PROMO. desmay (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with "insignificant" -- the influence of the "Playboy interview" is documented by many sources (some are cited in the list article). In addition to the comprehensive content of the interviews, the breadth of subjects (world leaders, entertainers, businessmen, athletes) is often cited as a benchmark for periodical journalism, and the list provides and overview without undue burden on the main Playboy article. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary database. Some of these interviews didn't even happen and were mere copy-paste job. Azuredivay (talk) 06:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is a wild and unsupported claim. Not only did these interviews happen, but the proof exists in both printed and digital sources, and the interviews are referenced by major sources such as Los Angeles Times and Associated Press. GimmeChoco44 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another unnecessary list that serves nobody but the most ardent fans. Lists like this needs to be purged off the already bloated Wikipedia site to keep it from becoming the poor Fandom imitation it already is. SpacedFarmer (talk) 18:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crooked Boy

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

This article does not satisfy musical notability because it has no charting information and does not otherwise satisfy any of the musical notability criteria, and does not satisfy general notability because it does not refer to significant coverage by third parties. It was unilaterally moved from draft space to article space by the page creator with the edit summary It's been too long, so draftification is not appropriate. The Heymann criterion is to add charting information within six days.

Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United Kingdom. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ringo Starr discography#Extended plays: Album has been out for multiple months and has not received satisfactory coverage for notability as nominator has stated, nor any requisite charting/sales figures. No point in returning it to drafts if it's just not a notable release. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google search of "Crooked Boy review" lists 2500 results. Premature to discount existence of good references to be added to article. Rockycape (talk) 08:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added charting information to the article from Official Charts. It appears that there's only charting information for the title track, but it performed fairly well on the aforementioned chart, so there's no reason to delete it. There was no charting information on the article because it was created before it was released. The article also passes WP:GNG, since there are several articles discussing the EP from different sources. Just because the information isn't there doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Bandit Heeler (talk) 11:56, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It appears that this nomination was based on events in the draft system, and the nominator likely failed to do the WP:BEFORE search that is required before a deletion debate in order to investigate notability. Also, deciding that notability had not been established just because of spotty sources in the draft version is a violation of WP:NEXIST. The album received widespread reliable coverage the week of its release, and it and one of its songs made the charts in two countries months before this nomination. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. There seems to be significant coverage on reliable sources. However, there may be some confusion if the coverage is due to the notability of the EP, or because of the popularity of the artist Ringo Starr of which notability is not inherited may be invoked. Prof.PMarini (talk) 10:29, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pukaar – Dil Se Dil Tak

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

I am neutral in this filing but feel a consensus is needed here than deleting the page and redirecting, given that this is an ongoing tv show which satisfies WP:TV. Also I don't find any issues with the current sources of this article, only thing is that more WP:RS sources should be added. Editingmylove (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - With only 28 edits you may not be familiar with WP:NEWSORGINDIA which is what all of these references fall under. Nothing reliable to show notability. I would also say that a redirect wouldn't be a suitable WP:ATD based on the objection to it. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_Sony_Entertainment_Television#Current_broadcasts: Not opposed to keep, given existing coverage. A redirect is not only suitable but should always be considered when production, cast and broadcast are verifiable, which the said coverage clearly allows. If someone objected to the redirect, it is most likely because they wished a standalone page, not on principled opposition to keep history and allow further improvement or expansion here or on the target page. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not enough WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG and does not meet the WP:NFILM criteria. (Also fine with a redirect) — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding a few references. I don't know if that helps WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilovetvshows (talk • contribs) 11:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was the one that created the plot tab for the show and added stuff to it. I usually just fix the plot or the cast section in TV shows so I am not completely aware of why the deletion might be happening. I would like an explanation and if there is anything I can do to stop the deletion? Whothatwhothatwhothstboi (talk) 16:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging the relevent people @CNMall41 @Mushy Yank @Alien333 @Ilovetvshows. I think this conversation should be in the talk page Editingmylove (talk) 17:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. @Whothatwhothatwhothstboi: you may vote if you think the page should be retained (see the template in the corner of the page: how to contribute and deletion process). Ilovetvshows may !vote too. Adding sources certainly can help unless other users consider them not reliable/not independent and maybe someone should explain why most sources have been said to fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA when it does not concern websites or media that are considered generally unreliable (and that are simply not mentioned there), as, not only for newcomers, that might not be completely clear. The quantity of coverage added certainly means something, though. Bylined sources would be better, I guess. Maybe such as https://www.news18.com/entertainment/abhishek-nigam-is-part-of-sayli-salunkhes-pukaar-dil-se-dil-tak-8884431.html, which contains a paragraph that might pass for independent coverage. But I will leave it that as I don't wish to comment any further on the topic and maybe my !vote is clear enough (not opposed to keep- suggesting redirect as a useful compromise, alternative to deletion). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV Imsaneikigai (talk) 17:09, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is opposition to Deletion although editors have not offered bolded Keep votes as they should. To the nominator, don't bring an article to AFD unless you are seeking a Deletion. Because that is often the outcome here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, hello; you mean they have not offered bolded Keep, perhaps? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:20, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct, I have changed my relisting statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 552

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

One more of the NGC stars. No commentary about the object in any scientific source. Redirect to List of NGC objects (1–1000)#501–600 C messier (talk) 05:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars in the New General Catalogue. According to C. Seligman it may be a magnitude 14.6 star.[22] But he also notes, "There must have been something wrong with the way that Herschel's clock was running on the evening in question, as most of the objects he observed that night are nowhere near his reduced right ascensions." I think we can just take it as an error. Praemonitus (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Praemonitus' suggestion. I do not see the subject fulfilling WP:NASTCRIT. Vorann Gencov (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of stars in the New General Catalogue. Technically, it does pass criterion 4 of WP:NASTCRIT, having been discovered before 1850, but the guideline states that meeting these criteria is not an absolute guarantee, and a WP:BEFORE search demonstrated it has not been covered in sufficient reliable sources, so a redirect is most appropriate here. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:548F:ADC2:7689:6C5E (talk) 17:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Storm (webtoon)

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

Fails significant coverage. The little commentary I found is in this CBR listicle, others are just plot summary and mention in other listicles. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could there be Korean sources we're missing? Not to say it might not be non-notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? Maybe you can find them? I can't read Korean. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, before you nominate articles for deletion, you really should search in the native language of the topic. As you're the one making the proposal, I'd argue the burden of proof is on you to follow through with it. With machine translation it's really not that hard, as you only need a high-level understanding of what each source says. Almost every day I see deletion nominations like these.

That said, I'm leaning delete. I'm a Korean speaker and didn't find much convincing sigcov. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – I am not an expert at Korean sources and cannot quite tell you which of these sources are reliable right now, but this is what I'm finding:

gameca.com, three paragraphs as part of a list.
techm.kr, three paragraphs as part of a list.
news.nate.com, listed entry, basically nothing.
news.nate.com, listed entry, basically nothing.
mk.co.kr, listed entry, basically nothing.
yna.co.kr, listed entry, basically nothing.
chosun.com, author quote, basically nothing.
sisaprime.co.kr, listed entry that is given ridiculously high praise (Google Translate gives me Kakao Webtoon, which has created major action/martial arts/fantasy masterpieces that will leave a lasting mark in webtoon history, such as .. Red Storm. Segye.com might be a copy, extremely similar text)

I currently have no idea which of these are reliable, but sourcing is fairly weak either way. If someone can find better sources I haven't found yet, I'd be happy to see them. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 15:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korean here-- of the ones you've listed, the only widespread sources I can see are Nate News, Yonhap News (YNA), and Chosun Ilbo, none of which have coverage focused on said Webtoon. Though the KakaoPage website indicates that there's about 4 million subscribers to the Webtoon, I'd still argue delete here since I can't find any significant coverage that would warrant an article. MetropolitanIC (💬|📝) 02:39, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep: Coverage in a newspaper from Uganda [23], doesn't appear to be a "pay to publish" article, I suppose Ugandans watch South Korean online manga-type stories? Oaktree b (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
or a redirect to Kakao [24], the publisher? Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Observer.ug article is a coverage of a different comic. Red Storm is only mentioned. The second source is just a single-sentence announcement. Neocorelight (Talk) 01:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With this source I would probably support an article on the author, but it doesn't help much for this specific work. A redirect to a listing at Kakao Webtoon would be appropriate, yes. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I saw incorrectly, we do not have a list of Daum/Kakau webtoons. Probably for the best, as the Naver equivalent list is a mess. Deletion still feels like the correct choice. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reagan, Indiana

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

Searching is unsurprisingly difficult but found nothing to contradict this as a rail point for loading grain. The only thing there now now is a co-op which aerials show has migrated from the north to the south side of the road. By contrast other towns in the area have a street grid, however small. There's none of that here. Mangoe (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - There are plenty of other sources besides the Internet, such as books and other sources, that may or may not have more info. If we let this article expand a little longer, perhaps more non web sources can be found to expand the page. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, no. There are no sources beyond those already listed, unless they be produced. We've done a thousand or so of these placenames articles so far, and after sitting around for sixteen years, it has had its chance at "perhaps more sources". This is a classic bad AfD argument. Mangoe (talk) 11:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched through numerous old maps dated between 1878 and 1969 and saw no evidence whatsoever of a settlement at the site. The only thing I could spot on any of them was a structure (perhaps a grain elevator?) marked on this 1969 map near the intersection a couple miles south of Antioch. (The township map doesn't even show that it has a name, though the county-wide locator map identifies the spot as Reagan.) Early property maps show landowners with the surname of Reagan holding much of the farmland around that point, so that presumably is the origin of the locality's name, but I see nothing to show that the spot is/was anything more than a grain storage and loading facility along the railway line. ╠╣uw [talk] 12:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is plainly false. Reywas92^Talk 13:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost

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

I'm not seeing much third party coverage, likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unclear how much weight should be given to those awards. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, as per WP:CORPDEPTH there a couple more recent references made even before this listing, https://von.gov.ng/website-hosting-firm-advocates-enhanced-data-protection-measures/ , https://dailytrust.com/cybersecurity-firm-urges-nigerians-to-guide-their-data-online/ . This nomination for deletion should be rescinded in my opinon 4555hhm (talk) 13:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are verifiable especially those from NIRA, the Authority Domain Registry in Nigeria. The information on the awards is stated on NIRA website as per https://www.nira.org.ng and that has a lot of weight. 4555hhm (talk) 13:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are a clearly denegrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. This nomination should be rescinded and article kept. 4555hhm (talk) 13:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 4555hhm (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sourcing is the usual regurgitation or company PR and the "awards" may be verifiable but they are not sufficiently significant to meet notability criteria. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ There seems to be a bias towards this nomination. By claiming no "independent content", you are clearly denigrating the sources in the references given. A performance based award is given by an Authority Domain Registry and you acknowledge it as "PR"?. A company that won an award back to back from such Authority is not notable? What is notability if such awards are not deemed notable? If we go by your assertions, then many entities will not exist on wikipedia. As per GNG/WP:NCORP , there are more than 2 significant sources with independent Content on the company. These were clearly ignored by the editor that made the nomination. I am able to identity 4 references that meet the criteria for notability. Even though GNG/WP:GNG as regards sources clearly states, "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected". Let us be fair to African Organisations who may not have the same level of media coverage that other organisations in Other continents may have. WP:ORGSIG"However, smaller organizations and their products can be notable, just as individuals can be notable. Arbitrary standards should not be used to create a bias favoring larger organizations or their products." This nomination should be rescinded and article kept.@HighKing 4555hhm (talk) 13:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)) [reply]
- Comment OK 4555hhm, notwithstanding your request to apply different standards to small African companies, you've said that winning an award should be counted towards notability. WP:ORGTRIV says that non-notable awards aren't counted towards notability and if this award were notable, I'd expect it to have significant coverage or discussion, be recognised internationally, or even have its own WP page. This doesn't appear to be the case and in my experience, most "industry" awards are not notable. You also say you can identify more than 4 sources which meet the criteria - but you didn't list even one such source. Not sure if you're including the article about the award by the ADR, but that article's content fails to include in-depth "Independent Content" - for example, it is easily proven not to be "Independent" since it is a word for word copy of an article in Nairaland (can't link to it because WP doesn't allow it) nairaland.com/4816995/tfhost-awarded-hosting-provider-year this article published on the same date (without an accredited journalist) and this in Nigeria Communications Week. In addition, this copy relies entirely on information provided by the company including quotes from a company officer. Also, to complete your quote from ORGSIG you must also remember that No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:06, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be nice to hear from more participants.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EasyJet Flight 6074

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

Non notable incident and WP:NOTNEWS BasketballDog21 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. BasketballDog21 (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete, no major injuries in comparison with 2001 Japan Airlines mid-air incident, its the same case as Air Europa flight 045, and no aircraft damage, so cannot be in Wikipedia since it's not notable. Protoeus (talk) 04:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not exactly a convincing argument since every article has to stand on its own merit. The 2005 Logan Airport runway incursion does not have any injuries, Air Canada Flight 759 doesn’t have any injuries and the list goes on. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:02, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, France, Spain, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No deaths or anything to make it very notable. It should be redirected to List of aircraft accidents and incidents by number of ground fatalities. Wheatley2 (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: nothing inherently notable about the incident per WP:EVENTCRIT, and no sign of changes to procedures or other WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think that the article on EasyJet Flight 6074 is not important and notable enough. The event's details are not well-documented by reliable sources. Yakov-kobi (talk) 14:35, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no signs of notability for this incident nor deaths caused. There are thousands of similar plane incidents like this and not all of them will be given their standalone article. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: with not a single wounded person, this is very far from having the lasting consequences for WP:NEVENT. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 14:16, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Keep (with the possibility of draftification to improve the state of the article) – A lack of casualties does not necessarily imply non-notability. A major electrical failure leading to a near-miss with the possibility of being intercepted by fighter jets is not run-of-the-mill.
This incident led to multiple recommendations being issued, as well as (an) airworthiness directive(s), several being implemented which does satisfy WP:LASTING. Multiple systems were modified by Airbus as a result of this incident and several changes were also made:

Annuel safety recommendations review annexes^: 3–4
Annual Safety Recommendations review^: 88–91;
G-EZAC Safety Recommendation Document;

Easyjet Flight 6074 (G-EZAC) was also used as a case study across multiple studies years after the incident which does demonstrate the event's notability:

University of York – Failure Logic Modelling: A Pragmatic Approach –31 March 2010–
Vanderbilt University Graduate School – Model-Based Detection in Cyber-Physical Systems –25 October 2011–
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications – 航空機局の検査制度について (In Japanese) –27 November 2011–
Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications – 航空機に搭載する無線局の検査の在り方に関する検討会報告（案 (In Japanese) –10 August 2012–
Hamburg University of Technology – Eine Methode zur optimalen Redundanzallokation im Vorentwurf fehlertoleranter Flugzeugsysteme (In German) –July 2013–
University of Strathclyde – Impact of key design constraints on fault management strategies for distributed electrical propulsion aircraft –10 July 2017–
University of Strathclyde – Establishing viable fault management strategies for distributed electrical propulsion aircraft –3 September 2017–

The incident was listed in EASA's list of recurrent defects:

EASA Community Network | Recurrent defects

The incident was also analysed by the Flight Safety Foundation:

AeroSafety World September 2009^: 16–21

Whilst not having significant coverage in news sources, the incident was widely used as a case study for multiple studies, led to numerous recommendations being issued along with service bulletins, and led to modifications being implemented by Airbus. "Airbus faces demands for A320 series electrical systems improvement following EasyJet report" I don't see how this event would qualify as failing WP:NOTNEWS since primary sources are practically non-existent and that this is not exactly a breaking-news story (I've been able to find a singular news report on this event, The Daily Mail but it's not exactly a source that we would consider reliable). Aviationwikiflight (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been able to find a news report on the incident from the Telegraph, published the day after the release of the final report. [25] Archived version Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another BBC news report on the incident – [26] and a short news report by The Mirror, [27] plus a short mention talking about another incident. [28], and another news report. [29] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be inclined to express a keep opinion if, among other things, this incident was used as a case study on an ongoing basis, but I couldn't find anything in the first two English-language examples that you cited other than the references section. Can you point me to some specific page numbers in any of those references (even non-English) to show how this was used to show lasting impact on the aviation industry? The PDFs are more than a hundred pages long each, and I searched for the airliner name and the registration of the aircraft, but couldn't find what you were referring to. The current version of the article suggests that a scary technical problem occurred, many bad things could have happened, but the flight eventually landed safely. I'm not yet seeing the lasting notability that can be added to the article, or presumed notability associated with a hull loss or crash with injuries or fatalities. RecycledPixels (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I failed to precise this but the incident, in most the papers, do not directly mention the incident but instead use the incident as a source, reference, among many others. If you search for the registration, you should normally be able to find mentions of the incident in the sources section. Per the order of pdf files given above, the specific page numbers are: p.337; p.222; p.26; p.172; p.184; p.20; p.10. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Aviationwikiflight, you've shown that the incident has been widely studied, and that it led to procedural and design changes. The article could of course, if kept, be updated accordingly. But does it make the flight notable enough to justify a standalone article rather than just adding a sentence or two to the existing mention on List of accidents and incidents involving the Airbus A320 family? I'm not convinced yet... Rosbif73 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep‎. Nobody proposes deletion, and nominator withdrew. (non-admin closure) Justarandomamerican (talk) Have a good day! 01:55, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal of Joe Biden from the 2024 United States presidential election

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

This should just be a redirect to Joe Biden with a subsection there. There doesn't need to be a whole article on why he withdrew from the election, as candidates do it all the time (albeit not usually candidates in one of the "big two" parties). A subsection on Biden's main page stating why he dropped out should suffice, unless there is an extremely rare aspect of this that I missed. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:44, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're correct but this AfD will never fly. Drmies (talk) 01:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural SNOW Close An AFD on this article literally was just closed as “no consensus possible”. If you disagree, take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review. DrewieStewie (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SNOW close per DrewieStewie. AKK700 01:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see the previous deletion discussion. WP:SNOW for me aswell. Sir MemeGod ._. (talk - contribs - created articles) 01:52, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the recent AfD:

[30]. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:53, 22 July 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.