Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 16

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 15	July 17 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Maisam Nazary

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

This article does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for politicians and living persons WP:GNG and WP:Politician.A significant part of the text in this article lacks reliable sources. The sources provided only mention this person in passing, without significant coverage that would establish their notability in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe this page merits retention. Several notable news sources have published articles in which Nazary figures prominently, such as this one by the New York Sun. Dan Wang (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Afghanistan. Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 13:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Highly WP:BLP concerns especially with the sourcing, which doesn't clarify or meet WP:SIGCOV in independent sources. In general view of this discussion, the article doesn't meet WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 01:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What elements of the article are inadequate in their sourcing? Let's work to improve them before we move to scrap the page outright. Dan Wang (talk) 03:19, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Why are you so focused on preserving this article? Do you have any benefit? Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Dan Wang What is your connection with this person and the political organization in which this person is active? (National resistance front) Your focus is only on the National Resistance Front and its individuals. Almost all your edits are related to this organization and its affiliated individuals. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia's policies. I would like to draw the attention of the respected admins to this issue. Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which policies am I violating (the ones your Talk page is littered with reprimands about)? In the last week alone I've edited a half-dozen different pages, ranging from musicians to American political events. A lot of my edits are indeed on Afghan topics, because I think it's an interesting subject area that merits documentation, and one I've been trying to improve the sourcing for. In the interest of full disclosure, I was the original creator of this article (I've created several over my 15 years as a Wikipedia editor), and I do want to see it preserved—not out of any inordinate attachment, but rather because I believe the de facto foreign minister of a major party to the 50-year-long Afghan conflict meets the notability standards for a Wikipedia page. Dan Wang (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think if that is why you are creating an article about this man, the topics that should be discussed is his involvement in the conflict, not his early life and schools he graduated from 77.103.192.51 (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point, I wanted a good base of non-contentious material for the article (since pages touching the Afghan conflict have seen edit wars), but you may be right the ratio of past to recent experience might be a bit off. Dan Wang (talk) 00:07, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If there should be WP:ATD, then redirect to the National Resistance Front of Afghanistan, since he is the foreign minister (still a non notable office). Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The figure has been a prominent politician within the opposition for the past few years. His publications in renowned media outlets such as Foreign Affairs Magazine, such as [1] and his many interviews with CNN, Fox News, and France 24 are evident of his major role on the political scene. He has attended many international conferences on behalf of his organization and has had bilateral meetings with many countries. The article must be improved to reflect his current role and achievements, yet deletion is not the right option.
Aarmeen123 (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dan Wang. --Un assiolo (talk) 23:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet Wikipedia policies.Helal Ahmad Sharifi (talk) 19:02, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can I highlight the peculiarity of an account that’s only one day old joining to chime into this discussion without previously having made any contributions on Wikipedia? Dan Wang (talk) 02:00, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tressless

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

All of the citations used in this article are either links to the forum itself, or trivial mentions of the form 'online forums like r/tressless' mentioned in articles about hair loss in general. This is not the significant independent coverage required by WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. I have looked and I have not been able to find any sourcing that would meet our requirements. This was moved into article space by a draft's creator after the draft was declined, so here we are at AFD. MrOllie (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty uncharitable. It was explained and linked to directly multiple times in both NBC and a *leading* paragraph in NYT, has been in print, and is not merely mentioned in passing as you claim. & don't know if it's against some guideline I didn't see, but the article was moved out of draft after addressing and improving based on feedback, not directly after being declined. Quarkipedia (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NBC mentioned it twice. Here are the full quotes: Finasteride is also heavily touted on a popular website called Tressless, which is also an active community on Reddit. and CORRECTION: ( June 10, 2024, 8:10 p.m ET) An earlier version of this article misidentified the website Tressless. It is active on Reddit, but not a Reddit community.. The NY times is similar. That is a textbook example of a trivial mention. MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said "linked", it's used as a supporting citation in NBC further down the page. And it's the third sentence, and entire second paragraph in an NYT article, including print, it's not tucked into other text. But based on the consistent distortion in your comments today, indiscriminate deletions of useful but pedantically non-compliant text in other articles, and many complaints about you online, I'm guessing you know what you're doing, so ok. Quarkipedia (talk) 20:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is about whether or not sources that contain significant independent coverage exist. Links are irrelevant to that. And making personal attacks is not going to help the situation - only providing sources that meet notability requirements will. MrOllie (talk) 20:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet WP:NWEB as all sources are either unreliable or trivial mentions. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 08:33, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: i think there is an unbolded Keep argument here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, brief mentions in articles about hair loss are not significant coverage. hinnk (talk) 08:14, 17 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obersturmmann

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

Procedural nom; a malformed PROD with rationale This does not seem important enough to warrant its own page. Indeed, on the German language wiki, this information is merely included on the SA page. was removed. I don't see sufficient sourcing, but would not be surprised if sourcing exists. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Germany. Walsh90210 (talk) 17:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sourcing, as with all such ranks, all of which have articles. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- What sourcing? According to some talk-page comments, the Sturmabteilung didn't have this rank; it's unclear what organization in Nazi Germany did. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I have no idea what the "plenty of sourcing" Necrothesp is referring to. Almost nothing comes up for this word at all on google scholar, and the hits are to sources that appear to be lists of one kind or another (example), or from very dodgy sources. (For an example, here's the description of one of the books that comes up: "We had to do it. We had to reprint this book. Rarely has a book had such an impact on so many of us here at Ignatius Press. It is one of the most powerful and moving books we have come across. If you can only buy one book this season, this must be the one." This doesn't scream "strong editorial oversight" to me.) We don't mention it on Sturmabteilung either, so it's not a good redirect destination. If anyone does find this plenty of sourcing, please do let me know. -- asilvering (talk) 03:19, 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!} 22:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't have enough reliable sources to show it's important on its own. The topic is better covered in other, broader articles about Nazi paramilitary ranks. Yakov-kobi (talk) 15:46, 17 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Koukl

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Greg Koukl

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

No evidence of notability, warning has been in place for over 7 years. I cannot find sources to indicate notability has been attained since the last nomination in 2011, which was closed as no consensus. glman (talk) 18:43, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: Rather prolific author and is talked about a ton in the religious media, but a distinct lack of book reviews in "mainstream" media (for lack of a better word). This [2] review in religious media is typical... Some scattered mentions here [3] or [4]. We'd need more of these last two types of sources for this to have a chance to be notable here. Was hoping this would pass AUTHOR. Oaktree b (talk) 00:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Radio, Christianity, California, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added another reference which squeezes him over the line on WP:GNG. But the Google scholar citations are actually pretty good, including 98 for Tactics. St Anselm (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has good cites for two of his books as per Google Scholar here and coverage in reliable sources such as The Christian Post, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:He's made STR. He's notable. Quote Veteran (talk) 18:48, 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!} 22:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per above. ADifferentMan (talk) 07:14, 17 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jansen AG

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

DOesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found some coverage:

100 years anniversary [5][6]
Mergers and acquisitions [7][8][9][10][11]
A visit to the company [12]
Coverage of their electricity production via PV panels [13]
Winners of the European Geothermal Innovation Award [14]
Two profiles on the St. Galler Tagblatt [15][16]

I'm not sure if it's enough for WP:ORG, @Boleyn: what do you think? If the company has been around for 100 years, probably more can be found. Broc (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. 50 year profile here as well. Plus above, IMO it is good for NORG. Also an encyclopedia entry on the company's founder and the company (other coverage on the founder). PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails NCORP and Reliable sources. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be nice to get a second review of these sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Broc's sources are both reliable and provide non-routine coverage of Jansen, for instance the two articles in St. Galler Tagblatt. Geschichte (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Have rewritten the article (NPOV) and added reliable secondary sources. As former resident of the Canton of St. Gallen, I know about the good reputation and the importance of Jansen AG for the Rheintal. However, I don't have any connection with this company.--BBCLCD (talk) 15:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. In plain English, this means that references cannot rely *only* on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even when slightly modified. If it isn't *clearly* showing independent content then it fails ORGIND. Here, the references are simply regurgitating company announcements and have no "Independent Content" in the form of independent analysis/fact checking/opinion/etc. For example:

This and this is simple company registration information and company filings. All of the content has been provided by the company, this is not "Independent Content" as per the requirement above. Fails ORGIND.
This is about winning an award but this is not a notable award, it is a niche industry award. Fails ORGTRIV notability criteria. The article itself does not provide in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.
This in Tagblatt reports on some company restructuring. I am unable to read the entire article at this time, perhaps somebody can report on whether the content provides sufficient in-depth "Independent Content" about the company.
This in Rheintaler is based entirely on an announcement/Press Release and fails ORGIND
This in Rhein24 is a report on a party thrown to celebrate 100 years in business but it relies entirely on information provided by the company/execs/attendees, this is not "Independent Content" and fails ORGIND.

I've no doubt this company exists and is a well respected company in their field, but I am unable to locate any sources that meet our criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:01, 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Spider-Man and X-Men

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

Could possibly redirect to Panini Comics, but I would be wary of a merge/redirect as this is unsourced. Sounds like it could be notable, but I couldn't find sufficient reliable sources to confirm it. Boleyn (talk) 19:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 10 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!} 22:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete According to the content of this article, the comic is not some unique story, but simply combines two previously published comics due to logistical inconsistencies. It didn't get any media attention and wasn't an important thing. I haven't found any mentions except in the fandom, and nothing important there either. I don't think there's even talk of a merger with Panini Comics, because WP:NOTCATALOG--Saul McGill (talk) 23:46, 16 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.

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

The result was speedy delete‎ per author request. ✗plicit 23:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey

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

I had an undisclosed conflict of interest when I created this article. My supervisor has asked me to request that the article be deleted on this basis. I am sorry I created it. I hope this process will be simple. Thank you. A loose necktie (talk) 20:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think you can just tag this article CSD G7 since you were the creator and prime contributor to it.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 16 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 00:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Rudiments

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

I couldn't find convincing evidence they meet WP:NBAND / WP:GNG. They have been with more than one record label, so there are several potential redirect targets, though I am not sure which would be preferable. I wouldn't propose a merge as there is no sourced information. Boleyn (talk) 19:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sources, article does not have an encyclopedic tone. Also I couldn't find how they were notable for a Wikipedia article. Myrealnamm (💬pros · ✏️cons) 20:08, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No strong sources, a conversational style, and no clear claim to fame for the band. Waqar💬 15:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a case for WP:NBAND#5, but the search (which the above voters may or may not have conducted) came up a little light. One EP review in Maximum Rocknroll, two sizeable reviews by In Music We Trust as well as another good one by Allmusic. The band predates most of the current Internet Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified above by Geschiste. Haven't done a full search yet, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to what has been linked, there is another review by AllMusic. toweli (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:29, 9 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!} 22:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The source search has probably yielded enough for a pre-Internet band. I see no sign of a WP:BEFORE in the early phase of this discussion. Geschichte (talk) 16:09, 17 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Serik Tolbassy

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

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability or SNG. All resume type material with promotional type wording, plus material on companies and organizations that he is affiliated with. Of the 4 references, one is a brief bio, 2 have just mentions of him at an event and one is a forbes listing of him being the 26th or 56th richest man in Kazakhstan. Tagged by others since January. North8000 (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kazakhstan. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 9 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!} 22:47, 16 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to Christian Malanga. There is a strong consensus that this article's subject does not warrant a standalone article. There is a rough consensus to merge the content to Christian Malanga, and to replace the current article with a redirect to the merge target. The extent of material chosen for merging can be discussed on the merge target's talk page. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Zaire (government in exile)

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

Do not meet with critera guideline. No centered sources before 2024 Panam2014 (talk) 17:05, 25 June 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 June 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:ATD can be a merge to Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party. Curbon7 (talk) 23:36, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to either Christian Malanga or United Congolese Party, as suggested above. A check of the sources shows little evidence that this is an independent concept. DW and Reuters refer only to a "head of government in exile" and mention "New Zaire" only as a name used by others. One of the AP sources does likewise and the other does not mention New Zaire at all. Giving it an article like this one gives New Zaire WP:UNDUE weight. An article about the event of the attempted coup might be another matter, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:39, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wheatley2 (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not having enough sources isn't a good reason to delete a page of an organization, especially since it attempted a coup against the DRC Government. If people want to learn about said coup they would also like to learn about the organization that did it, deleting this would not be helpful. Eehuiio (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article about coup and organization are both sufficiant. Panam2014 (talk) 12:35, 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!} 23:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested above, but only secondarily sourced prose and perhaps the image. The primary sourced prose seems OR, the infobox is entirely unhelpful, and the secondary sources while noting the topic do not show independent notability. The next step up to merge to is United Congolese Party. In the case this also shares similar notability issues, that could all be merged to Christian Malanga, but that may be a separate discussion. CMD (talk) 07:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If you are arguing for a Merge or a Redirect, please provide a link to the target article you are proposing so that editors don't have to go searching for it. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Christian Malanga: Any substantial sources about the subject are discussing Malanga rather than the party itself. United Congolese Party uses very weak sources. Recon rabbit 15:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete. It meets all notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:F1A4:4A00:1102:5373:5075:6C13 (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It meets no notability. Panam2014 (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. If you believe the sources establish notability, please mention specific sources you believe achieve this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Christian Malanga. --Un assiolo (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christian Malanga. Yue🌙 05:40, 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.

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 - Withdrawn by Nominator (non-admin closure)‎ Rorshacma (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of films featuring space stations

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

A non-encyclopedic cross categorization of the "List of X with Y" variety. Fictional depictions of space stations is a notable topic, hence our existing article on the subject, but a list simply recording movies that have space stations appearing in them runs afoul of WP:NOT. Rorshacma (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - Per the discussion with Jclemens below, I feel like I did not nominate this article with a valid reason, so I am Withdrawing the nomination. Rorshacma (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Spaceflight. Rorshacma (talk) 21:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many others of Category:Lists of films by topic or Category:Lists of films by common content are you planning on deleting next? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I haven't looked through those, I will say that in many cases a list of things categorized by a topic is different then a list of things categorized by something specific that appeared in them, which is what this list is. This one happened to stick out to me because I know that our Space stations and habitats in fiction article was completely rewritten due to an AFD prompted by it initially being nothing but a list of things with space stations in them. Rorshacma (talk) 22:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I created this article based on WP:NOTESAL, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." These were the core list reliable sources that justify the nature of this list in the first place:

"Space Stations in Movies". Rocket City Space Pioneers. Dynetics. Archived from the original on December 17, 2013. Retrieved July 26, 2013.
Kramer, Miriam (August 8, 2013). "Our 10 Favorite Sci-Fi Space Stations of All Time". Space.com. TechMediaNetwork, Inc.
Westfahl, Gary (2009). Islands in the Sky: The Space Station Theme in Science Fiction Literature. Borgo Press. ISBN 978-1-4344-0356-8.

Looking now, I am not seeing more than the above that I found at the time (2013). It feels on the threshold of notability for me, so I'll let others decide. If the consensus is that there should not be a standalone list, let's at least have a film and/or TV section at Space stations and habitats in fiction highlighting what the above list sources name. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Actually, this indicates that the book Space Stations: The Art, Science, and Reality of Working in Space seems to have a "Space Stations in the Movies and on TV" chapter or section. If we can find more, that would be great. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization. Science fiction is a specific genre of movie, a subset of which involve a space station, and that subset has been discussed in RS as shown above. Jclemens (talk) 22:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, I don't think that argument really counters the text at WP:CROSSCAT, since it could be plugged in to argue for the examples specifically cited there as things to avoid. The issue is that this is not a list or article on "Space Station Films" (which even if that could be considered a genre, would still likely be better off covered at Space stations and habitats in fiction), but simply a list of movies in which the same object appears at some point (in this case, a space station). As I mentioned above, there's a difference between a list covering films of the same genre or topic (i.e. List of films about horse racing) and one just listing films in which a certain "thing" happens to appear (i.e., List of Films With Horses). Rorshacma (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that everything in WP:CROSSCAT has two entirely unrelated items. Affinity and employment, or cuisine and city, are entirely orthogonal, and naturally do not routinely show up in RS'es because of that lack of association. As Erik pointed out above, this cross-categorization does, much like a book on the best Bagel shops in New York City would render a list of those no longer a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization despite the example in CROSSCAT. Jclemens (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 17 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.

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kulwant Singh Rauke

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

Disputed PROD. My rationale still stand, the subject fails WP:NPOL and there's no evidence that there's a passing of the criteria that constitutes WP:GNG either. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Punjab. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The creator has made multiple similar articles which fail WP:NPOL, this should be deleted as well. Xoocit (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:NPOL. The degree of significance of the subject and of role as politician and activist is not enough to warrant a page on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 22:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, also failed WP:NPOL. Youknow? (talk) 15:27, 18 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. This was well attended and we have well reasoned input arguing for keep/merge/delete and I thank all participants for that. When tying the first two together (as in retention of the information, but an acknowledgement that it may not need to be its own article), there is a slight edge to retention. I'd recommend discussing a merger on the Talk and should that not attain consensus, a renomination could happen. Star Mississippi 01:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bent's Camp Resort

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

Advertisement for non-notable 12-cabin 'resort'. Sourcing is abysmal, and largely used for off-topic padding. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Wisconsin. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I apologize that the article was not developed. It is a 131 year old camp and there is enough information available to write an encyclopedic article like this source about the founder "Charle's Bent" who is not yet in this article 1. They have a history in the Wisconsin lumber industry and deer hunt and harvest. It looks like they were recently featured on the America's Best Restaurants Road Show 2. I also do not think there is anything in this article about their annual music event "Northwoodstock" 3. Probably more to be said about their annual "Radar run" event also 4 Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if it is a resort, should the relevant notability guidelines be WP:NORG? If so, it should probably be added to the appropriate delsort too. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't at all clear whet the supposed claim to notability even is. As a former logging camp? A camping ground? A place that runs events? A place in the same county as alleged Bigfoot sightings? Hard to tell... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to companies. The lead tells us it is a resort in Wisconsin. A resort is a business. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sirfurboy: Thanks, historically it is a place that has had the same name but its use has evolved over a century. Right now it is a campground that hosts major events and also has a lodge. When I went there last year I took photos of the music festival (on commons now) and I also wrote an article on the lake which separates the Wisc and MI (Mamie Lake (Wisconsin)). The photo in the Mamie Lake article is looking away from the lodge at Bent's Camp. I have been editing less these days but I hope to get around to developing the article if it is not deleted. Lightburst (talk) 23:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What are these 'major events'? Where is the evidence that anyone not seeking to publicise them considers them 'major'. And how can a 12-cabin resort host 'major events' anyway? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am dancing as fast as I can. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I take it this is the 'major event' you are referring to? [17] AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I'm not seeing significant coverage in multiple independent, secondary reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 05:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~see revised merge vote below In addition to the sources in the article, Lightburst gives 3 above. The first is really about Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin, but discusses Bent and does confirm that he created a fishing camp with log cabins and dining in 1896. However this is not signifcant coverage under any guideline. The mention of the camp is passing. The second link is not reliable in that it presents different information in different locations of the world. In any case it appears to be simply news about a restaurant (if you are an American consumer). The last link is an announcement. That is certainly a primary source. So we have nothing. No notability for a standalone article. Next question is whether a merge or redirect is appropriate. The most likely merge target is to the stub at Mamie Lake (Wisconsin). However I cannot see why that article subject is notable either, albeit that it would be considered under the much laxer WP:GEOLAND. I also considered redirect to Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin, as this is what the source above is about. However it is not really Bent's Camp Resort that is discussed there. Rather, it is Bent who would be of sufficient note for a mention. At this point, I don't see any benefit in a redirect that outweighs the disbenefit of Wikipedia promotionally mentioning non notable businesses. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This isn’t an encyclopedia article; it’s an advertisement with footnotes. Qwirkle (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD has been canvassed offline by the nominator. It occurred on WPO in a thread titled "Crap Articles". The entry in that thread by the nominator says, "Bent's Camp Resort (T-H-L) Another masterpiece by Lightburst...". So it looks like this article will be deleted before I can add research about the history of the place; it would be nice to have this sent to draft or user space. If that cannot be done I understand. Lightburst (talk) 16:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not seeing any sign of canvassing. Everyone who has commented so far is an AfD regular. But if you are saying there are sources that demonstrate notability, you only need to show they exist, and you have a week to do it. Deletion is a discussion, not a foregone conclusion. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sirfurboy I understand, thanks for your consideration. I have no desire to edit for the time being. This is not a "woe is me" post, but I have to admit to myself that I had enough of the project for now. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. Brandon (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Thanks, You are right, and I am sorry that it reads like a travel guide. I did argue for WP:NEXIST but hunting down sources is not on my schedule right now. If editors think this place should not be on Wikipedia I have to accept that. Lightburst (talk) 18:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a travel brochure, this is an article about a regional institution that has been around since at least the 1890s. Carrite (talk) 05:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Absolutely no evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:34, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this is likely a bad faith nomination. It's a fairly close call, GNG wise — being in operation for over a century, it is quite likely there is undiscovered sourcing out there. Carrite (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is an article from the Vilas County News of May 23, 1923 calling Bent's Camp the 4th oldest resort at that time and printing a photograph of it from the 1890s. Carrite (talk) 05:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HERE is an obituary for Austin Bent, son of Charles Bent, and for a time proprietor of Bent's Camp. It includes significant detail about the ownership of the business over time. Carrite (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AND HERE we have a short piece from the Green Bay Press-Gazette on a petition over the expansion of Bent's Camp in 1965. Carrite (talk) 05:47, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

THIS is a very substantial piece from the Madison Capital Times on the Bent's Camp expansion controversy, which had drawn in a member of the Wisconsin Conservation Commission. Carrite (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I've seen enough here, plus the footnotes showing in the piece, to get this one over the GNG bar. This is not commercial propaganda, this is a piece about living Americana, a historical site heading towards 150 years in operation. Carrite (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN on the middle-1960s development controversy, this time noting that the case had gone all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Carrite (talk) 05:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AND THIS PIECE, entitled "North Needs Financing to Save Its Old Resorts," puts the Bent's Camp development controversy into historical context, as indicative of problems being suffered by other fishing resorts of the region. Carrite (talk) 05:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. You may have demonstrated that a worthwhile article might be written about this, but what was actually written belongs on one of those display stands of shiny cardstock brochures about local tourist traps. Whether better sourcing makes this worth an article, or space in another article, is still an open question. Qwirkle (talk) 06:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Qwirkle we meet again - twice in one night. Can we can consider WP:NEXIST as demonstrated by the Carrite sources? It is late here but I can try to find time to add them to the article tomorrow. Or another editor may add them. Thanks for considering. Lightburst (talk) 07:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Sirfurboy, Brandon, Qwirkle, TarnishedPath to consider the above. Carrite (talk) 06:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck my comment as this is all a bit too spicy for my tastes. Brandon (talk) 06:43, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Carrite on review of the analysis that @Sirfurboy has compiled below I don't see any reason to change my delete !vote, unless something changes. TarnishedPath^talk 08:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you to Carrite who found sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. Like others here, I came from the ANI. Bruxton (talk) 06:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - source assessment Carrite has spent considerable effort finding mention of this business in old newspapers using Newspapers.com. Many thanks for spending the time and effort to do that. On first glance I thought at least one of these was good: a review that talks about the camp. However, the depth of the review must be considered against the appropriate guidelines, and on that score, it does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH. The WP:NORG guideilines describe what is required for significant coverage in CORPDEPTH which says:
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

I have thus produced the following source assessment table for these new sources. Note that this is my own assessment only.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Eagle River Review [18]	I have not checked. Articles such as this often are not independent, but considering its age, and the coverage of 4 such camps, I have assumed it is ok		There is a single paragraph on the page subject (although the OCR splits it to 2), plus a photo. It has some salient information (not the oldest resrort, and the trail was cut through hardwood with an axe, built as a rendevous for lumberjacks). Looking at the CORPDEPTH guideline quoted above, it is clear that we don't have information here that can be used to write more than a brief or incomplete stub.	Worth mentioning here that newspaper reporting is a primary source, but this is not reporting so clearly secondary.
Wasua Daily Herald [19]			Passing mention in an obituary.	This one, however, is reporting Bent's death. A primary source for Bent, and the mention of the camp occasioned by the primary reporting.
Green Bay Press Gazette [20]		TBH I am just assuming the reliablity for all of these. They probably are, but I haven't checked.	This is about opposition to development by the owner of the camp. Nothing about the camp per CORPDEPTH.	Reporting the protest. We would be writing a secondary source if we used articles such as this to build an article. It would be good history, but a poor encyclopaedic article.
The Capital Times 1 [21] The Capital Times 2 [22] The Capital Times 3 [23] Multiple articles from a single source count together.			1 Mentions one of the enterpreneurs in the clash as the owner of the business. That is all. 2 all we are told is that business had sagged. 3 The last and this call it historic, but that is all it says. What historic means here is, presumably, it has been there a long time, as nothing actually historic is told to us.	1 is reporting a clash between businesses and is primary, 2 reports a falling out which is primary news reporting, 3 is reporting a need for financing, which is primary for that, but as the financing is to save "old resorts", the question of whether there is a mix of secondary reporting there of the camp itself is moot as there isn't significant reporting of it.

Note that under NORG we need multiple sources, and each source must individually meet WP:SIRS. I don't think any of these do. If someone were inclined to accept the first, you would still need multiple such sources. So we are not there yet. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Almost completely sourced by primary sources, and, as Sirfurboy has pointed out above, there aren't enough reliable secondary sources to meet notability requirements. Articles are only as good as their sources allow, and what there isn't reliable. Easy delete.--Panian513 20:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the material User:Carrite brought in hasn't changed my mind that this current article doesn't belong in mainspace, but has, I think made the case that the subject is a little more important than this article would show. Maybe not as a standalone, but as an expanded part of LoL or the Cisco lakes and so forth. Maybe draftify it for now? Qwirkle (talk) 21:14, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Wegner, Robert (2008). Classic Deer Camps. Iola, Wisconsin: Krause Publications. pp. 101–115. ISBN 978-0-89689-655-0. Retrieved 2024-07-14 – via Internet Archive.
  Bent's Camp Resort is covered on pages 101–115 of the book. The book notes: "Bent’s Camp remains a classic example of how man converted the antique, quaint lumber camps of the old lumbering era into romantic deer camps and recreational resorts of the early twentieth century; how these old time lumber camps became great enclaves of manliness and refined sportsmanship with a pronounced wildlife conservation ethic. Yet women also emerged into this rustic atmosphere as well, as we see in those two great deer hunting photos of Lizzy Bent with her classic Winchester rifle in hand and Henry and Ruth Voss posing with their trophy whitetail at Manitowish Waters—two photos shown in the Wisconsin Public Television Documentary "A State of Escape." Bent's Camp still exists today in all its magnificent splendor; in the interior of the camp with its beautiful, sapling wainscoating deer hunters still converse, tell stories, and in the North Woods around the camp reconnect with the ancient rhythms of nature."
2. Hintz, Martin; Percy, Pam (2014). Williams, Tracee (ed.). Food Lovers' Guide to Wisconsin: The Best Restaurants, Markets & Local Culinary Offerings. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 252. ISBN 978-0-7627-9214-6. Retrieved 2024-07-14 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Dating from 1906, Bent's has the appropriate look of a bygone era, with its rustic decor including birch bark, held in place by cedar-bark strips, lining the ceiling and walls. Photos from the early days of Bent's Camp Jare everywhere, including on the menu. Almost everything has a homemade touch, from the vegetables grown on-site to the handmade pizza. Steaks and roast duck are specialties, with nightly specials. Pork chops, ribs, and yellowfin tuna earn raves from ravenous visitors, in from a day of fishing. Speaking of fins, Bent's Friday fish fry attracts a big crowd. Breakfast is served Saturday and Sunday with a Bloody Mary bar available starting at the wee hour of 8 a.m. Early every August, Bent's hosts its Northwoodstock festival, with live music all day and lots of food and beer. This self-proclaimed "hippie hoe down" is good for laughs, plenty of hamburgers, and several rounds of brew."
3. Westervelt, Amy (2012). Michigan's Upper Peninsula: A Great Destination. Woodstock, Vermont: The Countryman Press. pp. 175, 178. ISBN 978-1-58157-138-7. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  The book notes: "Just over the Wisconsin border, in Land O’Lakes, Bent’s Camp (715-547-3487; www.bents-camp .com; $$$, closed Tuesdays in winter) offers a similar sort of experience. A former logging camp turned into a popular fishing resort, Bent’s also features an outstanding restaurant, famous for its Friday fish fry, Saturday prime rib, juicy roast duck, and homemade pizzas. Located in the main lodge of the resort, Bent’s Camp restaurant features wood tables in a large wooden, open-beam interior decorated with Native American trinkets and local hunting trophies. The restaurant has its own dock for those boating in for a meal. The Friday fish fry is renowned throughout the region, so plan on getting there early or waiting awhile if you want to find out what the big fuss is about—it's worth it."
4. Gauper, Beth (2005-02-13). "Golden Oldies - In the North Woods, Classic Lodges Are Remnants of a Vanished Era". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2024-07-14. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  The article provides 233 words of coverage about the subject. The article notes: "Not far away, near the Michigan border west of Land O' Lakes, Bent's Camp began life in 1896 as a camp for sportsmen, brought over from the railroad landing in a wooden scow called the Tar Baby. A log restaurant was built in 1906, with interior walls covered by thick squares of birch bark held in place by cedar strips. Today, it's one of the north woods' most treasured spots. In the bar, old photos illustrate the resort's early history and a fire crackles in the stone fireplace; diners sit in a room lined with paned windows overlooking Mamie Lake or in the wood-paneled big room, under the gaze of a giant stag head. It's as far off the beaten path as it can be, but the specials when I was there were pure uptown -- Chilean sea bass with a langoustine cream sauce, duck confit and a delectable phyllo-wrapped lamb with gorgonzola, rosemary and garlic. ... Bent's Camp near Land O' Lakes, Wis.: This is a great destination even for a beer, ..."
5. Bawden, Timothy (2001). Reinventing the Frontier: Tourism, Nature, and Environmental Change in Northern Wisconsin, 1880–1930 (PhD thesis). University of Wisconsin–Madison. p. 115. ProQuest 231652918. Retrieved 2024-07-14.
  The PhD thesis notes: "Charles Bent, a logger and lumberman from Oconto County, came to Vilas County in 1893 to homestead 67 acres of densely forested land on the shore of Lake Mamie, located 12 miles west of State Line (Land O' Lakes). The timber was so thick that a 40 acre tract produced a million feet of pine. Bent cleared some of the land in that first year and used the logs to build a main lodge and a few other buildings for his resort, naming it Bent's Camp. He eventually built his property into an impressive resort that included a main lodge, 12 cottages, a guide's quarters, stables, and ice and boat houses. The resort could accommodate 75 guests by 1915, which was almost twice the average at the time.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Bent's Camp Resort to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1 and 5 of this list look interesting. Still trying to get the first book. The first is unavailable to borrow just now - do you still have it out? I need to read the last still. The middle three are not going to pass CORPDEPTH. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Mamie Lake (Wisconsin) - Cunard adds five sources above, and again thanks for the efforts on this. One of these, I suspect is a very good source, but I cannot review it, as below. I would be happy to admit that the hobbyist book, Classic Deer Camps is likely to provide significant coverage in an independent reliable secondary source. The others I discount as I do not believe they meet CORPDEPTH. To show the notability of a business there needs to be more than directory style information, or basic history. This then leaves us short of the multiple WP:SIRS sources we need. However, on Wegner's book alone, I think we, per WP:FAILORG, have sufficient information that there should be mention of the camp on Wikipedia. I thus have revised my above delete !vote to a merge. The stub at Mamie Lake would be the best merge target, and a merge there would improve that page, retain the information about the camp on Wikipedia, and provide an appropriate place to add other such information. My assessment of the sources provided by Cunard is below.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
Classic Deer Camps [24]	No indication that Wegner has any connection with the camp that would suggest this is not independent.	The publisher is Krause Publications (KP), which allows self publishing. [25], but I think that is perhaps recent. It was formerly known for hobby magazines and books. At time of publication (2008), KP were owned by F+W, publishers of special interest works. This author published a number of deer hunting books through KP. This would be a hobby book, but it is not clear to what extent it had any editorial review. It is, however, well put together. I don't see a reason to deny its reliability.	There is clearly a whole chapter on the camp. I think this is very likely to constitute signiifcant coverage, but the book is hard to find. Open Library has it but with limited preiview. None of my library services have it, and the specialist hobby nature of the work will make it hard to track down. I tehrefore cannot verify that it has significant coverage - but, again, it is a likely pass.
Food Lovers' Guide to Wisconsin: The Best Restaurants, Markets & Local Culinary Offerings [26]	An entry in a food lover's guide may not be independent as sometimes the entries are placed for payment. I have not investigated whether this is the case here as it fails on significance.	It is a guide about the food in the state. It appears to be a reliable one.	One long paragraph about the food at the bar and lodge restaurant in a local food lover's guide. Other than the date (of the restaurant), there is nothing here to write an article from. Fails CORPDEPTH.
Michigan's Upper Peninsula: A Great Destination [27]	A destination guide will list all the torist businesses at the destination. Often the content is placed, or write ups may be provided by the businesses		One long paragraph, mostly about the food. Apparently the fish fry is well reputed.	The extent to which this is a secondary source is debatable. The information is written ain the style of a secondary source. It is information about the businesses, but it is occasioned by the destination guide which is a primary source inasmuch as it describes the tourist attractions at a destination for the purposes of being a guide to the location as it is.
Golden Oldies - In the North Woods, Classic Lodges Are Remnants of a Vanished Era [28]	It is an article in local press. These may not be independent but I have not investigated this further as I don't believe this meets ORGCRIT	But local press.	4 paragraphs, a touch more than the above food guide, although the flavour of this is similar. It speaks of it as atreasured spot. Plenty of people would accept this as significant if we were not looking under CORPDEPTH, but under CORPDEPTH it still does not pass muster.
Reinventing the Frontier: Tourism, Nature, and Environmental Change in Northern Wisconsin, 1880–1930 [29]			All we have is the 132 words quoted and mention of some boats. There is sufficient information here to tell us when teh camp was created and its size, but nothing that asserts notability beyond its creation, nor the kind of in depth information envisaged by CORPDEPTH. Again, we stil have nothing beyond the information sufficient for a very brief stub, as before. We can say Bent built it, when he built it and how big it was, but we don't have the level of attention required to write more.

Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to point out, I believe the "Classic Deer Camps" reference contains so many pages because most of those are photographs. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sirfurboy, I've found if you click on the arrows beside the page number, you can still see the pages of the book "Classic Deer Camps" (except maybe the first time you click but click again and they're available). From reading the available pages, arguably there isn't much by way of direct in-depth information but in my opinion there is sufficient information provided in an indirect manner. For example, much of the content is about a family named "Clow" and how they used Bent's camp as a base, sprinkled among this text is enough information to provide descriptions of various parts of the camp. Similarly on page 108 it mentions other "characters" that "hung out" at the camp and on page 109 it mentions the early years of the 20th century when the camp became a public resort charging $8 a week for board but that come deer-hunting season, the Clow deer-hunting clan took over. And so on. I think your analysis is correct, the book meets the criteria. That said, we need another source before the topic can be said to be notable. Have to also mention that on page 215 of this book, it lists other sources of information for Bent's Camp, which you can see in Google Books view of "Classic Deer Camps" HighKing⁺⁺ 16:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm only able to identify one single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, being the first book in Cunard's list. None of the others meet GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Cunard's sourcing. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PERX. This isn't a !vote count. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What else am I supposed to say besides "I think Cunard's sources show that it is notable"? Of course it isn't a vote count but is there a need to rehash things when someone else has already said what I think? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a discussion. Which of Cunard's sources show it is notable and is there anything you can add which might rebut the analysis of Sirfurboy which points out why 4 of those sources don't meet GNG/NCORP criteria? HighKing⁺⁺ 09:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further discussion of the sources brought forward during this AfD would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 21:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The ORGCRIT analysis by Sirfurboy convinces me this does not meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) says: "Contain significant coverage addressing the subject of the article directly and in depth". significant coverage links to Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline which says:
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The sources linked by Carrite (talk · contribs) and me address the subject "directly and in detail".
Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage says:
The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability. Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.
The sources I linked all contain "deep coverage" through providing an overview and description of the resort. The current version of the Wikipedia article is not a "very brief, incomplete stub", which disproves the assertion that "we stil have nothing beyond the information sufficient for a very brief stub".
Coverage of the restaurant that is a core part of the resort is coverage of the resort. It is illogical to exclude discussion of the resort's restaurant from contributing to significant coverage about the resort. The Saint Paul, Minnesota-based St. Paul Pioneer Press is not "local press" of a resort in Land o' Lakes, Wisconsin. The sources are all independent of the subject and published by reputable publishers. There is no evidence that the coverage in The Countryman Press and Globe Pequot Press books were "placed for payment" or that the company wrote the content.
Here are additional sources I found:
1. Rose, Hailey (2022-06-09). "A Historic Wisconsin Destination: Bent's Camp". Discover Wisconsin. Archived from the original on 2024-07-20. Retrieved 2024-07-20.
  The review notes: "Bent’s Camp was established in 1896 by Charles Bent, an avid outdoor enthusiast of sport fishing and hunting. He created the resort to preserve the Northwoods in all its glory for all to love and enjoy as much as he did. Since its establishment, it has been seen as a fantastic fishing attraction and still is today."
2. Hass, Kortnee (2021-07-14). "A Northwoods Retreat: Bent's Camp". Discover Wisconsin. Archived from the original on 2024-07-20. Retrieved 2024-07-20.
  The review notes: "In 1896, Bent's was established as a place for sport fishing and hunting and still to this day is discovered by new women and men everyday. Charles Bent was known for his deep love of the Northwoods and all he did to try to help protect and improve it for the others to come! The lodge was then built in 1906 and as we mentioned before, started off being used for various things but was primarily used as a place to serve the guests food."
3. Wegner, Robert (November 2003). "Bent's Camp". Wisconsin Outdoor Journal. Vol. 17, no. 8. pp. 24–29.
  The source is listed here in Wegner's book.
4. Davis, Mark Henry (1997). An Empire in Waiting: Northern Wisconsin's Lake Country, 1880–1940 (PhD thesis). University of Wisconsin–Madison. p. 262. ProQuest 304416611.
  The PhD thesis notes:
  Bent's Resort, a fishing camp that had remained unchanged since it opened in the 1880's, touted its crudity. "With its old weathered log cabins, half underground, and its interesting relics of bygone days, it does a great deal to preserve the primitiveness of the place."⁵⁶
  56 WisLOL, May 1929, 7.
  Wisconsin Land O' Lakes Magazine. 1925–1929.
Cunard (talk) 11:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, I'm convinced by Sirfurboy's and HK's analyses above. No number of passing mentions, like the couple-sentence blurbs cited above, amounts to the second SIRS source needed to meet NORG. JoelleJay (talk) 02:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sirfurboy's arguments are convincing. Others less so. ——Serial Number 54129 21:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the source analysis tables listed above. Generally routine coverage and passing mentions. Frank Anchor 13:12, 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.

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of surnames in Russia

AfDs for this article:

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

Hopelessly indiscriminate/random/subjective collection: here says they found 380 thousand different surnames in Russia, of which core of 14 thousand surnames are used by 70% of the population... And with a misleading title: it lists only east slavic surnames, while there are plethora non-slavic people in Russia from the times of Russian Empire and Soviet Union: not a single surname ending in -shvili and only one ending in -dze, no one ending in -yan/-ian i.e., Georgian surnames and Armenian surnames are thoroughly not represented. In is poorly maintained: I removed a couple obviously hoax (OK, mayby typos by nonslavic editors; AGF to them). Even slavic surnames are far from being complete: I immediately failed to find the surnames of my favorite writers: Ilf, Strugatsky, Nabokov Akunin, Zoshchenko, Bulychev, as well as other well known surnames Schmidt/Shmidt, Goldfarb, no Zeitlin/Tseitlin/Tseytlin, good thing there is Abramovich :-) ; there are Tkachenko and Tkachyov, but no Tkachuk. For some reason there are both Pelevin and Pelyovin listed, but there are hundreds of other e/yo spelling variants missing ..... And so on, and so for. - Altenmann >talk 05:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 10:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: might be related, at least in spirit, to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of the most popular given names of Kazakh women of Kazakhstan, another grand undertaking regarding names in this region. Geschichte (talk) 17:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:20, 16 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 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lists of this size are far too unwieldy for WP:LISTPURP-NAV to to be a good argument for keeping. Although the list topic itself undoubtedly meets WP:NLIST, I think this is WP:NOTDIRECTORY and so should be deleted. BrigadierG (talk) 20:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the current article violates the WP:NOTDIRECTORY policy as it purports, through implication, a listing of all surnames of people living in Russia. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It doesn't do anything more than Category:Russian-language surnames except add a lot of redlinks (and give Russian spellings). Clarityfiend (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transwiki to wiktionary, which does maintain these types of lists (although with the shortcomings you mention). (t · c) buidhe 14:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Much too unwieldy and indiscriminate, fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY as a random collection of surnames found within Russia, and there are several alternatives as mentioned above, such as Wikt and categories. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to make a single assumption why this exists. WP:NOTCATALOG. Vorann Gencov (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No need of this database. Azuredivay (talk) 15:13, 20 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.

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

The result was keep‎. and "WP:N" isn't a sufficient deletion rationale argument. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditty (musician)

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

"WP:N" Bulklana (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Environment, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As is evidenced on the current article, Ditty has been the subject of "multiple, non-trivial, published works", meeting the first criteria in WP:NMUSIC. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Against a bare minimum nominating statement, WP:SIGCOV in The Hindu, Rolling Stone India, Indian Express, the Business Standard and other outlets show she passes WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:45, 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.

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vennli

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails the notability guideline for companies. Coverage in purely local sources or from alumni publications does not contribute to notability. – Teratix ₵ 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Companies, and Indiana. – Teratix ₵ 17:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it fails WP:NCORP and is purely promotional. - Amigao (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. All coverage is local (WP:AUD requires coverage in at least one broader-scope publication for NCORP), in WP:TRADES publications or otherwise in WP:PRIMARYSOURCES. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:28, 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archie Vaughan

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

So what exactly makes this guy notable? Being the son of Michael Vaughan, is all I can tell. He hasn't played cricket at a senior level and hasn't done anything of note in cricket to warrant inclusion. No amount of WP:ROUTINE refbombs can hide that he is a WP:GNG fail. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 17:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, fails WP:GNG. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:38, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t understand whether he has already played for Somerset and the England U19 to pass WP:NCRIC, but signing a contract with the club and being called up to the U19 team is being covered in the media, which indicates the passage WP:SIGCOV. I will list several secondary sources, you can easily find more [30][31][32] Tau Corvi (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But why is that notable? Plenty of people get signed by major sports teams and never go onto do anything. Is the bar really set this low? Again, if his father wasn't a famous cricketer, he would not get any coverage. AA (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article was moved to mainspace via Afc. Subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Hildreth gazzard (talk) 00:48, 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!} 17:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widespread coverage in established media including BBC, Sky Sports, The Times, The Daily Telegraph The Independent, ESPNCricinfo etc. Yes the articles often mention his father in the headline or the article themselves but that is going to be the case his entire life unless he manages to totally surpass what his father achieved which is a high bar to set. The articles themselves are about him, not his father, and as such he easily passes the coverage test. Shrug02 (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCRIC. Twinkle1990 (talk) 08:45, 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6 Engineer Squadron

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

The subject of the article does not seem to be notable. There is a lack of independent references provided. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Canada. PercyPigUK (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Any unit with a 113-year history is likely to be notable. Lack of independent references is not a good reason for deletion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find independent sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one would expect for such an old unit, there's numerous references to the unit in the media throughout the wars. Even a 1946 book, and discussion in numerous other books about operations in both World Wars as they participated in battles like Vimy Ridge and on Juno Beach on D-Day. The German execution of three captured prisoners (2 from this unit) at the hands of Wilhelm Mohnke in 1944 gets media attention, such as ProQuest 239462705 and also discussed in a book. Nfitz (talk) 16:31, 9 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!} 16:51, 16 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.

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 Revert‎ to this version, which I have done. I have not applied rev del, but no objection should another admin find it necessary. Star Mississippi 01:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DWAD-TV

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

This was marked as {{db-hoax}} by Myrabert01. Not sure whether it is a hoax or not, but it is certainly unsourced and was until recently about a different station of the same name. Expert attention needed to decide what should be done here. See also the talk page. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Philippines. —Kusma (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the (blocked) page creator's talk page and other contributions certainly makes "hoax" look very likely. —Kusma (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I see trouble ahead. The details in the infobox do not make sense to anyone who understands the history of All TV or ABS-CBN. Even if this wasn't a hoax, I'd have problems with sourcing and possible existence thereof. I am pinging one user whom I trust to have the final word: WayKurat. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert, then delete or redirect to a list of ABS-CBN transmitters. Even de-hoaxing it does not provide significant coverage to work from. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:09, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to older version This is the last stable version of this article, before it was bombarded with hoax information by several IP editors. Deleting this article should not be done since the hoax edits were just made last June 2024. -WayKurat (talk) 01:29, 3 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!} 16:24, 9 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!} 16:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert to older version and if need be, apply revision deletion to hoax edits (may be covered under criteria RD2 and/or RD3) as a form of denying recognition with regards to whatever they're up to. -Ian Lopez @ 12:09, 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.

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

The result was speedy delete‎. (per A2). This was merely a cut and paste copy of an article from another language Wikipedia with NO attempt at translation. I'll make no comment on the merits of this process. BusterD (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of shooting ranges in Akershus

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY. As noted in discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shooting ranges in Norway, this fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. It's a nice list and interesting geodata... but not encyclopaedic content. Hemmers (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Tagged with WP:A2, but agree this is a directory of non-notable places. Reywas92^Talk 17:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages; almost all of these don't have stand-alone articles. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, as I mentioned in the shooting ranges in Norway AfD. Ajf773 (talk)

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

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

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

News9 Plus

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

AfDed per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News9Live Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and India. Twinkle1990 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt This current version is blatantly promotional compared to the original version ("News9 Mediaverse umbrella"?!) and N is still not met at all. Nate • (chatter) 16:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources are comprised of a few questionable websites, some of which are "News9" sites. Not notable. Ternera (talk) 18:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:G4 BrigadierG (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom, Poor sources with no significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) on the channel. clearly fails WP:NCORP. Youknow? (talk) 15:34, 18 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.

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. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Tanti

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

WP:NOTRESUME. Fails WP:GNG WP:BASIC. Initially, I tried to draftify the page, but there is already a rejected draft in existence. Charlie (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources. The businessman's work has not been significant and unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO RangersRus (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG, also the articles look like a resume. Youknow? (talk) 15:31, 18 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Czech Republic at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Lejsek

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

Redirect to Czech Republic at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge as I could not find enough in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. I've checked corresponding Wikipedia article in other languages, especially the Czech one that might help copy over English article, but none of them provide significant coverage on him. One-time Olympics participant, Lejsek was not even one of the three luge medalists in pre-mentioned tournament either. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Czech Republic. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. World Championships participant in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2023. European Championships participant in 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023. (According to Whatlinkshere, haven't clicked them yet.) Geschichte (talk) 20:49, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. I also didn’t find any RS that would show passing WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 16:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Czech Republic at the 2022 Winter Olympics#Luge: Subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 16:08, 20 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iain McKee

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG - a WP:BEFORE search turned up no focused coverage, just passing mentions in coverage about projects he was associated with in some way. Also does not appear to meet WP:NACTOR as his roles are mostly non-significant. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 14:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete cannot establish WP:NACTOR as well. Even the roles he is “famous for” are supporting. Vorann Gencov (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACTOR. LibStar (talk) 04:13, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 14:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of permanent Ambisonic playback systems

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

Wikipedia is not a directory this article contains very few internal links to notable articles, all that is included is external links, which has become a means of promotion. There is nothing encyclopedic about this article that is currently worth saving VViking_TalkEdits 14:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears promotional and has no sources. Ternera (talk) 15:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Lists. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. Ajf773 (talk) 00:14, 17 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Star Mississippi 01:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of anthropogenic disasters by death toll

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

This whole article is one long mess, which if you look at the talk page has been very contentious for years. It's heavily biased in many ways and doesn't appear to have any clear rules regarding what is actually included. It describes itself as a list of events with a "measurable drop in human population" yet also contains many events with as few as 40 deaths, and repeats itself at multiple points, such as listing "Various Fascist/Marxist leaders" as distinct events along with each major leader as a unique event. All in all this article is unnecessary, as it contains nothing that is not duplicated on other better articles such as List of wars by death toll. I fully believe WP:TNT applies here. CoconutOctopus talk 13:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and History. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It is entirely WP:SYNTH, and redundant to such lists as List of wars by death toll that provide more detail than you can get from two numbers and their geometric mean (which is not properly justified by what I can acess from Ref. ^[1]). The list also improperly adds figures with varying precision as if they were exact. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agree with previous justification. Figures are arbitrary and calculations are via unvalidated means for the presentation of scholarly data. "Measurable drop" is vague. Any drop is measurable. Greyspeir (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Pinto, Carla M. A.; Lopes, A. Mendes; Machado, J. A. Tenreiro (2014). "Casualties Distribution in Human and Natural Hazards". In Ferreira, Nuno Miguel Fonseca; Machado, José António Tenreiro (eds.). Mathematical Methods in Engineering. Springer Netherlands. pp. 173–180. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7183-3_16. ISBN 978-94-007-7182-6.

If this AfD closes as delete, can the talk page and its subpages be preserved at this AfD's talk page? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a huge mess indeed. Wikipedia is not a directory. Vorann Gencov (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Clean up. This article is necessary to prove the point, what toxic species mankind is. Category with environmental casualties should be added. RobiH (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't here to "prove a point", certainly not a biased one such as that. The article isn't notable as a concept in itself and is purely a copy of parts of better existing articles. CoconutOctopus talk 09:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify This article can be made into something sensible, but it needs a cleanup before it's in mainspace. Dege31 (talk) 18:46, 20 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.

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. The NLIST and NOTTRIVIA arguments have not been meaningfully rebutted. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian prime ministerial firsts

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

WP:NOTTRIVIA, does not meet WP:LISTN. Along the same lines as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and India. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 13:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of capacity for reasonable WP:SELCRIT. On this day, the Indian prime minister became the first in history to eat a donut which contained a jam filling and brown sprinkles before 9am on the 2nd day of february while wearing a yellow turban... BrigadierG (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going with your logic shouldn't we just delete List of Mexican presidential firsts, List of Philippine presidential firsts, and List of United States presidential firsts as well? — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, probably. BrigadierG (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then move them to articles for deletion as well. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there is a significant coverage about the Indian prime ministerial firsts. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 01:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources do you have in mind? _signed,Rosguill ^talk 12:09, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just run a search and you'll find out. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You changed this article on your will.

You need to make sure you CITE YOUR SOURCES and make sure your English is professional and encyclopedic.

Thanks, GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Dabral, I have specifically performed a WP:BEFORE as expected to when nominating this article. I did not find anything discussing the category of "Indian prime ministerial firsts" in depth, just examples of individual instances being described as a prime ministerial first. Absent any evidence to the contrary, I presume that the sources you are thinking of fall into the latter category, which is not enough to meet WP:LISTN. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to keep those few material related to individual instances and remove the rest, instead of deleting the whole article? Because this article has potential to be developed properly. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 07:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for WP:NOTTRIVIA. We should also likely delete the other "Presidential Firsts" list articles for rhe same reason. CoconutOctopus talk 06:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Purely going by the fact that List of United States presidential firsts exists and the article is on similar lines to that. Xoocit (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That article should likely also be deleted, although it is possible that coverage exists to meet WP:LISTN there so it would require patiently working through its mountain of sources first. WP:OSE _signed,Rosguill ^talk 12:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Curbon7 (talk) 21:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning keep given the fact these exist elsewhere, but I can't quickly find a source which would get this past WP:LISTN (covering several firsts at once as opposed to just being a trivia section). SportingFlyer T·C 10:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:LISTN. There are practically an infinite number of unnotable firsts. First PM to visit Canada??? What next? First left-handed PM? First to catch a disease in office? First to play a video game? Clarityfiend (talk) 13:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These are just comical straw man arguments you are giving, I dont know about Canada but an Indian prime minister's visit to Israel is significant enough to highlight, given the fact that previous governments had a policy to not recognise Israel in favour of their pro-Palestine policy. This was a significant shift in the foreign policy. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 12:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The List of Indian prime ministerial firsts fails encyclopedic merit without contextual information. RangersRus (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Based on the article, I feel there are several important and key facts that are noteworthy regarding Prime Ministers of India; however, I do see some uncited firsts listed and I feel the introductory paragraph is not Wikipedia based. Therefore, I would say keep the article, but make sure that the statements are not too specific, and as obvious, they are cited with sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HockeyFanNHL (talk • contribs) 23:18, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article originally was mine. But another user merged it and changed it on their will.

I suggest to restore my version of the article. I cited sourced, and made everything under Wikipedia Policies. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk • contribs)

Contrary to these assertions, the prior version of the article (I presume Special:PermaLink/1218109595 corresponds to the juncture GHDNA is referring to) does not address the failure to meet WP:LISTN. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States vice presidential firsts, selecting what goes onto this list is always going to be an exercise in original research. Also contravenes WP:NLIST and WP:NOTTRIVIA. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failure to meet WP:LISTN. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Many entries in this list seem to fall into the category of trivia rather than providing any encyclopaedic value. The relevance of distinctions such as "First Prime Minister to keep beard" does not significantly contribute to the understanding of the Prime Minister's role or impact on India’s political history. - The9Man ^(Talk) 08:13, 24 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Akinwunmi Richards

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

There are no enough reliable sources to establish WP:PRODUCER. Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He wrote a book which is currently used as a text/guidebook at the study centre in PAU, this should help him pass WP:NAUTHOR 4c or thereabout. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Subject fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage from reliable source that are independent of the subject. The only reliable source here was that he donated a non notable book to a University. Book sources are even looking like a WP:FORUM.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 14:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Gabriel601, I noticed that you make speedy keep and speedy delete !votes these days, have you read the guidelines on how and when to use these? Best, Reading Beans 02:33, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will go through that again but not this days like it’s been happening. Thanks for the word anyways. Corrected.--Gabriel (……?) 08:32, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A clear attempt at promotion for his company and personal endeavors. He is visible in a fair number of standard online promotional sites, but Wikipedia is not a part of that world. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:24, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ľubomír Bajtoš

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

Another long-unsourced stub regarding a Slovak men's footballer who played a total of 47 minutes before suddenly disappearing in 1999. SME might be the best reliable secondary source that mentions his name, but it's only in an image caption which does not count towards significant coverage. Article fails WP:GNG overall. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article is from ye olden times and is not satisfactory with current guidelines. The false information about 47 minutes is a misinterpretation of 47 matches in the Czechoslovak First League, and he did of course have a longer career before and after that even though WorldFootball has not recorded it. But someone has to have recorded something in order to have a Wikipedia article. This piece is an overview of his career. It's a good start, and there are more in pre-Internet media, but I don't know how to find it. Geschichte (talk) 11:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That article linked by Geschichte appears in the Czech-language version of the page. It is a good start. The link from Clariniie suggests he played in European competitions in the 1994–95 season on top of the league matches. Sources likely exist. I was able to find details of his performances in the Czechoslovak First League: 1990–91 season, 1991–92 season (didn't play), 1992–93 season for 42 appearances and 6 goals. Will add more if I am unable to uncover further sources. C 679 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 05:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Due to the lack of sources. If there are new sources that are possible for WP:V, I change the vote. Svartner (talk) 19:22, 17 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.

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:57, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

International Anarchist Congresses

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

In a previous iteration of this article, it consisted of a list of various different congresses held by different organisations with little tying them together but the broad "anarchist" label. That list was recently dynamited by Czar, leaving nothing but a contextless list of congresses of the International Workingmen's Association, which I don't think have ever been described as "anarchist congresses" in any sources (the IWMA consisted of various different socialist tendencies, not just anarchists). As this article would, at best, be a random list of various, disconnected congresses for different disconnected organisations; and as it is utterly worthless in its current state, I'm recommending the article be deleted. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Organizations, Politics, and Lists. Grnrchst (talk) 11:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There might be a case for creating a list of anarchist congresses but we'd have to do some digging for sourcing. Or that might be a better job for a category. czar 13:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since there's useful stuff in the page history and the topic is broadly notable we should be avoiding deletion if possible. A list is better than a category in this case, I think, since the entries will need more context to be useful (as noted by nom, the current state of the article isn't useful because it lacks that context). We also have a lot of incoming links here. Even in this extremely reduced state, it does at least have some "see also" that are relevant to the topic at hand. I agree with czar that it's not great to have unsourced sections hanging around forever, but I think deleting the whole thing is an unnecessary amount of TNT. -- asilvering (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of incoming links, @czar, a bunch of the links aim at one of the sections you TNT'd. I think we might be able to source at least a skeleton of this to Skirda - but is there an easier way to search in the "what links here" results that I'm missing? I'd like to find the ones that redirect to a particular section without having to scroll through hundreds of results. -- asilvering (talk) 17:31, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:WhatLinksHere/International_Anarchist_Congresses showed the redirects and the sections they targeted. I cleaned up a bunch that should have been pointing to Anti-authoritarian International article sections. czar 18:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Per above, I think we can re-scope this into a list with a table and sources. Agreed that the First International congresses should be described as precursors rather than anarchist congresses. If the list doesn't shape into anything coherent, I think we can revisit deletion. czar 02:57, 20 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:48, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Firmex

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tristancr (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Products. Tristancr (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is referenced almost entirely to primary and unreliable sources that are not support for notability, and the one WP:GNG-worthy reliable source (The Globe and Mail, "A virtual smoke-filled room") is a deadlink I had to go into ProQuest to recover, only to find that it glances off the existence of Firmex in the process of being principally about a different company altogether, which means it isn't about Firmex and thus doesn't clinch the notability of Firmex all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:30, 19 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus van der Vaart

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

Have carried out WP:BEFORE for this unreferenced article about a businessperson, and not found independent, reliable sources to add. I don't think he meets WP:GNG, WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE or WP:ANYBIO. Tacyarg (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Virginia. Tacyarg (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with nom. The article does not give a reason for notability; significant coverage in independent sources is not available. All I can find are self-published and related sources. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 23:35, 20 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Following PamD's edits, the page is a valid disambiguation page and the delete !votes do not actually refute the rationale for keeping. Elli (talk | contribs) 12:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual Chocolate

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

There are no Wikipedia pages by this title to disambiguate. Gjs238 (talk) 11:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Originally a DAB someone created for their favorite person. None of the current listings therein are pertinent enough to be here. — Maile (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, absolutely no reason to keep a DAB with no pages linked. CoconutOctopus talk 14:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changing vote to a weak Keep since User:PamD's edits. CoconutOctopus talk 10:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

but its funny : 64.35.198.163 (talk) 22:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim: the entry for Ryan Sidebottom needs to be removed unless a source is supplied in his article, and the song line at the end is probably not appropriate, but with a fictional band, a nicknamed wrestler and a song this seems a valid dab page. There is no need for there to be a Wikipedia page by this title, for this to be a valid dab page. PamD 07:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, falling down a Wiki rabbit-hole, I've sourced Sidebottom's nickname and that is a valid dab page entry. PamD 07:50, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete supposed to be disambiguation page? But cannot see any reason this should exist, really. WP:PARTIAL most certainly applies here. Vorann Gencov (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only one entry could possibly be considered to be WP:PARTIAL, and that is now (much trimmed) a "see also". PamD 22:47, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page is a mess, consisting of just a list of references with no pertinent Wikipedia pages to disambiguate. TH1980 (talk) 02:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Each entry leads to a page where the term is mentioned: all valid dab page entries. PamD 05:07, 21 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrations4u

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

All the sources mentioned in the article are part of regular brand promotions/ interviews/ PRs. No significant coverage from independent sources. Fails GNG Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Companies. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NCORP. Charlie (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails NCORP. Sources are their comments so not useful. S0091 (talk) 14:43, 20 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to Vietnam Airlines. I've also put each continent into separate collapsible tables to avoid having a long article. (non-admin closure) Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 14:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vietnam Airlines destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP.

Specifically this is a catalogue of the services of a company and as such is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". This is essentially an article entirely about run-of-the-mill announcements about services from a company, the equivalent of an article trying to list the locations of all Burger Kings or Pizza Huts. Any information that is not simply run-of-the-mill is already included at the Vietnam Airlines article.

Other headings under WP:NOT that are failed include WP:NOTTRIVIA (since this is a listing of rapidly-changing temporary company services that can change on a scale of days/weeks), WP:IINFO (since this is an indiscriminate effort to provide a complete listing of all services offered by a company regardless of significance, instead of summarising them), WP:PROMO (since this is effectively an advert for the company's services based on sources controlled ultimately by the company), WP:NOR (since this is the compiling of a list of company services to state things not stated in the original sources - for example that services to Russia are terminated now because they were suspended in 2022, or that services to Tegel were previously operated when the source only says that Tegel is now shut, and more broadly that all of these services are operating now when the sources are only true for the date they were published), WP:NOTGUIDE (since this is effectively a travel guide), WP:NOTNEWS (since this appears to be an attempt to create a list of up-to-the-minute services offered by the company), and WP:CRYSTAL (since nearly every announcement used discusses plans to start doing something in the future, and since dates in the future are included - for example announcements for October 2024).

WP:NCORP is also failed. Most of the listings here are unsourced, and realistically cannot be sourced from anywhere but the company website, press-releases, company spokespeople, or other sources controlled by the company, meaning that it automatically fails WP:ORGIND, because this information cannot be obtained from a source independent of the company.

That this is true can be seen from the sources provided in the article. Going through these one-by-one we get:

The Vietnam Airlines website
A Saigon Times article about a government announcement about restructuring of the airline that does not mention any destinations
A profile in industry-press based entirely on information from the airline
The Vietnam Airlines website
An industry-press article based on a company press-release
A local news story based on a company press-release
A link to the Berlin airport website saying that Tegel airport has been shut down - the conclusion that Vietnam airlines ever flew here is not supported and basically OR
An announcement about future plans in industry press, with comments from the CEO of Munich airport who are obviously also not independent of the airline as they are a business-partner of theirs
An announcement in government-controlled press about flights to India, since Vietnam Airlines is state-owned and managed by a board appointed by the government this is not independent
Announcements from the company about future plans relayed via Aeroroutes, which is a blog/industry press, and also not significant coverage since it so short
Another Aeroroutes link regarding future plans
A short Reuters piece about flights to Moscow being suspended in 2022 based on an announcement in Vietnamese state-owned press - not significant coverage of the topic of the destinations since it is so short and is anyway not reliably and independently sourced. Additionally this does not support the statement that flights are terminated now in 2024 so this is OR.
Another brief Aeroroutes link about future plans
A Condé Nast travel-magazine article based on a statement from the Vietnam Airlines CEO. Whilst other sources are also quoted in the article, all of these sources ultimately track back to Vietnam Airlines - the Airline Geeks article (industry press/blog) is sourced to a company press release, the Vietnam+ article is sourced to statements by the CEO, the Twitter source is from Vietnam Airlines Twitter account. There is no independent reporting here.

As a list split from a larger article, this still needs to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, but it clearly does not since it fails the relevant notability guide for company products and services (WP:NCORP). FOARP (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Vietnam. FOARP (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 00:13, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the numerous WP:NOT violations listed by nom. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You're making things up:
- WP:NOTCATALOG says we are not "A resource for conducting business" with significant context and other examples indicating that products and services shouldn't be listed as a way to sell them. This is not a catalogue with the time of day these flights depart and what planes they use. To suggest we cannot provide a list like this with an overly broad reading of that would call for the deletion of all of Category:Lists of products.
- WP:NOTTRIVIA says nothing about "temporary services". Where an airline flies is not "rapidly-changing". Sure it can change, but it's not that frequent or difficult to understand. We do not have any prohibition on content that can change or be updated, and that's the beauty of a wiki that we can do so. Articles are not expected to be static. As I say below, there may be possibilities for reform rather than complete deletion.
- This is not indiscriminate. It's clearly defined as places the airline flies or has flown. It's not overly broad or difficult to define.
- It's not an advertisement and it's patently ridiculous to call this promotional. It's perfectly appropriate to provide a straightforward list of a company's services. Is it a promotional advertisement to list a movie studio's films, a gaming company's products, a brand's flavors, or a train's routes?
- This is not original research. Indeed, it's poorly sourced, but it's not full of things for which sources are impossible to find or that reach a synthesized conclusion. Sure, the citations for Russia is bad, but this and this are substantive articles about about the flights between Vietnam and Russia, including Vietnam Airlines' route.
- This is not a travel guide any more than List of Amtrak routes is a travel guide. It does not tell people about how to contact the company or to make a booking, describe the costs and the airline's booking structures, review the seats and flying experience, or give what time of day the flights leave. It's misguided and undercuts your argument to call a simple list of destinations a travel guide.
- This is not news. It's not original reporting, a routine report about an event only relevant the day it happened or written in news style, or a who's who. This is not something that changes day-in, day-out. It is not "up-to-the-minute" any more than List of Amtrak routes. Hey, the Chicago – St. Paul route just opened on May 21, is this bad to be "up-to-the-minute"? Why would it be a bad thing to be current? This is not something changing so much that editors are unable to keep up and have let it fester with outdated content either. Being cited to news is standard and does not make the list itself news.
- This is not a crystal ball. It is not forbidden to describe something planned for the future. Saying the route is scheduled to start in October is neither speculation, a rumor, a presumption, nor a prediction. It is easily verifiable, and it's embarassing and weakens your argument to say the article must be deleted because it states a simple, sourced statement about something planned.
- NCORP is not relevant. Vietnam Airlines is a notable corporation and this is about them and what they do, and this is an appropriate subarticle of the main topic. Being unsourced or poorly sourced is a cleanup issue, not necessarily grounds for deletion.
- You make the poor comparison to listing Burger King locations. No, we don't need to list the 19,000 stores they have, but we do have Burger King products and List of Burger King products. Selling the products is the service they provide, and taking passengers to these airports is the service Vietnam Airlines provides. Maybe a simple table like this isn't the best way to present the information, but it's not inherently disallowed to have this content.

I agree there are issues with these lists, namely that they list destinations rather than routes. It could be more informative to say that they operate routes from Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City to Sydney, and between Ho Chi Minh City and Bangkok, rather than simply that Sydney and Bangkok are destinations. There are other ways this could be restructured or merged, which is why the proposed RFC could be helpful, but I do not believe this violates NOT whatsoever. Reywas92^Talk 13:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Amtrak routes is a bad comparison - those are railway routes requiring permanent infrastructure to be built and maintained. An airline can schedule and re-scheduled from day to day and as such are ephemeral trivia.

NCORP is entirely relevant since it applies to goods and services of companies just as much as it does to companies (it literally says this in the first line: "This page is to help determine whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service"). The goods and services of a company do not inherit the notability of their parent company per WP:INHERIT, and a split-list has to has stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. Every single source comes ultimately from the company itself which is exactly what WP:ORGIND is there to prevent.

Obviously I disagree with you other points but I doubt I'm going to change your mind on them, suffice it to say that a list of all the services of a company obviously falls in to what WP:CATALOG no.6 tells us not to include ("Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services") and reading WP:NOT any other way requires reading it to meaning something opposite to what it clearly states.

The examples you cite have a very straight-forward rejoinder: "What about X?".

I don't get how you can repeatedly admit that this is badly-sourced, not produce any examples of independent, 3rd-party coverage to fix that (Aviationweek is industry press and their article is based on a press-release, the VN Express article is also based on a press-release, and anyway only mentions the airline briefly), and then still conclude that the article should be kept. FOARP (talk) 14:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just because air routes can be rescheduled doesn't mean they are actually from day to day. Many international routes require regulatory approval, and it's not insignificant for a destination to be served as routes are important for business and tourist connectivity beyond just being a product on the shelves. Calling this "ephemeral" is nonsense. Amtrak does not even maintain most of its own track infrastructure, and it can also change what routes it provides and stations it stops at; how about List of Metrobus routes in Washington, D.C.? Again, editors are perfectly capable of tracking this because it does not in fact change on a daily basis. Flight frequency and timing details are more ephemeral, but we're not saying which routes are daily or biweekly.

If you don't think the split list has stand-alone notability, then I would recommend a merge and possible restructure. But I don't think this content needs to be separately notable when Vietnam Airlines is already notable and this is complimentary. It's disingenuous to dismiss sources that say "X airline flies to Y airport" – a very straighforward fact – as not being independent because the airline has also stated this, particularly if you're connecting anything from government-owned news to the airline.

Again, this is obviously not "A resource for conducting business" and it's ridiculous to suggest something this general without details about the flights themselves or the cabin experience is a forbidden catalogue; the airline is not using this to sell tickets. You are taking this out of context and reading this the opposite way, because it's no more forbidden to say "Vietnam Airlines flies passengers to Tokyo and San Francisco" than it is to say "Apple sells iPhones and MacBooks".

Some other sources include [33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47]. I didn't search in Vietnamese. Reywas92^Talk 17:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any significant coverage of the topic of a List of Vietnam Airlines destinations from a source that would meet WP:ORGIND in those articles. The SMH article mentions the destinations of Vietnam Airlines exactly once, in a quote from a travel agent (“I’ve been able to find great prices with Vietnam Airlines into Paris or Frankfurt going via Ho Chi Minh City, so clients have opted to take a three or four night stopovers in Vietnam after holidaying in Europe.”). The Vietnam Investment Review piece is industry press based on a company statement. OAG is industry press and the piece doesn't even mention ANY destinations of Vietnam Airlines. I'm not bothering to go through the others here because it looks like a WP:REFBOMB - can you please say which of these you think is actually significant coverage of the specific topic under discussion here? FOARP (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Linking previous nominations involving this page:

–24 October 2015– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pages in Category:Lists of airline destinations;

–26 March 2024– Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of British Airways destinations. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 22:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I completely agree with everything Reywas92 has posted here. I understand "per X" AfD !votes are frowned upon, but that was comprehensive enough that I don't really have anything else additional to add. SportingFlyer T·C 11:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For the current destinations, this is essentially Vietnam Airlines' route map converted into a list. Our job is not to store schedule data that's already available on other websites like the airline's or FlightConnections.com. In addition listing every terminated destination runs contrary to WP:IINFO. 'Indiscriminate' can be defined as "lacking in care, judgment, selectivity, etc." In my view there is no careful judgment involved in creating a list of every single place that Vietnam Airlines has flown to in its 70-year history. I don't see the need to record that the carrier at one point flew to some random city that appears on its route map from 1964. Sunnya343 (talk) 23:58, 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:15, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Jobs

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

No notability, fails NCORP, promo. Sources are not reliable. Old-AgedKid (talk) 10:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Andhra Pradesh. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obviously corporate promotion, possibly using paid news? Dazzling4 (talk) 17:02, 16 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.

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. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EPACK Prefab

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

Promotional company page, fails WP:NCORP. Trivial sources only. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Case of WP:PROMO, Promotion, advertising. Company fails WP:N and WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 22:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the only source here that is generally reliable is 12. The Hindu Times as per WP:RSP. Content seems promotional to me. Vorann Gencov (talk) 11:44, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is 25 Years old company. A BEFORE search reveled Significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I found these: 1 and 2. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not significant coverage, the Hindu and other media mentioned above has only brief trivial mentions, with no in depth coverage. --200.219.52.19 (talk) 13:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the IP Address's comment is posted by nominator see the tone. But The Hindu considered is reliable source in the discussion. Please check WP:THEHINDU. The other media mentions which are also significant. La Kruse (talk) 15:57, 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.

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Adyeri Omalla

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

not notable per WP ANYBIO guidelines. Possible original research and WP Resume. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article needs to be improved by adding more sources. For example these [48][49][50]. Tau Corvi (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article currently has three sources with significant coverage, one of which is United Nations News, which refers to Omalla as "one of the most decorated female entrepreneurs in Uganda". Feel free to fix OR/CV issues, but I don't think notability is the issue here.

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:17, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aave Protocol

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

Not notable per sources' evaluation. Some sources are crypto-related websites. Bloomberg and TechCrunch coverage does not fulfill WP requirements. Old-AgedKid (talk) 09:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First two pages of Google results for “AAVE” (excluding results about African-American Vernacular English) concerning the protocol are from cryptocurrency-specific sites, which I see as indication that it is not generally notable. Article seems written for a cryptocurrency enthusiast audience and is close to being written like an advertisement, in my view, although I am not sure to what extent this is considered when deliberating deletion. Theanswertolifetheuniverseandeverything (talk) 13:26, 21 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayate Usui

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

I have carried out WP:BEFORE on this article about a martial artist, and added two references, though one is a passing mention. I do not think Usui meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO or WP:NMMA. Tacyarg (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Martial arts and Japan. Tacyarg (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet WP:NMMA and I didn't find the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. Fight results and databases are not enough to show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NMMA. Highest Rank: #60 acc. to FightMatrix [51]. Vorann Gencov (talk) 07:10, 19 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.

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

The result was keep‎. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 14:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Girard

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG & WP:NAUTHOR. Most sources were either WP:INTERVIEWS or simply do not establish notability. Did not find any independent reliable sources. The article itself is very promotional, and was majorly written by individuals using SPAs with a COI that are closely tied to the subject. If article is kept, it will need a major rewrite. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Girard's works are reviewed a number of times in Publishers Weekly (link to all the reviews, plus an interview with him), Booklist (links 1 and 2, but there are more), Library Journal (link) and Kirkus Reviews (search results). And that's barely scratching the reviews of his fiction out there. In addition, the nonfiction book he wrote with Thomas Lockley, African Samurai: The True Story of Yasuke, has been reviewed in the Washington Post, The Houston Chronicle, Library Journal, Booklist, and a large number of other places. Finally, Girard has an entry in Contemporary Authors. This author so easily meets the WP:Author notability guidelines that I wonder if a search for reviews and coverage was even done.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm interested in Girard's work with Hitchcock's plans to film Mary Rose. I agree that this article needs work, but I was happy to find something on Girard in Wiki. 2600:8800:730C:A900:28D5:BE9F:93E6:2983 (talk) 09:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:author "played a major tole in co-creatiing a significant or well known work...such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". There is a plethora of work from the BBC, CNN, and other websites that use or talk about the African Samurai book alone. Likewise, he has won awards for his other works. He has also received media attention for his work overall Chrhns (talk) 23:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His work may be notable, that does not mean he is. Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Given that his work with Lockley, controversial as it is in both sides of the Pacific at the moment, is known enough to establish notability as authors of such work, so I suggest we keep this and Thomas Lockley. --Jnglmpera (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many Japanes people are aware of the many criticisms of Thomas Lockley regarding academic dishonesty in writing the book "Samurai."

Namely, when he edited the Wikipedia article "Yasuke" with the account tottoritom, he committed a violation (WP:circular) at Wikipedia and at Nihon University, where he works(check one of the references). Perhaps because of this, he has now deleted all his SNS data and is quietly hiding.

Even if he wants to erase his co-authorship due to this dishonesty, I think it should remain as a negative record. Steve Miwa3 (talk) 06:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Author, a creative person is notable if any of several criteria are met, including having "won significant critical attention." Girard easily meets this criteria. SouthernNights (talk) 14:18, 17 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Los Angeles County shootings

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

This shooting does not appear to have drawn any sustained coverage outside of local routine coverage. Fails WP:NEVENT, particularly WP:LASTING. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Firearms, and California. Pbritti (talk) 07:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the fact that because this happened in the United States events like these are quickly removed from the news cycle. Raskuly (talk) 07:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For exactly that reason events like these are not automatically notable. Athel cb (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as per above Lordseriouspig 09:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider doing this to other articles on the List of mass shootings in the United States article then since this article's deletion seems inevitable at this point right after you had my other article deleted. Raskuly (talk) 10:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Note categories at the bottom of the article, and the navbox that has five years of shootings around the United States. Why delete this one, and keep all the rest? I'm surprised there is not a Wikipedia project for this subject. — Maile (talk) 13:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Those other shootings have sustained coverage because of their notable elements beyond the fact that multiple people were injured or killed (a tragic but non-notable event). For example, this shooting that I remember happening near me a few years ago achieved nationwide sustained coverage beyond ROUTINE due to the shooter's radicalization. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Then could an argument in favor of keeping this article be that this is an instance of gang-related violence in which the targets were apparent random individuals? Raskuly (talk) 17:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not unless this incident was characterized as notable for that reason and the incident received sustained coverage. Most smaller mass shootings (4–8 victims) do not meet this threshold. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:28, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I guess something that is similar to what you mean would be the 2022 Sacramento shooting. Raskuly (talk) 22:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't consider the existence of other articles relevant to whether the article being discussed should exist. Each article stands on its own merits. If the subjects of those other articles didn't receive significant coverage after it fell out of the news cycle, then they should be deleted too. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree, it never got national coverage, and so fails WP:NEVENT Carson004 (talk) 18:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreeing with Carson004. The shootings also didn't get much local/state coverage as much as other shootings in California, and therefore again, fails WP:NEVENT.

Rippling4472 (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sustained coverage or major societal ramifications. Random news stories are not notable events. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:00, 21 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph James Nantomah

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

Life coach, serial entrepreneur, but I don't see any significant independent coverage. The only articles I see are praising the guy's amazing skills in his voice. BrigadierG (talk) 09:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced to advertorial/puff pieces.-KH-1 (talk) 03:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not sure this is Wikipedia material. There aren't any real news articles or anything - just self-promotion. Waqar💬 15:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have previously commented about policing of tone in sources from Africa and lack of WPBEFORE but I will assume good faith due to the plethora of interviews out there and give atleast reliable three sources that discusses the subject independently.
- Mojisoluwa, Felix Ayodele (16 January 2022). "Financial Literacy: Master Key To Gateway Of Financial Breakthroughs". New Telegraph. Retrieved 6 July 2024.
- Agbo, Juliana (13 July 2022). "THE GREAT MIGRATION: Exploring The Surge in Nigerians Moving Overseasin the Past Decade". Vanguard. Retrieved 6 July 2024.
- Ibeh, Ifeanyi (2 December 2020). "Joseph Nantomah's Journey: Poverty as a Catalyst for Financial Breakthrough". The Guardian. Retrieved 6 July 2024.

These three sources are not included in the article. Best, Reading Beans 10:31, 6 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!} 07:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have independent coverage requirements to pass notability, and I don't see it on these sources. The links in the article, as well as the additional links suggested by @Reading Beans do read as if they were pulled by a self-penned biography package. If you look at the PM News article from a certain angle it looks like independent reporting, possibly just paraphrasing/rewriting but more of an editorial effort. Oblivy (talk) 10:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oblivy, I usually and always disapprove of badgering of !votes but what is the proof of the non-independency of these sources? The tone? I just want to naively believe that it’s the tone. But is it? Best, Reading Beans 14:51, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's the way the articles just say things about him, often things that only he would know or which would be difficult to track down. And doing so without any of the the curiosity or skepticism or contextualization one might expect from an independent journalistic exercise. Oblivy (talk) 00:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may sound WP:OR but there are a lot, I mean, a lot interviews out there. Do you prefer I cite interviews (which I think is where these informations were actually gotten)? As I said earlier, we always make a mistake of judging sources from Africa with Western standards. Best, Reading Beans 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the information, I am from Nigeria. Best, Reading Beans 09:12, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you have other sources that qualify for WP:GNG feel free to add them or cite them here. I had a look at each of the existing sources, plus the ones you selected above, and made my vote based on what I saw - a bunch of puff pieces and an article announcing he got an honorary degree from an unaccredited college. This has nothing to do with misapplying Western standards. Oblivy (talk) 09:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sometimes we follow the content of the article, which most often appears promotional though can be cleaned easily. Others will leave WP:GNG, and rush to additional criteria that can presume notability. However, this context presents a good narrative of the subject. It's also unfortunate that this generation will neglect someone being a migration officer (formed word) or copy writer, but in the olden days, we see people being that and still appear on sources like the current generation. No matter the promotional (which I don't seem to find) contents in he article, it doesn't depict the fact of being notable, or treated in multiple independent sources. I first was following the discussion especially when it found this article by Vanguard as a well written non advertorial source, and it prompted me reading others. Here is my conclusion, the three Nigerian sources are all reliable per WP:NGRS, and is very satisfiable for WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The subject has received coverage in multiple reliable sources, including the ones posted here by RB. The article meets WP:GNG, and sources are fine from here. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have very divergent opinions on the adequacy of sources on this subject. Before closing this as No consensus, I'll try one more relisting to see if we can iron out the differences in assessment of them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Reason for notability seems unclear in the article. Additionally, the sources are questionable in my mind. For example, the first source has a banner asking people to join their Whatsapp group and the third and fourth sources have links to their Whatsapp group. The The third and fourth sources also link to the same website, tribuneonlineng.com. The method of contacting pmnewsnigeria.com, the second source, is a Google Form, which seems unprofessional for an independent news site. Ternera (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Nigerian national dailies should not be cited, you should state so. Most news outlets do this in Nigeria (as a way of driving traffic) but this does not affect their editorial policy. If you have any issues save for this, please, let me know. Best, Reading Beans 19:59, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The group even doesn't allow anybody except admins post anything. Likewise the subscription of newspapers in Europe and America, that's a good way for Nigerian sources that doesn't seek subscription. Haven't I seen such in American newspapers even? Welp, those doesn't affect the contents published by the newspaper—editorial policy like Reading Beans said. We look at the established reliable source, and how independent the content they published seems to look. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ternera I will understand why you’re a bit confused here. How or where newspapers choose to be contacted from or whether a newspaper has a link to their WhatsApp channel is not in any way unprofessional. These publications can choose to put links to any of their social media, it is all part of their social media marketing strategies. All these,

you just mentioned, do not count in determining whether a source or piece is reliable, that’s not what you look at. Don’t be distracted by whether they have links to their WhatsApp channel or not or if they decide to use google forms for contact. FUN FACT: A lot of websites integrate google forms backend for their contacts page, that is not in any way unprofessional. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:38, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject has been covered in several reputable Nigerian sources, providing in-depth information on the subject, like those from Reading Beans. He has been featured in the print edition of the Wall Street Journal and has organized events starring notable people. Additionally, he has a good social media presence. This is part of what notability looks like to me. Send down the rain (talk) 09:28, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that the link you've given regarding print coverage in The Wall Street Journal doesn't actually link to a WSJ domain. I looked in a bit deeper, and found a post on linkedin from the article subject. One of the two images in that post has a photograph of the full page, but the content in which Nantomah is featured looks a lot like an advertisement. (The post also highlights coverage from Marquis Who's Who, which per WP:RSP#Marquis Who's Who is a generally unreliable source to boot). I don't see this sort of placement in the WSJ as WP:SIGCOV, much less SIGCOV by a reliable source. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:56, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Syrovatko

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

Does not meet verifiability guidelines per WP:SPORTSPERSON. 333fortheain (talk) 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does not fail WP:V thanks to various databases, but an article cannot be built on databases only. Geschichte (talk) 12:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article needs to add more information and sources. Passes WP:SIGCOV, it’s easy to find reliable secondary sources in Russian that talk about his career and personal life [52][53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60] Tau Corvi (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks in sources and in any information. The sources i found, including the ones presented by @Tau Corvi (Thank you for providing those) are, in my opinion, not enough to prove notability as per WP:SPORTCRIT - those are just narration of transfers, some tabloid coverage and game results. Vorann Gencov (talk) 15:41, 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!} 05:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks notability and reliable sources, the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards and therefore should be deleted. Yakov-kobi (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree that the sources provided in this discussion simply don't provide enough WP:SIGCOV about this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:34, 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:37, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franco Pillarella

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. He gets a mere 3 google news hits and article is unreferenced. His involvement with Maher Arar can be covered in that article. The 2 CBC news articles quoted at end are dead. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Syria, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 04:17, 9 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!} 05:07, 16 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Closing as no consensus with no involvement from the community after two relistings. The keep !vote imply there are sources present that can be incorporated into the article, instead of AfD. Currently, there is no clear consensus for a delete or a merge. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Divedapper

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

Draftification was undone so I'm bringing it to AfD. Both the sources used in the article and the sources found online as part of WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder, with no sign of independent notability. In particular, WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources. I suggest a Merge or Redirect to Kaveh Akbar as WP:ATD. Broc (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and United States of America. Broc (talk) 05:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not correct that "sources found online as part of WP:BEFORE are uniquely interviews with the founder." Only three out of the eight sources are, and those are interviews with NPR, The Indianapolis Star, and a student newspaper of Butler University, each focused on a festival organized by Divedapper.

It is also incorrect that "WP:ORGCRITE is not met because of the lack of secondary sources." In fact, all of the sources used are independent and third-party sources. None run afoul of WP:NIS. For them to be "primary sources," that would indicate that Divedapper owns or has financial or legal interests or ties to these sources. Nothing I find in my research suggests so.

Can the page Divedapper be improved upon? Absolutely. As can any other page. What has no basis in facts is the notion that it fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines.

If it does fail to meet any criteria, one would expect a proper notification to that effect. Instead, Broc commented out the magazine's logo and did not state that he did so in the Edit Summary, which I found suspect and led me to conclude some bad faith at work. I took a look at their Talk page and found that they had used such "unorthodox" --- their own words --- methods before and a User had complained about it. In that case, Broc moved an article to AfD; but when there was no consensus, Broc voted "Keep," and then draftified the article. A User described the move as "misleading." In response, Broc wrote: "I understand I might have bent the rules of the process a bit." If all editors bent Wikipedia rules at will, then the purpose of the site is defeated.

"Misleading" and "bending the rules of the process a bit" are descriptions I'd use for Broc as it concerns Divedapper. I'd very much prefer for things to be done in the right manner. I'd say "Keep." LityNerdyNerd (talk) 16:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We need to hear from more editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 9 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!} 05:07, 16 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.

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. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:21, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Ilinski

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

Fails WP:BIO. Despite looking like a lot of sources, 16 of the 32 sources are simply scientific articles by the subject. Google news comes up with 1 hit. And the company he founded Fusion Asset Management is up for deletion. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Russia, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 04:21, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete no independent notability. 16 footnotes by himself and most of the rest is vrom his company. - Altenmann >talk 16:01, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "16 footnotes by himself" - can you provide at least few examples? Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article (and possibly edit or amend)

I strongly oppose the deletion of the article on Kirill Ilinski for the following reasons:

1. Significant Academic Contributions:

Kirill Ilinski has authored over 40 scientific articles in the field of quantitative finance, which have been cited by numerous peers, showcasing his influence and recognition within the academic community.
He has written two notable books, one of which was nominated as the best business book by PWC, underscoring the importance and recognition of his work in the business community.

2. Notable Industry Presence:

Ilinski regularly speaks at prominent industry conferences and events, indicating his role as a thought leader in his field. His lectures at St. Petersburg European University are among the most viewed on Lektorium.tv, demonstrating his impact on education and knowledge dissemination.

3. Research on Climate Adaptation:

Ilinski's ongoing research on climate adaptation, which is not yet public, holds potential for significant contributions to how governments can prepare for climate change. His recent co-authored paper, "TOWARDS THE THEORY OF FIRM'S ESG TRANSFORMATION: ESG READINESS," has been listed on SSRN's Top Ten download list, further validating his active and impactful research contributions.

4. Media References and Coverage:

While Google News may show limited hits, a comprehensive search on Google reveals multiple references and articles in reputable sources such as the Financial Times, Hedge Fund Journal, Bloomberg, Hedgeweek etc. (as well as events where he participated as a speaker). These publications highlight his professional achievements and contributions to the finance industry.

5. Independent Sources:

There are number of independent references that establish Ilinski's notability. For example, coverage in renowned financial publications and his academic contributions cited by other researchers demonstrate independent recognition of his work

If certain sections of the article do not comply with Wikipedia's policies, they can be revised or updated to meet the guidelines. Deleting the article would be an extreme measure, especially considering the potential for improvement and the significant content that does meet Wikipedia's standards. Constructive feedback and specific suggestions for improvement would be appreciated, rather than opting for deletion, which would not only undermine the comprehensive representation of his work but also limit the availability of valuable information to the public.

Also, I want to point out that Wikipedia articles for Kirill Ilinski and the company he founded - Fusion Asset Management where on Wikipedia for more then 10 years, and no one ever questioned their compliance with Wikipedia policy.

The fact that both pages were nominated for deletion (instead of suggesting improvements) just within 2 days, make me think that this is a commercially motivated attack. Tarasrybak888 (talk) 15:15, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Tarasrybak888 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

@Tarasrybak888: Please disclose your relation to the company Fusion Asset Management, per Wikipedia rules of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. - Altenmann >talk 16:03, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regularly speaking at conferences at events is a humdrum part of an academic's job. By itself, that means nothing. View counts for videos aren't a meaningful criterion either. "Ongoing research on climate adaptation" that is "not yet public" contributes absolutely nothing to notability.

Moreover, the fact that an article has existed for years is not an argument to keep it. Sometimes, articles avoid getting nominated for deletion simply because nobody noticed them. Outright hoaxes have persisted for as long as 19 years, but we still delete them when we discover them. XOR'easter (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:PROF, and there isn't enough in financial news or other sources to support a pass by another criterion (passing mentions of the "so-and-so said a thing" type can't be the foundation of a biography). Some of his publications could potentially be cited in an article about attempts to apply physics ideas to finance/economics, but we don't have grounds for a biographical page here. XOR'easter (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, citations to preprints that sat on the arXiv without ever getting published in peer-reviewed journals are seldom acceptable. XOR'easter (talk) 03:10, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:54, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Herald Froy

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

Invalid DAB: (1) two items only (2) none of potential targets defines it - Altenmann >talk 04:10, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: not mentioned in either of the linked articles, so nothing to support existence of the dab entries. PamD 07:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:08, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If too obscure to mention in the target article, it's too obscure to have a dab page for it. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:12, 19 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Closing this as Keep now that Delete votes have been struck. If a nominator withdrawns their nomination, we can't automatically close an AFD discussion if some editors are arguing for a deletion. It has to be closed as a regular AFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julie Marie

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

Another bad, short compound given name list created by banned editor Neelix. The two articles, contrary to what it lists, are actually titled Julie Vinter Hansen and Julie Berman. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per nom. Walsh90210 (talk) 05:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Striking my vote as it was about an article at a different title with different contents, and the rationale no longer applies. Walsh90210 (talk) 19:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ undesirable namecruft failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We do have one non-redirect page starting with Julie Marie, Julie Marie Wade, as well as two hyphenated ones. Geschichte (talk) 12:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've replaced the two given/middle name entries with Julie-Marie Parmentier and Julie-Marie Strange, which do seem to be valid compound names. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping User:Geschichte and User:Walsh90210 if they'd like to reconsider their vote. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Sacre bleu (it), on top of zat, I ~~will create~~ have created Marie-Julie. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This shouldn't have been moved out of process, however. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 07:44, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? The only two entries are both hyphenated. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 01:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, this nomination has been withdrawn but there is still an argument to Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep after fix. - Altenmann >talk 04:16, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think this is somewhat unnecessary, but as the person who saved the entry (!) with new names I don't see a point in arguing for deletion. Geschichte (talk) 08:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this discussion still open? I withdrew the nomination already, and there's a clear consensus anyway. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:16, 16 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bratislava New Generation-Day FM Festival

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

Not a notable music festival. Appears to have been a one-night, one-off event. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Slovakia. Walsh90210 (talk) 00:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 9 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!} 01:54, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete noi evidence of noitability, abandoned article. - Altenmann >talk 04:41, 16 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.

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

The result was keep‎. but this article needs to be improved. I hope some editors take it on as a project. If you believe content should be merge, please discuss it on the article talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:50, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue in writing

This article is basically a textbook entry providing tips on writing dialogue for fiction. I believe it violates Wikipedia's "Not a Textbook" guideline. [61]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bull Goose Loony (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – This is as valid a concept as any of the other articles listed at Dialogue (disambiguation).—Anita5192 (talk) 01:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article was butchered in the past, instead of adding refs. even referenced pieces were deleted. Because it looked like "how-to". But there are quite a few encyclopedic issues lost, such as "purpose of dialogue" (in writing), which are readily found in books, e.g., here or here, etc.. - Altenmann >talk 04:58, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As it stands the information in this article is mainly trivial and obvious, but if it can be improved along the lines implied by Altenmann then why not keep it? There are numerous points that are not discussed, of which here are two: in a longish dialogue between two people how often do readers need to be reminded which one applies to a given comment? There is no mention of punctuation. Athel cb (talk) 08:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I understand why the article might seem trivial, but I don’t see why it worth deletion. WP:SIGNIFICANT — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vorann Gencov (talk • contribs) 15:27, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was much better in 2007: Special:Permalink/124811521 but it was girdled by WP:V and WP:NOTHOWTO concerns. I also think User:Anita5192's new Dialogue in writing § Punctuation section might be a partial duplicate of English punctuation, and should be merged. 174.92.25.207 (talk) 12:56, 20 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.

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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 00:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ainer Cleve

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC #5 (Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources.")

I created the article in 2020 when the old WP:NGRIDIRON presumed notability for NFL players -- we have database sources showing that Cleve appeared in 19 NFL games as a back and end from 1921-1924. When the presumption was reversed, User:Hey man im josh correctly tagged the article due to the need for additional sources. I thought that someone who appeared in 19 NFL games would have WP:SIGCOV, but my follow-up searches in 2022 didn't find any. I searched again today but didn't find anything rising to the level of SIGCOV. (FWIW: I did find some passing references where his given name was listed as "Ainar" [62] and others as "Einar" [63] [64].)

Despite my efforts, the article still does not comply with our guidelines, so it's time for me to throw in the towel -- unless someone can dig up SIGCOV that I've been unable to find. Cbl62 (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newspapers.com is unavailable and will continue to be unavailable for the vast majority of users (including me) for an unknown amount of time. Could we at the very least draftify this? I can't even search for sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:46, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to that. Cbl62 (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Minnesota. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:53, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom and Beanie’s comments above. Beanie and Cbl62 both have a reputation of working very hard to find coverage of lesser-known topics if it’s available, so if either (or both) of them are interested, this is a very reasonable ATD. Worst case is there is no coverage available when newspapers.com is back online and the draft gets abandoned/deleted. Frank Anchor 02:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Finding sources about Ainer Cleve that meet WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG is proving difficult. This approach would allow more time for research to prove that Cleve is notable (which is better than removing the content from the platform).--AstridMitch (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Searching newspapers.com and the LOC, I'm not finding the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. The only sources in the article are stats databases, and all I could find after trying multiple searches with different spellings was passing mentions such as [[65]] and [[66]]. Draftify as a WP:ATD to allow for interested editors to find more time to find significant coverage. Let'srun (talk) 14:04, 18 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to India–Taiwan relations. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Taipei Economic and Cultural Center in Chennai

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ORG. 4 of the 5 sources are primary. Previous AfD was consensus for merge but the article has been recreated. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Taiwan, and Tamil Nadu. LibStar (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous AFD. Article is essentially unchanged from version previously AFD'd. Yilloslime (talk) 23:58, 16 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.

[Pinto_2014_173–180-1] Pinto, Carla M. A.; Lopes, A. Mendes; Machado, J. A. Tenreiro (2014). "Casualties Distribution in Human and Natural Hazards". In Ferreira, Nuno Miguel Fonseca; Machado, José António Tenreiro (eds.). Mathematical Methods in Engineering. Springer Netherlands. pp. 173–180. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7183-3_16. ISBN 978-94-007-7182-6.

[1]