Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors.
Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker.

Responsive image

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 18

< January 17 January 19 >
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 delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Real Flight Simulator

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

Rationale Non-notable per WP:GNG. Sourcing only supported by user-generated review scores.

Source search: No MobyGames page. Nothing on the reliable sources search engine. Metacritic has no reviews for the title. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 06:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Immaculate High School

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

No indication of notability under WP:NORG. A single Primary Source to the school's website. A search of the web brings up local newspapers with GCSE results, new buildings being opened, but no significant non-routine coverage. Article was recently replaced with promotional unsourced text by a self-disclosed paid editor. qcne (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: How was the article able to last a decade on Wikipedia without any Significant Coverage?? Clearly fails WP:NORG and appears to be a promotional article. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:21, 18 January 2025 (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 to reflect the weakness of the keep !votes; no prejudice against redirecting to somewhere reasonable, or relisting if an Arabic-capable editor finds solid evidence against WP:GEOLAND for this place. asilvering (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taaid

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

Only source appears to be a self-published site. No further sources on Lebanese wiki. — Moriwen (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moriwen, Quick question, since this is a physical location, and appears on multiple reliable weather sources, does it not seem to count? I'm just curious. if there's any WP guideline for for locations, please kindly drop so I can read. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It does appear to meet WP:GEOLAND, which states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." The source given in the article may be of questionable reliability - its home page says, according to Google Translate, "Electoral facts about Lebanon ... The data presented, throughout the site, is derived from the static files on disks purchased by me from the Lebanese Ministry of Interior, relating to the 2014 voter lists for the parliamentary elections, which I converted into databases that can be queried to obtain the desired data reports." So apparently compiled by one individual, with no editorial oversight - but if the official voter lists include this place, presumably it is both populated and legally recognized. I found another website [3] which seems to be reliable - it says Taaïd is a "Populated place - a city, town, village, or other agglomeration of buildings where people live and work". Further down that page are listed nearby localities, including many described as caves, unnamed quarries and other geological features - which Taaïd is not. It also gives several alternate romanised spellings of the name - T`id, Ta`id, Taaid, Taaïd, T‘īd, Ţa‘īd - which adds to the complexity of searching for English-language sources. I think we'd need access to (and understanding of) Arabic language sources to find more references, but in the meantime, keep it as meeting WP:GEOLAND. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2025 (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. Views are split between keeping and merging, neither of which requires administrator action and can be done in a discussion now this AfD has closed. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:03, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Hildebrandt

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

Appears to be a WP:BIO1E case, most reliable standalone coverage that can be found (both on the article and in my WP:BEFORE search) is in the context of the subject's criminal trial and conviction. Unlike the other person involved in the case, Ruby Franke, there does not appear to be enough coverage for an individual BLP, and that is why I believe this specific biographical article just barely misses the criteria of WP:PERPETRATOR, and should be redirected to Ruby Franke as a result. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Each point on the page has sources to substantiate the comments, and any readers can find further information about it. There is another reason why its important to keep the page up, and it is because there is confusion about her 'qualifications'. I've seen some refer to her as a 'Life Coach', however based on teh sourced information Ruby was deregistered as a counsellor for violation the ethical professional code and making disclosures. This is a completely different matter - a Life coach is not a profession that has a regulatory body. Counsellors do. To refer to her as Life coach actually minimises the offence and in fact invalidates her victim who has stated their life was destroyed. Elle2AU (talk) 06:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC) — Elle2AU (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Merge to Ruby Franke. Hildebrandt has insufficient notability of her own separate from her association with Franke to warrant having a separate article. —Mahāgaja · talk 10:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In popular parlance: Insufficient enough to be played by Heather Locklear? Widefox; talk 13:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      How does being portrayed by a famous actress mean that Hildebrandt has her own notability? Virtually all coverage of Hildebrandt in reliable sources is in connection to Franke, and as noted by this user there is not enough standalone coverage to merit her own BLP article per WP:PERPETRATOR. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED for further information. JeffSpaceman (talk) 15:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did say in popular parlance, not our criteria. There's ongoing sources for notability covering the pre-Franke era "Jodi Hildebrandt" [4], pre-Franke allegations: "Niece of Jodi Hildebrandt, Ruby Franke's business partner, speaks out about alleged abuse" [5], and sources with the subject centre stage [6] [7] [8] [9], focus on her assets wrt proceedings [10] [11], [12], "cult leader" allegation [13], many news sources with focus on the subject [14], IMDB entry [15] (I'm sure that doesn't count for WP:N), "The religious extremism of Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt" [16] (equal footing), ongoing equal footing [17]. Widefox; talk 00:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • JeffSpaceman, WP:BIO1E If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. the significant event is arguable, here goes: the nature of the criminal acts whilst hiding in plain sight on youtube with these specific religious, family and coaching dimensions. What's the event? It's our framework, but is it useful? The criminal act(s) (an event) are just one aspect of the situation with these youtubers, as show by the range of sources, also covering the pre-Franke and post-Franke bio. Widefox; talk 17:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Not a lot to say and duplicative as well. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets item 2 of WP:PERPETRATOR, and that's all that's needed here. We have plenty of cases where multiple perpetrators each have their own seperate articles, and there's no reason why this shouldn't be another one of them. — The Anome (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per The Anome. Wellington Bay (talk) 03:40, 26 January 2025 (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. While I don't see any evidence of sockpuppetry, I do notice that two of the three Keep !votes are from inexperienced editors, including one who created their account while this AfD was going on. More importantly, all three Keeps ignored the source analysis presented here, which was unanimously viewed as not supporting notability by more experienced participants, resulting in a rough consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 14:52, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Beniwal

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Harsh Beniwal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Here we are again, a year after the fourth deletion discussion was closed as Delete. Speedy was declined so we are here to decide yet once again if this meets notability guidelines. Nothing since the last AfD shows notability. Note that most of the press is from reliable sources, but it is all similar to this which is unreliable churnalism and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is unreliable per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The other two were already decided in the four previous AfD's to not be enough. Looking closer, they are churnalism based off the announcement of his roles. What press can you provide since the last AfD that would be considered in-depth?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Checked WP:NEWSORGINDIA; not a single word is saying News18 is unreliable. So we can say News18 is a reliable source. The other two are not churnalism, as the two articles are written by journalists; the 1st is reported by Archit Mehta on May 7, 2019, and the 2nd one is reported by Sana Farzeen on April 13, 2019. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. Just because NEWSORGINDIA doesn't explicitly mention News18 among the examples it gives of media outlets engaging in churnalism, doesn't mean that News18 doesn't do that; a variation on the theme of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In any case, NEWSORGINDIA is making the general point that "even legitimate" outlets commonly do this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, respected or legitimate news outlets sometimes engage in churnalism. But does this mean News18 is an unreliable source? If so, then on what basis will you judge that News18 is an unreliable source? Can you point to any policy that backs up the statement that News18 is unreliable? Jitujadab90 (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, it means that News18 shouldn't likely be used if you have better sources. Churnalism is the issue, not any news source in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think of these sources? 1 2 Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No one said the publication is not reliable. The source itself is unreliable per NEWSORGINDIA. There is no byline, it is marked as being created by "buzz staff" or "trending desk" which is a clear sign of churnalism. So, it is not that News18 isn't reliable...it is that particular reference in News18 that is unreliable. As far as the two you just posted above, they are not in-depth and the second one (the publication itself) is unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I will stick to my vote to keep, as Harsh has more than 16 million subscribers on YouTube (according to WP:NYOUTUBE, Subscriber count helps meet the second criteria of WP:ENT). Also, he has had significant roles in multiple notable television shows such as Campus Diaries, Who's Your Daddy?, Who Killed Jessica?, and Heartbeats, thus satisfying WP:ENT. Jitujadab90 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That essay is a great guide, but there is no subject-specific criteria for notability on YouTubers. I do respect your contention and the right to vote !Keep however. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is this article (or some version of it) fifth visit to AFD. It would help to get more of a consensus here and if recently identified sources were fairly assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Per request when the discussion was extended, here is an evaluation of the sources just presented by page creator. Note that the last discussion was closed in October 2023 and some of these sources were from before that time. So, they were available to the nominator and four delete votes of that discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Daily Pioneer, from 2020 so not a new source. This is an interview and not independent.
2. The Quint, from 2019 so also not a new source. Blog which has no editorial oversight which by its own account "is not responsible for the accuracy and completeness of Blogger/Contributor content."
3. Rediff, from this year (six days prior to page creation). It is a listicle article where he is one of thirteen people listed and dedicates a whopping three sentence to him.
4. The Statesman, also available prior to the last AfD in 2023 and clearly NEWSORGINDIA (no byline promotional article).
5. News 18, also available prior to last AfD and its an interview so not independent.
  • 1. The Daily Pioneer is a well-established newspaper with editorial oversight. Although the article is an interview, it still follows journalistic standards, making it an independent source of information.
    2. The Quint, while it has a disclaimer for user-generated content, has professional journalists and editorial staff who ensure its articles meet journalistic standards. Its news content is independent and reliable. How can you say that The Quint article is a blog when it is clearly written and edited by professional journalists under editorial oversight? Can you tell why you are saying that the journalist is an individual contributor, not a journalist for Quint Media?
    3- News18, a mainstream network, follows editorial oversight for all content, including interviews. Despite focusing on one perspective, interviews are a valid form of independent journalism. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    All the interview is about Harsh Beniwal’s experiences and involvement in notable films and TV Series( SOTY 2, Campus Diaries) . It adds details about his career which is fulfilling the requirement of "significant coverage" under the GNG. Jitujadab90 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are not independent as it relates to showing notability in Wikipedia. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Still requires significant coverage to show this as the guideline only says "may" be notable. Can you provide links to that significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Harsh Beniwal fulfills the criteria under WP:ENT and WP:NACTOR. He has significant roles in notable productions, such as Student of the Year 2, Campus Diaries, Who's Your Daddy?, Who Killed Jessica? and Heartbeats. His YouTube channel has over 16 million subscribers, which further establishes his public influence and satisfies the criteria mentioned in WP:NYOUTUBE for online entertainers. Reliable sources like News18, The Pioneer, and The Hindu provide significant coverage of his career and achievements. Interviews in reliable publications also add substantial information about his professional journey and accomplishments.--Abhey City (talk) 14:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer - Please note the number of votes from new editors. They're quacking imho. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is socking going on. Please do not cast aspersions unless you have evidence of misconduct. Liz Read! Talk! 22:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't make accusations in jest; and, I did not make a specific accusation against a specific editor regardless. I followed the trail from all of the past creations and the previous deletion discussion and can see similar behaviors. Simply noted it for closer. Nothing more, nothing less. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Bosson

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

Local politician; fails WP:NPOL — Moriwen (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is true about Mr. Divine Richard Komla Bosson.He is a reputable Ghanaian politician who have served so diligently during his tenure in office. This are just baseless allegations, which are obviously politically incline. Amos Kojo Amponsah (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. And this is an AFD discussion on Wikipedia, one of hundreds going on right now. There is no political conspiracy going on here. This is just another article that needs to be evaluated to see if it, and its sources, meet our standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Politicians at the local level of office are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist — they have to show substantive content about their political career (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the municipality, and on and so forth), supported by a WP:GNG-worthy volume and depth of reliable source coverage about it. But this is basically "he exists", supported by the bare minimum amount of footnoting needed to verify that he exists rather than a significant depth or volume of sourcing, and that's not good enough. Bearcat (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2025 (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. Due to the lack of activity, I'm going to conclude nobody really cares if we have this article or not. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anine Bing Corp

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

Article seems to fail WP:ORG almost all of the sources are about the founder and only mentions the organization. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Companies. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and California. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I see one big giant WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The company is owned by Venture Capital, not its name-sake. At any point, this company could replace Anine Bing as its designer which is why fashion designers and their companies should be separated especially when there are tons of legitimate sources to make these entries separate. This brand's revenues are over $50 million. When I searched the article, it had nothing in it because of over zealous editors who were too lazy to google sources. While many of the sources were dead links, I used the waybackmachine to verify the authenticity of the original sources some of which came from legitimate Swedish newspapers and fashion magazines. I am not sure why you have to have URL link to sources when physical editions should be enough but I spent two solid weekends finding alternate sources for some of the information. I will continue to add information to this article. Feel free to re-write it. At the end of the day, this company is too large and has too many brands and collaborations to be lumped in with Anine Bing's personal page who has returned to music. Modelknowledge (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Modelknowledge If you wanted to expand the article with more information and sources there is a draft space for that. If you decide to publish an unfinished article directly to main space then it has consequences of getting deleted or draftified which you accept by publishing it. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of new content has been added since this article's nomination so i'm going to relist it so it can be evaluated. it would also be nice to hear from the article creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 18 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 20:54, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Egan

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

Apart from being there at 9/11 and dying, there is nothing notable about this person's career. Was a working nurse. No lasting notability, 25 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Easily meets notability requirements; newspapers.com brings up articles about her in major Canadian newspapers even before her death. Not "working nurse"; was a leader in nursing in Nunavut and has a scholarship named for her. One might just wonder why you chose a queer non-American woman to nominate for deletion above the dozens of other victims who are actually less notable - but were American. --BasicBichette (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The sources in the article demonstrate that the subject passes the general notability criteria and is still notable 20 years on, given that CBC News ran an over 800 word article about her in 2021. She's considered notable by the Manitoba Historical Society [24]. She's considered notable by the Hull History Center - and the fact that their website is hosted on blogspot is completely immaterial. Whether or not nurses should be notable is immaterial. Whether or not she worked in the towers is immaterial. None of those are policy-based reasons for deletion. So, to summarise, the article subject is notable enough that historians from two countries consider her important enough to talk about, and she's from a part of Canadian history which is woefully underdeveloped in Wikipedia, and, most importantly, the sources are enough for us to build a comprehensive encyclopedia article. Which we have. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The content of the coverage by the historical societies and CBC profile might incline me towards believe that she's 1E, but that would require assuming that is only getting coverage for how she died. I don't see that this is necessarily the case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:GNG. There is significant coverage over at least 20 years, in 3 countries, and a memorial scholarship in her name which is still available 24 years later. There is definitely lasting notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Koome

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NBIO. Minus Facebook, LinkedIn, Youtube and Amazon, not seeing any results of coverage. The sources used in the article talk about things that Koome has said and his reports on HIV cases, but are not significant coverage about Koome himself. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:43, 18 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Yaqubian

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NMUSICIAN. No coverage anywhere I can find, mahoor.com is broken and much of the other links currently present are download links. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability and WP:MUSICBIO. I was unable to find any additional news about this person. Maxcreator (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:27, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Boelens

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

Every single source is IMDB. Cannot find many other reliable secondary sources. Roasted (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2025 (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 00:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Nepveu

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

Fails WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG. Only sources that come close to establishing notability of Nepveu is this and this, but both seem to be interviews and not quite the significant coverage for Nepveu to be notable. Other sources discuss more about the companies and firms he worked with and not Nepveu himself. ~ Tails Wx 21:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tails Wx: Thank you for your feedback and for starting this discussion. I’ve carefully reviewed the concerns raised, particularly around notability, independent coverage, and citation formatting. I’ve made significant improvements to the article to address these issues.
The article now includes reliable, secondary sources that directly cover Bertrand Nepveu, such as Radio-Canada, Yahoo Finance, and CBC. These sources highlight his personal contributions to AR/VR technology, including his leadership in founding Vrvana and Triptyq Capital, as well as his technical innovations like point-of-view correction and low-latency passthrough AR for the Apple Vision Pro. Also added more information and sources on his role as a prominent Venture Capitalist in the XR and Canadian startup ecosystem with notable companies. These contributions demonstrate Nepveu's enduring impact in the AR/VR field, aligning with WP:ANYBIO.
Additionally, I addressed prior citation formatting issues. Specifically, I standardized all timestamps in the references to ensure compliance with Wikipedia’s citation guidelines. For example, formatting was adjusted to align `|access-date=`, `|date=`, and `|archive-date=` fields across all citations, resolving errors like inconsistent date formats.
I’ve also worked to resolve the orphan issue by linking the article to relevant topics such as Vrvana, Apple Vision Pro, and augmented reality.
Given these improvements, I believe the article meets WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. I’d greatly appreciate any further feedback or suggestions on how to strengthen the article. Thank you for your guidance and time. Davidjoohunkim (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tails Wx: Thank you again for your feedback. Furthermore, if it helps, I've provided my independent analysis of the issues that were cited, which I believe the article now fully addresses:
1. Basic Notability Criteria (WP:BASIC)
  • **Does the article demonstrate significant coverage in multiple published, reliable, and independent secondary sources?**
* **Yes.**
* **Sources Cited:**
* **Radio-Canada**: A significant secondary source discussing Nepveu’s contributions to AR/VR technology and his role in founding Vrvana and Triptyq Capital. (Radio-Canada)
* **Yahoo Finance**: Covers the $30 million acquisition of Vrvana by Apple, attributing Nepveu’s leadership and innovation as a driving factor. (Yahoo Finance)
* **CBC**: Discusses Nepveu’s contributions to AR/VR in Canada, highlighting his influence on the field. (CBC)
* **TechCrunch**: Details Vrvana’s technical achievements and Apple’s acquisition, connecting Nepveu to the company’s success. (TechCrunch)
* **Tom’s Hardware**: Reviews the Vrvana Totem headset and its technological advancements under Nepveu’s leadership. (Tom’s Hardware)
  • **Is the depth of coverage substantial?**
* **Yes.**
* Articles from Radio-Canada, TechCrunch, and Yahoo Finance provide in-depth coverage of Nepveu’s work at Vrvana, its technological breakthroughs, and the company’s $30 million acquisition by Apple.
* The sources discuss Nepveu’s personal contributions (e.g., low-latency passthrough AR, point-of-view correction) in detail.
  • **Are the sources independent of the subject?**
* **Yes.**
* All cited sources are reliable, secondary publications independent of Bertrand Nepveu and his companies.
* No self-published or promotional materials are used to establish notability.
  • **Are primary sources excluded from proving notability?**
* **Yes.**
* Primary sources, such as Vrvana’s website or press releases, are not used to establish Nepveu’s notability.
2. General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG)
  • **Does the subject receive significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject?**
* **Yes.**
* **Significant Coverage**:
* Radio-Canada, Yahoo Finance, and TechCrunch focus extensively on Nepveu’s work and its impact on AR/VR technology.
* These sources analyze Nepveu’s contributions rather than just mentioning his name in passing.
* **Reliable Sources**:
* All sources cited (e.g., Radio-Canada, CBC, TechCrunch) are reputable media outlets known for editorial integrity.
* **Independent of Subject**:
* Sources are not affiliated with Nepveu, Vrvana, or Triptyq Capital, ensuring neutrality.
  • **Does the article avoid trivial mentions?**
* **Yes.**
* Coverage in sources such as TechCrunch and Tom’s Hardware focuses directly on Nepveu’s innovations, Vrvana’s impact, and Apple Vision Pro’s development, avoiding mere name-drops or incidental mentions.
  • **Does the article rely on reliable secondary sources?**
* **Yes.**
* The majority of sources are independent journalistic outlets or professional review platforms. They provide objective evidence of Nepveu’s significance in AR/VR technology.
I hope this analysis provides clarity and helps address any further concerns. I would greatly appreciate your feedback if there are additional areas that require improvement. Thank you again for your time and guidance. Davidjoohunkim (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination appears to be invalid, and no commenters have agreed with it. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Mongol Empire

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

WP:NOR Pollia (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AvoDerm

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

Non-notable product; reads like an advertisement; was nominated for speedy but declined as "weird". Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides one piece from CBS Philadelphia about their salmonella outbreak in 2012, only references I could find to AvoDerm were in pet ownership blog/web pages (low-quality, listicle format). Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2025 (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! 22:48, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eadwig's Charter to Abingdon Abbey c.957

[edit]
Eadwig's Charter to Abingdon Abbey c.957 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a rambling mess that spends no time at all describing the supposed subject, a land grant. I'm not making a notability argument here, more of a blow it up and start over argument.

If the charter itself is notable, the article should be about that, but this article wanders from one subject to another, like what kind of farming Danish Vikings may have done on this land before the charter, what kinds of rushes like what kind of soil, a three-hundred-year timeline of the area that was the subject of the charter, etc. I don't know what this is supposed to be, but it does not look like an article about a land charter. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I was tempted to nominate it when I added the maintenance templates 3 months ago, and nothing has improved since I flagged the issues. Even if the topic is notable, it would be easier to start from scratch than try to fix the current article which is pure WP:SYNTH going far beyond what any of the citations support. Joe D (t) 20:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. And transwiki'd. asilvering (talk) 20:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where (SQL)

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

This content doesn't belong on Wikipedia because it violates multiple Wikipedia policies. I think it'd be plainly inappropriate to have separate articles for each keyword in a programming language, because this would violate WP: INDISCRIMINATE. It's not clear to me why SQL should be treated any differently. Also, anything encyclopedic about the subject probably already appears in Filter (higher-order function): a WHERE clause filters rows on a certain condition. Anything specific to SQL, like how to use it in a query, would likely violate WP: NOTTEXTBOOK, which this article currently does. I think that the article on the aforementioned filter function may make a good redirect target if people would prefer a WP: ATD, and anything that people deem "useful" can go somewhere else like Wikibooks. In any case, I don't believe hosting this content on Wikipedia is appropriate. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be clear, I think there probably exists a healthy amount of sources that describe what the WHERE clause does. My concerns have less to do with inadequate sourcing and more to do with whether this material is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia in the first place. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDICT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per not passing WP:GNG. Everything regarding the syntax and specific clauses are stated in SQL syntax and there is no need for its own article. Conyo14 (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been imported to the English Wikibooks. JJPMaster (she/they) 20:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks! HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Rigamonti

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

This person does not meet notability guidelines and is directly connected to an old hoax that they are attempting to use. Part of it (before edits) reads as though they wrote it themselves. Apologies if I'm missing some things for this, as it's my first time doing it.

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. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ra (Cyrillic)

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

After a WP:BEFORE check, this seems like WP:ONEDAY: "what if the Latin letter R was also its own letter in the Cyrillic alphabet? At the very least, it seems wholly like original research. Remsense ‥ 论 19:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my letter I'm making up but planing to propose some time we should keep this article BodhiHarp (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Don't make any more articles for things you are making up, it is a massive waste of others' time. See the link above, please. Remsense ‥ 论 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What does it take to improve this article to be able to include this suggested letter as original research? BodhiHarp (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot have an article for something you made up. See the link above. Remsense ‥ 论 19:53, 18 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CAMI Music

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

Does not seem to pass WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2025 (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. Procedural close so this can be worked out editorially. If the rewrite-and-rename fails, feel free to renominate. asilvering (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of Hearthstone

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

This is the same scope as Hearthstone, which already covers the gameplay, including its development and reception. This fork re-uses many of the same sources, and writes a worse article that focuses more on material that violates WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. There is a consensus at the Video Games WikiProject that we shouldn't create this type of WP:REDUNDANTFORK, since there is nothing here that isn't covered at Hearthstone, or some of the details about competition in Hearthstone in esports. I understand that a game with this much esport competition will naturally have more people discussing the finer points of gameplay, but this violates WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. I would consider a redirect (or even an alternate way to split the main Hearthstone article), but I don't see material that would be suitable for a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hearthstone#Gameplay. I can see an argument for a Hearthstone Expansions article, but it would require a complete overhaul from the ground up that no editor seems willing to do, which would warrant some form of removal per Wikipedia:TNT. A redirect would preserve page history should anyone choose to make that article in the future. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Er, half the current article is already set up for Expansions, there's no need to TNT that. There would need to be some discussion about heathstones expansion approach in general but that second of the article is well suited as an a list of expansions — Masem (t) 19:30, 23 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alaric Naudé

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements as a WP:SCHOLAR. RSN discussion showed low citations of his academic work, an effort to skirt around WP:SPS, and concluded a clear consensus the subject was a WP:FRINGE scholar. (link to RSN discussion) These and other issues issues were raised on the draft page prior to the article being moved from draft space to main space. Relm (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and South Korea. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Oh joy, more Yasuke drama. Anyway, "president of the City University of Paris" for an academic based in Asia and an institution without an article raises all sorts of red flags. Also since other sites seem to claim that someone else named Agnés Horry has been president since this organization was founded in 2023. His Google Scholar profile [27] shows no pass of WP:PROF, so we don't need to determine whether his scholarship is fringe; it does not provide notability regardless. I could not find any reviews of his books, which also makes it irrelevant that they appear to be self-published, as the lack of reviews prevents WP:AUTHOR notability regardless. That leaves only WP:GNG, for which we have none of the in-depth reliable independent sources required. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: In my opinion, the only argument that can save the permanence of this article is the criterion 6. On the other hand, Naudé is too young a scholar for his influence, if any, to be felt. In addition, Naudé has generated discussion, so it would seem to be a matter of attention. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    An organization that was apparently founded only two years ago, can barely be documented to exist at all, shows no sign other than in name of being an actual university, for which we have only primary sources, for which those primary sources disagree on whether he is actually president, and which is not even mentioned on his own home page [28], is very far from being the kind of highest-level post at a "major academic institution" demanded by #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sources about his presidency: click to Executive Leadership, [29], [30]. [31], [32], [33], etc., so the fact that the presidency is not mentioned on Naudé's website is irrelevant.
By "major academic institution" should be understood academic major. As far as "high level post" is concerned, it is worth noting that it has many graduates. In criterion 6 I do not read a hurdle with the minimum age level of a University, except that it is accredited, which completes the CityU Paris. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WTF? "Major" meaning "very significant" (the meaning from WP:PROF) is a completely different word than "major" meaning the specific discipline a student chooses to study (the meaning from academic major). They are not even the same part of speech.
And exactly how does a private online business school founded in 2023 already have many graduates? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Major" or "major university" = "very significant" seems like an interpretation, or to be tested with sources. On the other hand using rude words does not add more value to the argument.--Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The graduates can be viewed on the official channel. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[3] says they are not accredited. (The CUP website likewise says that they are not accredited in their FAQ.)
[4] to quote directly:
Note
Under the French education system, private schools are either “sous contrat” – with the government paying teachers’ salaries and the school following the national curriculum – or “hors contrat” - not funded by the government, and therefore not obligated to follow any particular curriculum.
The City University of Paris is a "hors contrat" school, and its awards are not eligible for admission nor credit transfer into French public educational institutions.
[5] and [6] is a paper co-authored by Naude himself.
[7] is the minutes for a meeting where Naude transferred his shares and the presidency to Agnes Horry. This is dated 25/09/2023. Relm (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3) and 4) it is not a conventional accreditation because of the recent law implemented in France.
5) and 6) primary sources are allowed in criterion 6.
7) On the University's official website, mentioned above, it can be read that Naudé continues as president. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 08:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Total failure to pass WP:Prof or anything else. Is this a hoax BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
    Naudé is a real person; I watched part of an interview of him on YouTube randomly a few months ago. seefooddiet (talk) 09:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have been notified of this deletion discussion by the nominator. I have a firm personal policy of steadfast neutrality at articles I accepted at AFC. I follow the guidance that a draft must, in my view, have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is an immediate deletion process and I await the community's view. If kept, I will be pleased. If deleted, I will correct anything I feel needs to be corrected in my reviewing. Reviewers get better when their work is sent to AfD, which allows the community to decide as opposed to a single reviewer. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per David Eppstein's post above. I indepedently tried to find third-party news coverage and couldn't find any either.
Also the POV in the article was really blatant; I just deleted almost all of a paragraph that was basically cited only to Naudé himself. It presented subjective analysis of things as definite in Wikipedia's voice. seefooddiet (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2025 (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 Cheslyn Hay. asilvering (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Church, Cheslyn Hay

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

Likely not notable under WP:NCHURCH.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Cremastra
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
www.cannockchasemethodists.org.uk
 No Yes Yes ✘ No
The South Staffordshire Local List
 Yes Yes No ✘ No
Dunphy Church Heating
 No Yes ✘ No
Express & Star
 Yes Yes No ✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Cremastra (u — c) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Liberty Nuban

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG. Only coverage I found of Nuban is routine and this was the closest I could get for any significant, in-depth coverage to estabilish notability of him. ~ Tails Wx 18:13, 18 January 2025 (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 SNFU. A decision of what to merge from this article, if anything, can be done outside of the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slaveco.

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

A MySpace band that never released an album. Had several notable members that were in SNFU, but Slaveco. is only mentioned in sources as a minor, failed side-step to that project. There are literally no sources that focus on the band as an independent, notable entity. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for repeating myself from last edit summary, the band is discussed in multiple WP:RSes -- including two books and a documentary, cited in the article -- and hence seems to pass criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Given this, the information is noteworthy; and it furthermore does not belong in the SNFU article, since this would bloat that article; hence, I submit that it needs its own article. Relatedly, I'm not convinced that the term "MySpace band" means very much or is as damning as I take the usage to imply, since numerous bands great and small from the aughts had MySpace accounts. But I understand the editor's concerns and maybe we can see what others think. In any case, I vote keep. CCS81 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two books by the same author and a documentary that all mention it briefly as one of Ken Chinn's small projects (along with The Wongs and Little Joe that also don't have articles). MySpace band refers to the fact that when I found the article, it still had a MySpace link (which relates to the essay WP:MYSPACEBAND). Why? I Ask (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand, but the "WP:MYSPACEBAND" joke article seems to imply that this term refers primarily to self-generated content, e.g., about one's own non-noteworthy garage band, as evidenced by the proliferation of the term "your" throughout the joke article. There is no such content in the Slaveco. article. Hence, I don't see the relevance of WP:MYSPACEBAND to the Slaveco. article, deleted dead MySpace link not withstanding. Better would be to defer to WP:BAND and the criteria for notability described there. CCS81 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me lay this out for all our sakes. Here are the statements in favor of deletion, as far as I can tell, and my responses:
  • Slaveco. is a WP:MYSPACEBAND. This, I think, is false, since the article seems to imply that this term is for band articles with self-generated content, which is not the case for Slaveco.
  • Slaveco. never released a record. This is true but insufficient for deletion, because WP:BAND specifies criteria for inclusion other than releasing albums.
  • Slaveco. is only minimally treated in the WP:RSes. This seems to be what is worth discussing. Slaveco. is the subject of one ten-page chapter (Chapter 12, pages 196-206) of Walter 2020, which is a 17-chapter book. There is further discussion in Walter 2024, but it only spans about five pages. The editor in favor of deletion seems to suggest that this is insufficient for C1 of WP:BAND, whereas my argument is that it is significant coverage that is independently noteworthy and would be too bulky to fold into the SNFU article or articles about any of the individual members. On this, I think, the discussion should be focused. I hope this is helpful. CCS81 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Slaveco prepared to slay 'em". Nelson Daily News. 2004-04-22. p. 3. ProQuest 357444111.
  • PD (2004-04-15). "Mr. Pig stuff". Vue Weekly (443): 23.
  • Williams, Rob (2004-04-15). "Pig business: SNFU chief Chi branches out in Slaveco enterprise". The Winnipeg Sun. p. 61.
Jfire (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for finding these sources. I personally am still in favor of deletion because of WP:SUSTAINED. A few concert announcements from the same month don't do it for me. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can this not just be redirected/merged to a section under SNFU or Ken Chinn? I doubt anyone is going to care about a band that simply toured for a year outside of its relationship to those two. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two other notable members with their own articles, so I don't think it's right to imply that no one else is going to care other than those reading about Chinn or SNFU. I'm also not sure what the rationale for deletion is given that it passes WP:GNG. I see lots of "subjective" language ("I doubt...", "don't do it for me",) but can't see the rationale from the perspective of guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Maybe others have thoughts. CCS81 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Local band that never released an album, nor did much of anything else required for notability here. No charted singles, no TV appearances, nor much media coverage beyond the local level. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or possibly Redirect to SNFU as a compromise. This is a close call and that's why we have so many different opinions. This band did indeed get some newspaper coverage and was written up in histories of their local scene. But I agree with some of the voters above on how the band's coverage was largely gig announcements and histories of their associations with more established bands. Some will probably disagree, but Slaveco strikes me as a side project during a hiatus taken by SNFU, and the fact that they never released any recordings is crucial to the sustained notability question. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer a redirect or a merge to a section over outright deletion. Why? I Ask (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply: I can't see how WP:SUSTAINED is relevant. It says, "Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability." The cited sources in the Slaveco. article are from 2004 (three newspaper articles), 2010 (documentary film), the 2012 book (though the 2020 edition is cited), and a 2024 book. The subject thus clearly has been covered in recent sources, not in a brief burst, in the 21 years since the band breakup. CCS81 (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, two books that mention it as a sidestep to SMFU/Ken Chinn, which are the actual focuses of the books. The documentary is also about Ken Chinn, not the band. It's sort of like The Konrads: notable members, small regional coverage, but ultimately just a footnote of a larger project. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You did say that, but this is a separate claim from invoking WP:SUSTAINED. You claim the article is relevant only to SNFU and Ken Chinn, but in response I note that the band has two other noteworthy members. WP:SUSTAINED concerns the timing of the coverage; in this case, that covers about 20 years, including the two decades after the band's breakup. CCS81 (talk) 17:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Oaktree b. No charted singles, TV appearances, or much media coverage beyond the local level. Maxcreator (talk) 16:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This repeated refrain of "charted singles, TV appearances, or much media coverage beyond the local level" is strange. WP:GNG specifies other criteria other than charted singles and TV appearances. The connection between notable musicians and "TV appearances" is tenuous. The coverage is not "local": Winnipeg, for instance, is 2300 km (1,400 miles, or a 24-hour drive) away from the band's home of Vancouver. CCS81 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It comes form NPMUSIC or NPALBUM standards, we use them here. Oaktree b (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    [34] linked here for helping my explanation. Oaktree b (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand the criteria, but they are used incorrectly here. There are 12 criteria cited at WP:GNG, and Slaveco. passes C1. You and the other poster specified only three of these criteria, including C2 and C12, skipping the other ten. The claim about the lack of non-local media coverage is false, as I say above. CCS81 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: To reiterate, this page should not be straight-up deleted. It has at least two proper merge/redirect targets that it can be mentioned on. Why? I Ask (talk) 17:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The total of merge/redirect targets would be four: the three notable musicians, and SNFU. But these articles, particularly SNFU, will become unnecessarily bloated if we dump all this information into it. Better to keep it separate. CCS81 (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    SNFU is only around 3,000 words at the moment; adding around 300 words will not make it too bloated. It is a fairly simple fix to add a blurb on either of the two pages that "Ken Chinn formed Slaveco. with Jay Black, Matt Warhurst, and Shane Smith..." to mention the two other notable musicians. As of now, Ken Chinn#Personal struggles and third SNFU incarnation says something similar, so I would support a merge there. Why? I Ask (talk) 20:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding 300 words on another band sharing members to the SNFU article would be way too many words compared to the amount of coverage the other subjects get. Compare their live album and reunion tour from 1991-1992, one of the most important aspects of the band's career, which is currently covered in 52 words in the article. If we give 300 words to every comparably significant event in the band's history, the article would be a whole lot longer than 3,000 words. This is why we need sub-articles like the Slaveco. article (along with the independent notability, as established within the article). CCS81 (talk) 20:53, 24 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Türk Telecom İzmir Cup

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

When I click the reference it says ‘This request was blocked by our security service’ even though I am in Turkey. The Turkish article is also tagged as uncited and their external link also does not work. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Brar

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

Unable to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. B-Factor (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I researched the subject but found little substantial information. While a few unreliable sources surfaced, they are not acceptable on Wikipedia. Therefore, the subject clearly fails to meet WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 10:42, 21 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum

[edit]
7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for notability, sounds a bit promotional. -- Beland (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:24, 18 January 2025 (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. As in, "keep for now"; no prejudice against merge/respec. asilvering (talk) 21:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Australia

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

This article is supposedly about an industry association for English language schools in Australia, but contains almost no information about the actual association. Instead, almost the entire article reads as an unsourced advert/guide for how to apply to English language courses in Australia. I wasn't able to find anything to suggest that the organisation itself would meet WP:GNG - their media releases are sometimes quoted in specialist publications, but there doesn't seem to be any secondary SIGCOV. The title could potentially be turned into a redirect for either English Australians or Australian English? MCE89 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely a massive, massive improvement, thank you for that! I've had a look at the new sources, but I'm not really convinced that they're sufficient to demonstrate notability. Of the new sources, the only secondary sources that go beyond very brief mentions of English Australia/the ELICOS Association are the articles in The Koala and The PIE News, both of which are pretty niche publications on international education. The PIE News one is solid, but The Koala essentially repeats the content of an appeal that English Australia sent to its members and ends with "The Koala wishes English Australia well in the running of its campaign", so I'm unsure of whether this really counts as significant coverage from an outlet independent of the subject, or to what extent The Koala is a reliable source. So of the new sources the only one that seems to me like it can be counted towards notability is the article in PIE, which wouldn't be enough to meet GNG. MCE89 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know if this would help, but there seems to be significant coverage of the institution from The Canberra Times, located here [36] 2024 is Underway (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume you mean this article [37]? There are a couple of other Canberra Times articles but they seem to just quote an ELICOS Association spokesperson. It's definitely something, but the coverage is still very, very thin IMO - we've got an article from 1992 that spends a couple of paragraphs saying the organisation exists and is unhappy about a policy, and an article from 2023 in a relatively obscure publication saying that it's celebrating its 40th anniversary. Possibly it scrapes by on those two sources, but I'm not 100% convinced by the Canberra Times article - the article is mostly about the policy issue and all it really says about the ELICOS Association is that it isn't happy about it, so I'm not really sure it qualifies as SIGCOV of the ELICOS Association. MCE89 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You make a compelling point, but I did manage to find this [38]. The organisation seemed to have an annual conference in the 1990s, which they documented heavily, with each year having a book that is over 200 pages. And they seemed to have reports from other companies made for them [39], [40]. I believe the contents of these reports could lead to notability. 2024 is Underway (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can consider those towards notability - they're reports that English Australia/the ELICOS Association commissioned or published, so they don't qualify as secondary sources independent of the subject. Unless there's secondary coverage of their conferences or conference proceedings in reliable sources, which I wasn't able to find on Trove, I don't think it gets us any closer to WP:GNG unfortunately. MCE89 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While I strongly suggest that this article be kept due to be coverage it provides on Education for overseas students, it could be merged into Education in Australia under a new sub section named something along the lines of "Overseas students" because it is "designed for students who need to learn English before commencing formal studies in Australia" which would be significant to the articles subject. But it would be better to remain as a separate article. 2024 is Underway (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep There is more coverage in newspapers in the 1980s and 90s (apart from The Canberra Times, coverage on Trove stops at about 1950, however, Newspapers.com has other digitised newspapers like The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age up to 2002. I will add more sources and info (and probably a section on Controversies, as some coverage refers to "the ELICOS crisis of 1989-90"). RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no sufficient coverage. Drushrush (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looking at the coverage I found again, it seems that some of it is not specifically about this organisation, but uses ELICOS as a general acronym for "English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students", as in "the ELICOS industry", "ELICOS students", "the ELICOS crisis". I'll double check what is actually relevant to this article and think more about it.
The redirects suggested by the nom would not be appropriate. Neither English Australians nor Australian English is about teaching or learning English in Australia, to/by overseas students. The article English as a second or foreign language is more relevant, but covers all countries and all types of learners of English as a second/additional language. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into the sources — now that I think of it I think you're right that we really should have a broader article on ELICOS education in Australia. I still don't think this trade group/lobbying organisation itself is independently notable, but I'm happy to withdraw the nomination per WP:HEY given Rumblamb's improvements and suggest that we keep for now, and I'll merge this into a broader article on ELICOS education in Australia as soon as I get a chance to create one. Does that seem reasonable to you? MCE89 (talk) 12:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think there are sufficient sources for an article or articles about teaching English as a second/additional language/dialect in Australia, and perhaps one specifically on ELICOS education. I agree with Keep (as I voted above), for now, per WP:HEY. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of electoral wards in Staffordshire. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheslyn Hay South

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

Is there anything that gives this orphan stub about a Staffordshire ward Notability? The sourcing looks very weak. If needed at all, can it not be merged into Cheslyn Hay? KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:21, 18 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonerby Hill Foot

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

Is there anything making this Lincolnshire suburb notable? To me the sourcing looks extremely weak. KJP1 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely scope for a Listed buildings in Grantham, like Listed buildings in Sleaford which I recently brought to FA. I may create that one day. There's a case for Gonerby Hill Foot's history being part of the Great Gonerby article as I believe Gonerby Hill Foot was part of the parish until recently (most of it was within the GG boundaries in c. 1929 [43]). —Noswall59 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Having dug out another source about the milestone, and more on the history from the Civic Soc, I'm strengthening my "Keep". PamD 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grantham is now parished but anyway a list of listed buildings could be created even if it was still unparished given the unparished area is easy to define unlike some like in County Durham or Hertfordshire where parts of a pre 1974 district are now parished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Didn't think there was quite enough to pass the GNG but with recent additions I now think it does. The content is adequately sourced, tidied up and is in much better shape. It's now of sufficient length and substance to stand alone. Rupples (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Gonerby Hill Foot may have presumed notability under WP:NPLACE, more likely during its tenure as a hamlet outside of Grantham, but it's uncertain. Oppose merging the content into Grantham. Firstly, I suspect most readers of the Grantham article will not be particularly interested in Gonerby Hill Foot; the few that are being best served by the existing mention and wikilink to this article. Secondly, including the content in Grantham would give Gonerby Hill Foot WP:undue weight (depth of detail) compared with other outlying areas of the town. Rupples (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:21, 18 January 2025 (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 Edmund Burke School#2022 shooting. asilvering (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Burke School shooting

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

Hmm, fails WP:LASTING. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 14:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to merge as suggested below.TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If not notable, haven’t checked for sources, merge to the school article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Edmund Burke School#2022 shooting. There isn't nothing and some of the coverage is quite in depth but this is a good target and the coverage isn't enough as to warrant more than that. This actually was a redirect until last month. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:20, 18 January 2025 (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. No valid reason for deletion has been supplied. The only argument is whether or not to redirect per Cmrc23, which can be done outside of the scope of an AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:10, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.375 Winchester

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

Tagged for notability for almost 2 years. -- Beland (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful reference page for the calibre with the relevant standards and load data referenced - limited use outside of a specialist community but still valuable data to retain as the ammo and rifles remain in use. 147.161.216.202 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not apparent and too much uncited content. Spideog (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 17:20, 18 January 2025 (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 2024 Democratic National Convention. asilvering (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial roll call at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

[edit]
Ceremonial roll call at the 2024 Democratic National Convention (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Trivial event with only routine coverage. I T B F 📢 17:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was not a trivial event. It was well-covered beyond routine coverage, in large part because it diverted from the standard roll call practices by featuring a DJ and even a cameo performance mid-roll call. Before this, in-person conventions had roll calls that looked like this. It was an innovation in convention production having the 2024 DNC bring out a DJ to play a theme song for each state.
It was also unique from all major party convention roll calls except the 2020 DNC roll call in being ceremonial rather than official. The article can be usefully expanded to explain the circumstances of why Harris was nominated in advance of the convention (initially was brought the threat of certain states to deny the Democratic nominee ballot access if they waited until the convention to nominate her, due to refusal to extend ballot deadlines). (The official roll can in advance of the convention was also unique as this was the first nomination in generations where nearly all delegates unbound. Biden's withdrawal meant that delegates were free to vote however they wished. Ultimately, Harris sewed up enough support in advance of the convention quick enough to dissuade any other candidates from seeking the nom) SecretName101 (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That all sounds like it can be included in the main DNC 2024 article in about three sentences. I T B F 📢 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not without erasing and easy way for readers to (without going off-side) answer the question of "what states chose what songs" and other info. SecretName101 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Gopan Swami

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

Not encyclopedic. Just a sensational news in Malayalam media, see WP:RECENTISM. Lacks long-term notability and fails WP:EVENTCRIT. also refer WP:NOTNP. The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, it's far too soon to decide if anything noteworthy has actually happened here, or whether events develop and go on being discussed in future years. So far it looks much as nom suggests, not encyclopedic material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cian Cowley

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

With Fightmatrix ranking #464 Welterweight, and insufficient general notability, doesn't meet WP:NMMA (expecting 'top 10'). Klbrain (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (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. WP:SNOW, and proposer already has been blocked for disruptive editing. (non-admin closure)‎. Jpatokal (talk) 04:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 268

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
British Airways Flight 268 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Based on run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, engine failures became a widespread cause for aviation incidents and accidents, including ones that resulted in diversions and emergency landings. While the aircraft was substantially damaged, the cause of this accident is run-of-the-mill. Additionally, there were no injuries or fatalities. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 16:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep per above notability guidelines, fatalities do not determine notability. Lolzer3k 21:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Webster, Ben (25 February 2005). "Flying faulty jumbo across Atlantic saves BA £100,000". The Times. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  2. ^ McCartney, Scott (2 March 2005). "Crossing the Atlantic With a Dead Engine". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  3. ^ "FAA disputes BA's three-engine flight". FlightGlobal. 8 March 2005. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  4. ^ Phillips, Don (10 March 2005). "U.S. sends formal complaint to BA". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  5. ^ Smith, Patrick (12 March 2005). "Ask the pilot". Salon. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  6. ^ Gadher, Dipesh (1 May 2005). "BA accused over flights with one engine down". The Times. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  7. ^ Schiff, Barry (6 May 2005). "Proficient Pilot – Obligated to land". Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  8. ^ Clark, Nicola (8 June 2006). "Report says crippled flight met U.K. rules - Europe - International Herald Tribune". The New York Times. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  9. ^ McCartney, Scott (24 September 2006). "After Engine Blew, Deciding to Fly On 'As Far as We Can'". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  10. ^ "Pelican's Perch #82: The Dreaded Three-Engine 747". AVweb. 7 January 2007. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  11. ^ Freeman, R. Edward; Mead, Jenny (21 October 2008). "Flying Light: British Airways Flight 268 (a)". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1278379. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  12. ^ Freeman, R. Edward; Mead, Jenny (21 October 2008). "Flying Light: British Airways Flight 268 (B)". SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.1278380. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  13. ^ Song, Yangkun (10 November 2016). "Development of Comprehensive Dynamic Damage Assessment Methodology for High-Bypass Air Breathing Propulsion Subject to Foreign Object Ingestion". Virginia Tech: 17–18. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
  14. ^ Villamizar, Helwing (20 February 2024). "2/20/2005: British Airways Flight 268". Airways News. Retrieved 20 January 2025.
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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 21:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akintunde Babatunde

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

Fail WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer von Hassel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Kristoffer von Hassel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a pretty clear example of WP:BLP1E. The sources all say the same thing with very little variation in the information they provide, and several of them are clearly re-hashed versions of the same report or press release. None of the sources says anything about von Hassel himself, which is very natural as he was 5 years old at the time, but a WP:BEFORE search doesn't yield anything more current, or more in-depth. I thought this might be a good source, since it was published a couple of years later – but it only repeats the same info in new packaging (adding the dubious claim that he "has his own Wikipedia page"). Other than that, there's just the flurry of short press reports from April 2014 to support this entire article. The "world's youngest hacker" claim was clearly unverifiable and pretty weak to begin with, since it redefines what a "hacker" is – so what is the claim to notability here, really? bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 18 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Nicolas Reardon-Smith, 5th Baronet

[edit]
Sir Nicolas Reardon-Smith, 5th Baronet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable person who happens to be in Debrett's TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no coverage in reliable secondary sources besides a passing mention in his father's obit. Most of the citations fail verification because they contain zero information about this person. Joe D (t) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of notability. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheLongTone: further to your message on my Talk page for which I thank you, I concur that my initial composition was somewhat under par - apologies - and have made some efforts to improving the article accordingly (which I hope you find satisfactory). Whilst more could be said about Sir Nicolas Reardon-Smith I trust that these modifications attend to the issues immediately at hand.
Notability is ofc quite subjective, and whilst I would agree that Sir Nic could not be deemed as eminent he is very far from being a nobody. Not only is he a director of a multinational but he is now head of a family with considerable inherited wealth which engages in philanthropic work. Akin to many other British aristocrats Sir Nic is not showy, ie. he doesn't flaunt his wealth preferring to stay out of the public eye.
Perhaps it's worth mentioning that I took it upon myself to create this article thinking it would be of help to the Wiki project, not least because Wikipedia's pages contain much good info about British hereditary titles and correspondingly their title holders. So I thought this would in some small way go towards "helping to complete the set".
There is also, I would suggest, something of a policy decision to be made here since many British nobles aren't notable in their own right, but solely by dint of being the title holder: qv. Murray Beauclerk, 14th Duke of St Albans, as well as countless others.
So what should Wiki do going forward; not include them? The same principle applies for European nobility and I for one find it helpful to be able to read on French or Spanish Wiki etc, about the present heads of these dynasties. Not all are necessarily notable or (sometimes) even interesting! but it's better to be able to find out who they are than not, in my view.
I abstain (as quite obviously having set about creating the article in the first place my opinion could be viewed as being a bit biased)...
I hope setting down my thoughts is of some help and look forward to seeing how this pans out - many thanks to all for your contributions. Primm1234 (talk) 19:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Each Wikipedia project has its own rules, guidelines and conventions. Let the French and Spanish wikis host unencyclopedic articles, if they want. They're free to do that. Respect differences, and always respect the local project you're on. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 23:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: @Primm1234: I just undid your last revision (1270489021) for four reasons:
  1. This is the second time you remove the {{clarify}} tag (Is William part of his name? If so, it should not be a parenthetical element; you should clarify this) without clarifying about the name. Please, stop removing maintenance tags without fixing the issues.
  2. Unless you're mentioning full titles (all prefixes and postfixes), "Sir" should stay outside wikilinks. Example: "Sir William Reardon Smith" instead of "Sir William Reardon Smith" (please, note that "William Reardon Smith, 1st Baronet" without any prefix would be incorrect too, per WP:NCROY).
  3. Please, format references with {{Citation}} or {{Cite web}} etc.;
  4. You added an external link to "https://en.damicointernationalshipping.com/" (main page) without any specific page nor quoted text. Why? What value/info does it add to the page?
Clarify. Thanks. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 22:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Est. 2021: Thank you for your message and queries. Always keen to learn, I am most grateful for helpful guidance.
Also I trust my utmost respect for the Wiki project is abundantly clear and hope you can accept my apologies for any unintended editing errors.
 Comment: let me address, out of courtesy, the points you kindly raise:
  1. I mistakenly removed the {{Clarify}} maintenance tag as I thought I had made the clarification about his name: christened William Nicolas Henry, he is commonly known as Nicolas or familiarly as Nic;
  2. Acknowledged and agree ref. "Sir" staying outside wikilinks;
  3. Noted, but frustratingly whenever I attempt to format references with {{Citation}} or {{Cite web}} etc, I get {{Cite error}}. I accept need more practice at citing references correctly thus am much obliged for the chance to learn from a far more expert Wikipedian such as you: for instance, I’ve noticed in other articles references qualified with (subscription required) – is this still acceptable to Wiki? (Whilst https://www.shipwrights.co.uk confirms Sir Nicolas' status as a liveryman of the Worshipful Company of Shipwrights, ever since the implementation of GDPR in 2018 its website is accessible only to members, as too is the book-form membership list privately published by the Shipwrights’ Co.) Perhaps more importantly? it would be as well for me to highlight at this juncture that under https://www.borsaitaliana.it/prospetti-informativi/912pros_1_it.pdf p. 133 there is a bio detailing his directorships of the d’Amico Group;
  4. The only reason to include https://en.damicointernationalshipping.com/" as an External link was to provide readers with easy access to extra info, but perhaps this would be more appropriate under Further reading, if at all?
It may be better for me to refrain from editing Sir Nicolas Reardon-Smith, 5th Baronet, any further for the avoidance of any hint of edit conflict - what do you think?
Nonetheless, it would be great if someone else were to feel inclined to help out, in the spirit of Wikipedian collaboration, by restoring any useful additional edits I may be deemed to have made (which atm the article in its reverted state omits): it would also be good to see how such edits should be done for future reference.
On a final note, it is becoming ever more apparent that this article is heading for deletion, seemingly because the focus is centering on Sir Nicolas' lack of notability as a baronet rather than, more pertinently, his notability as a director of a multinational shipping company. While ofc deferring to Wiki consensus, I don’t yet quite understand this rationale (please advise).
I am grateful for what is a most worthwhile and illuminating discussion and look forward to hearing further – many thanks.
Best Primm1234 (talk) 15:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Reardon Smith baronets per WP:ATD in the absence of better refs to demonstrate his notability in shipping. Ingratis (talk) 16:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC) see below. No !vote. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not sure it's even worth keeping a redirect. There is nothing that links to this article, and there should never be anything that links to it, because the article title is wrong:
    • per WP:NCBRITPEER, "Baronets should, if no disambiguation is required, have their article located at the simple name"
    • per WP:TITLESINTITLES we don't put "Sir" in article names
    • there appears to be only one source that hyphenates "Reardon-Smith", he is "Reardon Smith" on all the companies that he has appointments with and in his father's obit.
    So if this article were being kept, it would be getting moved. Joe D (t) 17:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - I'm aware of the conventions you link to, but it's not implausible that someone not aware of them searching for this baronet might start the search term with "Sir", or that they might add a hyphen to the surname. It does seem unlikely however that they'd bother to go on to add "5th baronet", so you're probably right that a redirect from this article title is not worth it. Ingratis (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ingratis and Steinsky: Hi guys - at least I can clear up immediately any confusion about the surname. The 1st baronet was Reardon Smith and his elder son the 2nd baronet assumed the additional surname of Reardon by Deed Poll on 20 Dec 1929 their surname becoming hyphenated as Reardon-Smith thereafter.
    I am truly sorry to have caused so much kerfuffle by creating a sub par article in the first place. It was always my intention to swiftly carry on improving it, hopefully with the collaboration of others (but ofc got side-tracked). I was going to have chosen some of the many articles in Lloyd's List & Tradewinds about Nic Reardon-Smith by way of reference and also he appeared before a parliamentary select committee about maritime trade alongside fellow shipbroker Jeffrey Evans, 4th Baron Mountevans, but not sure what to do now. Guess wait & see if the article remains. Anyway hope the surname clarification helps. Best Primm1234 (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. isn't there a function to rename the article Nicolas Reardon-Smith, which I agree would be better? Primm1234 (talk) 22:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Primm1234: - there is, but articles should not be renamed during a deletion discussion. On the question of the surname, the sources available - for example, the Companies House website - use the name without the hyphen, as does the shipping company, and Wikipedia practice is to follow the sources. Ingratis (talk) 08:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ingratis: many thanks for your reply message & clarifying renaming to Nicolas Reardon-Smith should not be done during a deletion discussion.
    For further explanation as to how the interchangeability of hyphenated surnames can cause confusion, see Wiki article Double-barrelled name. The sources provided so far, viz. the Official Roll of the Baronetage, which is an official publication as well as Burke’s Peerage & Baronetage, Debrett’s Peerage & Baronetage (respected publications albeit accessible only to subscribers) correctly state Reardon-Smith as his surname. Thank you also for undertaking a little extra background research for sources helping verify his notability eg. the Companies House website (altho not yet cited as a source), which confirms his appointment as a director of d’Amico Group of companies as well as his primary residence in Surrey.
    In the absence of collaborative improvements to the article and as the deletion nominator, TheLongTone, invites Wikipedians to continue improving the article, please allow me to do so and hopefully my edits won’t get reverted.
    Thanking you in advance for your continued assistance.
    Best Primm1234 (talk) 13:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. some improvements made & welcome your further thoughts/guidance - many thanks. Best Primm1234 (talk) 14:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    REARDON-SMITH Sir William Antony, 4th Bt, GCLJ:
    s of Sir William Reardon REARDON-SMITH 3rd Bt 1911-95 and his 1st w Nesta Florence 1910-59 d of Frederick Joseph PHILLIPS 1875-1944 of Barry, Glam. by his 1905 m to Florence Blanche TURNER 1880-1961. He m 1962 Susan Wight b 1941 d of Henry Wight GIBSON 1904-81 of Cardiff, Glam. by his 1938 m to Rita Mary GERMAN 1911-2000, and had 3 sons and 1 dau.
    WILLIAM NICOLAS HENRY REARDON-SMITH, b 10 June 1963 m 2001 Julia Elizabeth McKenzie er d of David Martin SLADE of Tonbridge, Kent.
    BROTHERS LIVING
    GILES ANTHONY JAMES, b 12 Feb 1968 m 1998 Alice Jane d of Charles ROWE of Little Thurlow, Suffolk, and has a son Jack Charles Gibson, b 2001 and a dau Sophie Megan Susan, b 1998.
    Harry Alexander b 1979 m 2009 Elizabeth Jacquetta adopted d of William Murray LUCAS & Rosemary Henrietta Dorothy VILLIERS b 1950 (4xgt gd of 1st Earl of CLARENDON).
    SISTER LIVING
    Henrietta Nesta, b 1965, m 2008 Stephen M. ANDREWS and has a dau.
    [source: Debrett's Peerage & Baronetage (2019)]
    Best Primm1234 (talk) 18:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Lineage: DANIEL REARDON SMITH; d 1833, leaving issue,
    THOMAS REARDON SMITH, b 1810, m 1832 Elizabeth (d 1906), dau of Capt Philip Green, and was lost at sea Oct 1859 in cmd of the "Hazard"; of whom his 5th s,
    Sir William Reardon Smith, 1st Bt (UK), so cr 1 July 1920, JP, DL Glam., b 7 Aug 1956, Hon Freeman Cardiff 1928 and London 1928, m 16 May 1880 Ellen (d 9 Aug 1939), dau of Thomas Pickard Hamlyn (see HAMLYN-WILLIAMS, Bt), and had issue,
    1a WILLIE (Sir), 2nd Bt
    2a Douglas, of Tŷ Gwyn, Llanishen, Glam, b 10 Apr 1894, m 3 Aug 1916 Gladys May, dau of John Randell, of Cardiff, and d 6 June 1961, leaving issue,
    1b Margaret Hamlyn, b 12 March 1920, m 18 Sept 1945 Denis Maxwell Johnson (d 1967), and has issue,
    1c Stewart Maxwell, b 16 Sept 1949
    2c Graham Hamlyn, b 25 July 1951
    2b Jean Reardon, b 12 May 1922, m 1st 5 Aug 1940 (div 1957) Morton Fergusson Llewellyn, of Tŷ Newydd, Aberdare, Glam (see LLEWELLYN, Bt), and has issue,
    1c David Morton, b 30 April 1942, educ Oundle
    2b (cont.) Mrs Jean Lllewellyn m 2nd 22 April 1958 John Douglas Rae, s of Capt Thomas Rae, of Kirkcudbright
    1a Lillian Nellie, m 16 July 1914 William Gilbert Liley, shipowner (d 17 April 1951)
    2a Gertrude, m 16 Dec 1914 Arthur Joh Popham, shipowner (d 17 Apr 1951)
    3a Elizabeth Hamlyn, m 25 Mar 1922 Douglas Aubrey Low (d 1955), and had issue
    4a Grace Hamlyn
    Sir WILLIAM d 23 Dec 1935; his er s...
    [source: Burke's Peerage & Baronetage (2003)]
    Best Primm1234 (talk) 21:40, 23 January 2025 (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 Economics in film. asilvering (talk) 21:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Economics film

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

To start, I want to outline the history of this article.

  1. Initially, it was completely unsourced from August 29, 2016 until February 11, 2022.
  2. Editor Casualorangejuicefan (no longer active) started expanding the article, leading to this in May 2022. They had a sandbox page here that shows that their article work was intended as a school paper. While the May 2022 draft seems good at first glance, closer scrutiny shows that it is actually original research that uses reliable sources (vast majority never actually detailing "economics film" as a film genre) to make the case for the topic.
  3. I put list of economics films up for AFD here at first and did not recognize at the time that economics film also existed. When I found it, I came to the conclusion explained above and started a teardown of it (like a dismantling variation of WP:TNT). I did not follow through because I felt like the whole page was essentially unencyclopedic. My research into reliable sources did not show "economics film" as a genre.
  4. Instead, based on sources I did find, I decided to go ahead and create economics in film, which should be considered distinct from this genre focus whose page history has nothing salvageable, being OR-driven.

I do not think there is anything to save here. I'd rather delete outright and redirect to economics in film. Redirecting without deleting can be fine, but honestly I don't think we should keep any version of this article which has only had unsourced and OR phases. EDIT: Another way to think of it is that it makes more sense to have emotion in film as opposed to emotional film, which would be unreasonably high-level classification. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Economics. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Economics in film. I am at a loss to understand why the sourced content in the current article would not stand within that broader topic. BD2412 T 19:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be WP:OR in the scope of just economics, which is a very high-level topic. This article, which is really a student essay, pieced together disparate points that never was about economics films. Like this does not actually support the text in the Wikipedia article. "Economic" is mentioned in passing twice in that source, and the quote in the Wikipedia article was in response to the interviewer asking Moore if he wanted to "agitate a mass audience". So these sources are not touching on economics films or about economics in film. It is WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Economics in film has two referenced books that match the scope exactly, plus one more that could be accessed. Piecemeal claims of economics films (or economics in film) are inappropriate OR and also completely unnecessary. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To make even more sure, I checked this referenced in the first paragraph under "Mainstream economics film", and it says nothing about economics. The paragraph says that The Wolf of Wall Street "is the prime example of the glorification of excess and gluttony displayed in economics films", but the source says nothing at all about that, and the student took more liberties describing the film than the source has. You can view the source yourself via WP:LIBRARY. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Economics in film without merging. I read some of the article and briefly checked some of the sources. I couldn't find anything that mentions economics as a genre and I don't think I've ever heard the term before. In my mind, "Economics film" would be an educational film, which is a genre, but "Microbiology film" isn't a genre, so the topic of an educational film doesn't necessarily make that topic the genre. The non-educational examples given in the article are just "economics/finance is an element of this movie", e.g. The Wolf of Wall Street, which is described by its Wikipedia article as a "biographical black comedy-drama", which are actual genre terms. Velayinosu (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested, to Economics in film. This is a WP:POVFORK. Bearian (talk) 02:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Economics in film as suggested above. The content is not sufficiently compliant with policies and guidelines to warrant preservation by a merge. XOR'easter (talk) 22:25, 21 January 2025 (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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:11, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Curry

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

Fails WP:NACTOR--Соловьиная Роща (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is coverage, there are significant roles. BilboBeggins (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2025 (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 Bourbon County, Kentucky. asilvering (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon County Schools

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral return to Draft, so we are at AfD. Schools and school districts are no longer inherently notable. Fails WP:NORG as presented here. Suggesting Draftify pending further work. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge to Bourbon County, Kentucky (and trim down). Article is sourced entirely to statistics; there is no significant secondary coverage as needed by WP:NSCHOOL. The fact that it's a school district, not a school, seems beside the point. There are thousands of school districts in the US, and for most of them there is no information available beyond statistics; they don't need articles. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, NSCHOOL does not apply. School districts are not educational institutions, they are units of government. They have elections, they levy taxes, they have fixed boundaries. In some states, school districts are referred to as "school cities". The fact that they levy taxes and hold elections guarantees there will be coverage somewhere. There is no requirement that sources be online. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia. By policy, it is also a GAZETTEER. 4.37.252.50 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to Bourbon County, Kentucky. WP:GAZETTEER is an essay, not policy. A broad consensus exists that Wikipedia is a gazetteer, from which WP:GEOLAND is derived, but nothing here fits those criteria. There is no presumption of notability. Articles need sources to be written. If we do not have secondary sources, there should not be an article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:33, 21 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.348 Winchester

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

Tagged for notability for 2.5 years. -- Beland (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep,info on somewhat obscure calibers needs all the reference one can find. 184.13.199.40 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a new article on Winchester cartridges. Anything notable enough to have its own article can be linked, maybe with a brief description. Anything else can have its unsourced material removed, or limited to a mention of the cartridge. I am interested in this subject enough to create the article and add this (and .375 Winchester), but I am not sure if I can maintain it significantly past that. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about merging the .308 Winchester as well? The whole of Category:Winchester Repeating Arms Company cartridges ? This seems an odd selection criterion, as the cartridges (there are many, 50 in that category) have little in common other than their manufacturer. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley
No. I am proposing creating a larger article on the topic, but notable articles such as .308 win will remain;
Anything notable enough to have its own article can be linked, maybe with a brief description
That means that the cartridges will be mentioned, as they are relevant, but anything not important enough to have an article will mostly be merged into the article, with extraneous detail removed. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 23:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the topic, "List of non-notable Winchester cartridges"? Seems like a good scope to get the whole lot deleted 5 minutes after you write it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:14, 18 January 2025 (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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burkina Faso–Iran relations

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

its not notable enough to warrant an article of its own; maybe it can be included as part of Foreign relations of Burkina Faso. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The remark "not the most notable pair of countries" is dismissive of two nation states. They may not matter to the previous commenter, User:Spiderone (even if s/he decided to Keep), but they are notable to both populations, and this article is part of a series of similar articles for other nations. If the article did not exist, it would need to be created. Spideog (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if that came off as dismissive, that was not my intention at all! All I meant was that even though the relationship between Burkina Faso and Iran is obviously not as extensive or widely covered as, say, China–United States relations, it is still very much deserving of an article — on which we seem to be in agreement. I'll edit my vote to make that clearer. MCE89 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Sir, so my intention was not to desregard it completely but to rather merge it with Foreign relations of Burkina Faso. I also don't really believe its notable to iran. But, in case its actually more notable, then i feel like maybe the article must be expanded and if that is the case i'll be happy to help. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:07, 18 January 2025 (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. asilvering (talk) 21:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Oumar Dia

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. It's a sad incident but many murders happen every year in the United States, and this one does not demonstrate lasting significance as required by our policies.4meter4 (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This murder is significant because of the barefaced and admitted racism motive. The murderer said he "saw the black guy and thought he didn't belong where he was at" (at a bus stop). He continued, ""How easy it would be to take him out right there, ... Didn't seem like much to me" and "In a war, anybody wearing the enemy's uniform [black skin] is an enemy and should be taken out, ... I guess I was kind of thinking about him because he was black". Also, the article describes "Protests occurred in the Denver area following the killing", conferring wider community significance. The attack also left a bystander paralysed. Spideog (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Spideog How is racism a significant motive under WP:EVENTCRIT? The hate crimes statistics at the United States Department of Justice and the Southern Poverty Law Center indicate shockingly large numbers of racist motivated attacks. This is not an unusual motivation, sadly, for murder. Further brief protests without WP:SUSTAINED or wide coverage are not unusual. We need to see WP:DIVERSE sourcing across time to indicate notability.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep SIGCOV in several academic works, re-analyzing the events even past the initial breaking news period, passing at least #1 and #2 of EVENTCRIT (very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards). See [53] [54] [55], probably more. There was also a full article in Esquire magazine a year after the murder about it, which I think is pretty solid [56] and a retrospective magazine article [57] from 5280. The coverage at the time was also pretty extensive. While the motive itself does not make it notable, the motive tends to lead to more in depth coverage. There was also a bunch of other coverage in 2010s, this altogether demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED and WP:INDEPTH coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 18 January 2025 (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. WP:SNOW, and proposer has already been blocked for disruptive editing. (non-admin closure)‎ Jpatokal (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Airlines Flight 188

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Northwest Airlines Flight 188 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable aviation incident; fails Wikipedia:AIRCRASH as it did not result in aircraft damages, injuries, or fatalities. THISGUYtalk 13:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incident satisfies the third point under "Aircraft articles" in that essay, as well as WP:GNG. XabqEfdg (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The flight has become a frequent example in FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt's speeches about pilot professionalism, and caused lawmakers to move to prevent pilots on U.S. airliners from using electronic devices while taxiing or flying.[10]

The lasting effects as evidenced by the United States Congress and the Aero-News Network. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep per above notability guidelines. Lolzer3k 21:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concur with Lolzer3k Hishighness420 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Welbes, John (21 October 2009). "Northwest/Delta pilots face intense probe after jet flies 150 miles past Minneapolis/St. Paul airport". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  2. ^ James, Randy (23 October 2009). "Northwest's Wayward Flight: Sleeping Pilots?". Time. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  3. ^ "Flight 188 Pilots Meet NTSB". AVweb. 23 October 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  4. ^ Maynard, Micheline; Wald, Matthew L. (23 October 2009). "Experts Puzzle Over How Flight Overshot Airport". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  5. ^ L. Wald, Matthew; Maynard, Micheline (24 October 2009). "Off course, out of touch: What were Northwest Airlines Flight 188 pilots doing?". The Seattle Times. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  6. ^ Karnowski, Steve; Cain, Brad (25 October 2009). "Pilot insists crew didn't fall asleep". The Associated Press. The Herald-News. p. A5. Retrieved 21 January 2025 – via Newspapers.com.
  7. ^ Maynard, Micheline; Wald, Matthew L. (26 October 2009). "Off-Course Pilots Cite Computer Distraction". The New York Times. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  8. ^ Smith, Patrick (6 November 2009). "The real distractions for pilots". Salon. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  9. ^ a b "S.Hrg. 111-605 — AVIATION SAFETY: ONE YEAR AFTER THE CRASH OF FLIGHT 3407". United States Congress. Congress.gov. 25 February 2010. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  10. ^ a b "Northwest Flight 188 Pilots Will Not Get Their Jobs Back". Aero-News Network. 17 June 2010. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
  11. ^ Higdon, D. (23 May 2012). "Avoiding Cockpit Distractions". Aviation Safety Magazine. Retrieved 21 January 2025.
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 13:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Villanueva

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

Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. Coverage is limited to database sources, apparently as a footballer made 2 substitute appearances in 2012/13 and nothing since. C679 11:29, 18 January 2025 (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 Konkan Railway zone. asilvering (talk) 21:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vinhere railway station

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

Is not notable. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:07, 18 January 2025 (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 10:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guntramsdorf-Thallern railway station

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

Does not seem to be notable. No content other then it's location. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 14:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

İzmir–Denizli Regional

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

Tagged 5 years ago as uncited and I cannot find it on https://www.tcddtasimacilik.gov.tr/tr/ana_hat_trenleri Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:00, 18 January 2025 (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! 07:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsler, Indiana

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

A rail point, one gathers to serve the once-neighboring mine. Get hits on the name but not on the place. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 18 January 2025 (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 10:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Ferreira

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

No significant and independent coverage, far from meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2025 (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 10:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Moldovan Youth League

[edit]
2022–23 Moldovan Youth League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Youth football season with no indication of notability. Pretty much every yearly edition of this article is sourced only to primary sources. I don't see a possible redirect target, either, as no article for the youth league itself exists. JTtheOG (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:59, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Forte

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:48, 18 January 2025 (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. Sandstein 12:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayant Kashyap

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

Non-notable individual. A lot of the sources are unreliable or primary. Doesn't meet WP:NBASIC and the creator of the article appears to have a COI. Frost 00:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do credible peer-reviewed sources (or those managed by editors) over a period of time (at least since 2017) like The Poetry Society (UK), The Bombay Literary Magazine, Poetry Magazine, etc. count? As it is, one of his poems has been handed out in schools in the UK as part of a UK Dept for Education project. The same poem was presented at COP26, the United Nations Climate Conference, in 2021. His work is also known in the UK, with his forthcoming pamphlet having created somewhat of a buzz. Through The Poetry Society's partnership with the University of Hertfordshire to support their MA Animation students in producing animated films, one of Kashyap's poems was made into a short film. Several other videos of his poetry readings have also appeared on YouTube through different organisations. I'm curious—would any of this not count?
Jayant KA$HYAP (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! To clarify, things like "created a buzz" can't really be measured objectively – while it is a bi counter-intuitive, what we call "notability" is closer to "whether there is enough independent material to write an article" than to "how famous the person is". However, peer-reviewed sources commenting on him or his body of work would definitely count for notability. I haven't looked at them individually, but that is indeed very promising. The poetry readings aren't necessarily useful, as they would still be primary sources and wouldn't give more information than "X read this person's poem", except if there is significant commentary/analysis on the poems. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! As mentioned before, I've made sure to use statements from different websites, such as where work is reviewed and not just published, with comments from editors of journals, or people who review his work. I suppose this will increase once Kashyap's new pamphlet is out (probably around May) but until then, there are a considerable amount of sources, including news articles and press releases, that have made a mention.
Also, since it is not an autobiography, nor am I connected to the subject of the article, I'm removing the autobiography tag from the top of the page. I removed one other tag, which mentioned a lack of backlinks(?) to this page –- this I did after finding links (for this page) to several other pages. Please do let me know if there's been an issue! Also, I intend to add more discussion about the subject from a few more sources I've found. Could you please review in, say 24 hours, with the point in mind that there'll still be some material to add? Thank you!
GreenBlast4 (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see notability yet. Two pamphlets and a zine, published by small non-notable presses, that's not enough for notability. In addition, much of the content (as the nominator and others saw) lacks proper sourcing. Like, this is supposed to verify that one of the subject's poems was nominated for an award--but this is a website that publishes one of the subject's poems, and the note about the nomination no doubt came from the author, before we even get to the notability of the award, "Sundress Publication’s Best of the Net", there's the question of a. why isn't there better sourcing and b. is a nomination for this worth mentioning in the first place. And that can be repeated for many of the factoids and instances of namedropping in the article. So, "His third pamphlet, Notes on Burials, won the Poetry Business New Poets Prize in 2024, judged by the poet Holly Hopkins"--yes, but who is Holly Hopkins, and how is that Poetry Business Award (the author's writing of the article notwithstanding) a notable award contributing to notability? Drmies (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From what I understand, being nominated for both the Pushcart Prize and the Best of the Net is something big in the poetry world. People like Amitav Ghosh have won Pushcart Prizes, and there are more than a few famous poets I've read (and could name) who've been included in the BotN anthology. I remember seeing a blog post mentioning the same, and tried retrieving it best as I could – however, since you mentioned, here's a twitter/x link (from a different journal) nominated Kashyap's name: https://x.com/AtlasAndAlice/status/1707414323545493536. And oh, the magazine you noted: https://x.com/Briefly_Zine/status/1576968035248009217. As for the Poetry Business award, here's the Poetry Business article you could take a look at – I understand they're a big name in the UK, and the current UK Poet Laureate and the previous one were both first published by the said press. Friend, I understand you're making efforts to keep Wikipedia as reliable as one can, and I thank you for asking the right questions, and I understand the bit about notability. I'm still curious though that while many pages/articles with much less information are kept up, how is this one not good enough compared to those? Thanks again! GreenBlast4 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS. And the creator’s username indicates possible COI. Zuck28 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete per above reasoning. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello! I've already made efforts to explain that there is no COI, and I'd request you to believe that. This may be supported by the fact that I tend to add to pages in this area extensively. While I do not imply that I cannot be wrong at any point since the creation of the page, and during the editing process (following which edits have been made – truth is this was my first article for Wikipedia that I've written from scratch, and it took me a while learning) I do wish to assure you that I've taken steps to add details extensively and without bias. I've written about other people whose focus is the same topic as Kashyap's, and I've done my best to be as objective as possible there too. In all of the cases, I rely heavily on extensively published sources, and cross-check all of my added data to ensure a lack of errors. For example, very recently, he's been shortlisted for the TFA Awards CWE which is a competition of repute in India, with coverage by The Hindu, etc. and I've checked all links available to add the same. After the final list is released, I'll be updating the same with improved/correct citations. GreenBlast4 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I haven’t been able to do a full search, but it looks like there’s some secondary coverage here. No hits in Newspapers.com though. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:22, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you! I've made sure that there is, and I'm active on this page since the deletion warning. I'll be adding more details as soon as I'm able to find them. I suspect one of the awards will have a press release, and that will lead to further increase in secondary sources. Also, the article link you've added is publicly available through google books. There are a few other secondary links cited— this, here, and here's a press release – extracted from here. I'm hopeful the first page I began working on won't go to waste, and I'm very happy to take any suggestions that improve the article. GreenBlast4 (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    press release are considered primary sources only.
    Zuck28 (talk) 00:00, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh! I'm sorry about that. But I can assure you that the prize I'm talking about – their winners and shortlistees have always been named in news articles with considerable coverage. Small examples: one, two and three. I'll add to things accordingly, and only in a legitimate manner. GreenBlast4 (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2025 (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! 04:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Develop Africa

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

Fails WP:NCORP and Wikipedia General Notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2025 (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! 04:52, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Jae

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and Wikipedia general notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2025 (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 Ultraman Mebius. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Mebius (character)

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

Zero WP:SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources is just a minimal interview (not really a reception) + a listicles/trivia content. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is agreement on Redirection and the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:31, 18 January 2025 (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 Ultraseven. Liz Read! Talk! 07:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraseven (character)

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

I tried to do a semi WP:BEFORE, but most of the sources were about the film. The sources that are currently used were mostly about listicles/rankings/top or popular lists, while the reception is an interview? mixed with merchandise. Merchandise doesn't help notability either, thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect and agreement on the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:30, 18 January 2025 (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! 04:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amzy B

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Almost all the sources are either promotional pieces or unreliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2025 (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. WP:SNOW keep. Nomination is withdrawn and there is a lack of delete !vote. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 22:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MonoMono

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

Cannot find any significant coverage for this band which only existed for about five years, according to the article.

Article does not make any of the claims for notability found in WP:BAND. Book/print sources seem to just be brief, in-passing mentions from what I can tell. A couple other mentions exist [69] but are again slight passing mentions. The dead pop matters source covers the band slightly in-depth but is the only one I can find; WP:BAND requires multiple. archived

It seems as if Joni Haastrup, lead member of the band, may be notable in and of himself and deserving of an article but this project band does not seem to be.

~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 04:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep after additional secondary sources have been located. This accentuated by the lack of agreement on a Merge or Redirect target article that is suitable for this subject. If editors still seek this option, it can be discussed on the article talk page. There is also criticism of a rather informal and weak deletion rationale provided by the nominator which didn't provided a strong and valid reason why this article should be deleted as opposed to improved. Liz Read! Talk! 04:44, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israelis in China

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

Does not seem to really pass GNG for a article by itself on the basis of a claim that at one randomly cited year (2005) 150 Israelis happened to be in China. That is such a trivially small number. A few bus loads of people that happen to be in a country is not notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 130 people... even lower. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shai, Aron (2019). China and Israel: Chinese, Jews; Beijing, Jerusalem (1890–2018). Jewish Identities in Post-Modern Society. Boston: Academic Studies Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv209xmn8. ISBN 978-1-618118-94-3. JSTOR j.ctv209xmn8. Retrieved 2025-01-11 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on page 239: "This book covers three axes: historical-political, economic-trade, and personal-communal (the Jews and Israelis in China)."

      The book notes on page 128: "Shaul Eisenberg’s extensive experience in China paved the way for other Israeli businesspeople, both directly and indirectly—but where Eisenberg met with enormous success, many others experienced only failure." The book notes on page 129: "Bruno Landesberg, controlling owner and former chairman of Sano-Bruno Enterprises Ltd., a major Israeli cleaning products company, was first drawn to the Chinese market after a Chinese delegation that visited Israel in the 1980s expressed interest in his products. Delegation members proposed that they establish a similar factory in China. Landesberg was excited by the idea and began to act. Along the way he was enchanted by the Chinese culture and people. He set himself the goal of putting down stakes in China. First he consulted with Shaul Eisenberg, and the two began to work together in the early 1990s."

      The book notes on page 137: "Amos Yudan, one of the first Israelis to develop business relations with China, had a definitive opinion on the fates of Sano and Osem there.240 In the case of Sano, he believed that the main error was in the company’s structure."

    2. Medzini, Meron (2019-07-10). "The sixth wave - Israeli communities in East and South East Asia". International Journal of Business and Globalisation. Vol. 23, no. 1. pp. 153–165. doi:10.1504/IJBG.2019.100840.

      The article notes: "One study has shown that at least 70% of small businesses started by Israelis in China have failed (Medzini, 2016b). They could not deal with the local language, culture, laws and regulations and legal system. They do not have the stamina it takes to build a business in Asia, nor do they have the time ..."

    3. Menahem, Sarit (2010-02-05). "'Land of Challenging Opportunities': Israeli businesses have a lot to offer China, and are appreciated by their counterparts there. But they still have some basic lessons to learn if they want to succeed in its highly competitive climate". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.

      The article notes: "Paztal and other Israeli businessmen constitute a small business community in China, most of which is concentrated in Beijing and Shanghai; in the former, there are an estimated 400-500 Israeli families. "Based on data gathered by the consulate, it is hard to say just how many Israelis are here, because not all of them are registered. There is a small group of veterans that has been here for over a decade. At consulate events you see a lot of new faces," explains Arie Schreier, vice president of PTL Group, who has lived in China for the past six years. The population of Israelis in China's large cities is composed mainly of independent business owners, who have succeeded in establishing small- to medium-sized firms. These businesses deal in the export of Chinese goods, high-tech, Internet, security and food products, as well as real estate. ... An impressive number of Israelis arrive via employee relocation by large Israeli companies or multinationals operating in China. These include Nice, Israel Chemicals, ECI, Intel, John Bryce and HP."

    4. Gurău, Călin; Dana, Leo-Paul; Katz-Volovelsky, Erez (August 2020). "Spanning transnational boundaries in industrial markets: A study of Israeli entrepreneurs in China". Industrial Marketing Management. 89: 389–401. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.01.008.

      The abstract notes: "This study investigates Israeli transnational entrepreneurs who provide B2B intermediation services in China. To understand the dynamic evolution of their profile and activity, we apply an interpretative framework that combines practice theory and boundary spanning models to analyze six case studies of Israeli transnational entrepreneurs in China. The findings indicate a gradual evolution of their personal and professional profile, determined by a dynamic interdependence between various forms of capital, entrepreneurial habitus, and circumstantial factors. They mobilize a combination of social, cultural, economic and symbolic capital to span organizational, country, cultural and stage boundaries between Israeli and Chinese individuals and organizations."

    5. Hellman, Ziv (2010-10-11). "Setting up shop in China". The Jerusalem Report. p. 30. ProQuest 845443912.

      The article notes: "Israelis seeking to do business in China, however, face several hurdles, mostly due to significant cultural differences that make relating to the Chinese market a greater challenge than selling to Europeans or Americans. Organizations devoted to introducing China to Israelis have emerged in recent years to answer this need. ... Sitting in IsCham's offices in a high-rise office building overlooking a major motorway in eastern Beijing, Tzur looks completely comfortable working in China, effortlessly explaining to a Beijing taxi driver how to find the office tower over the phone in his native language. Tzur has been the executive director of IsCham's Beijing chapter for two years, since its inception, and was an obvious choice given her background. ... Tzur has led tours of Israelis in China and immersed herself in the study of the Chinese language at the university in Beijing.The work at IsCham might seem a detour in what could be a budding diplomatic career in China, but Tzur says she is very pleased with what she has accomplished there. "We have only had two years of existence," she points out, "and I have already seen how much we have managed to assist Israelis trying to get a start in business here. We have also signed cooperation agreements with 20 other national chambers of commerce operating in Beijing and Shanghai."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. "Israeli visa curbs ended after meeting". South China Morning Post. 2001-11-06. p. 9. ProQuest 2420383595. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.

        The article notes: "Terrorism-related visa restrictions threatening the business of about 300 Israeli companies with offices in China were lifted a day after last month's Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) meeting in Shanghai, a Western diplomat said yesterday. ... Israeli business people said at the time it was unfair to be lumped in with terrorists and forced to cancel visits to clients. ... Israelis in China considered postponing trips home for fear their return would be barred. Israeli building security firm ICD Ltd chief executive Ron Efron said he might have laid people off had the restrictions persisted, because two key people stuck outside China forced the firm to forgo business."

      2. Wagner, Mattew (2007-06-03). "Chinese TV airs Elyashiv's opposition to organ harvesting: Conference at Beilinson to discuss Israeli exploitation of Chinese organ trafficking". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.

        The article notes: "Some private insurance companies still fund Chinese organ transplants. Dr. Jacob Levee, director of the heart transplant unit at Sheba Medical Center, put the figure since 2004 at 200-300 kidney transplants performed on Israelis in China, 20 heart transplants and 10 liver transplants."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Israelis in China to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and procedural keep. Keep, as the article meets the WP:GNG based on the sources provided by Cunard. Procedural keep, due to the lack of a coherent rationale for deletion. If a single person can be deemed notable, why can't a group of 130 be notable by definition? Arguments such as there can't be sources, there can't be notability, there must be sources, there must be notability reflect a misunderstanding of our central policies. We assess articles based on criteria such as WP:NEXIST, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Given this, I conclude that both "keep" and "procedural keep" are warranted and can be expressed together, as they lead to the same outcome through different avenues. gidonb (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The sources provided by Cunard are sufficient to meet GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am really puzzled about this idea above of holding Israelis equal or near-equal to Jews. What is the basis for that? gidonb (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, the idea of redirecting this to History of the Jews in China does not make sense to me either. I've met one Israeli in China, and he was Druze, not Jewish. In any case, the sources found by Cunard are enough to keep. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the input and support. I am personally very big on mergers. I believe our encyclopedia is way too fragmented. However, mergers (and redirects) need to make sense! gidonb (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus right now and at least one participant who objects to equating Israelis with Jews so that makes one Merge/Redirect target article unacceptable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:19, 18 January 2025 (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 Elvana Gjata. ✗plicit 14:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karnaval (song)

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

Karnaval is not in and of itself more notable than any of the 29 other FiK 63 losers. Its article consists of: some basic information about the release, identical to that of other FiK entries that were commercially released; a short review section, using only one source that reviews many non-notable songs; information about Festivali i Këngës, which could equally apply to any other FiK entry; credits and personnel, track listing and release history, which are not independently notable. This *could* count as a reasonably detailed article but not more so than that of many other entries that are not given articles because it's understood that they are not notable. It hasn't been ranked on a chart, it hasn't won an award (second place is not an award, otherwise I'd like to see an article for Evita which actually won FiK), it hasn't been independently released by several notable artists, etc. Maybe deserving of an article had it won FiK and progressed to Eurovision, but it didn't. Toffeenix (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. "because duh" is not an adequate explanation for any outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 18 January 2025 (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! 07:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Herscu

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this assistant basketball coach to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was coverage from his days as a high school basketball player (1), which I think would fail WP:YOUNGATH anyways. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus here to Keep this article. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watts Water Technologies

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

OK, lets see what the references here suggest.

It would appear to me that this more complex than a simple WP:A7 about a historical manufacturer of plumbing fixtures and a local company in Franklin, New Hampshire. As always, please do let me do know if you disagree, revert without an edit summary, or whatever you chose otherwise. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watts is a component of the S&P 400. That alone makes it notable. KMaster888 (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's also not a subsidiary. KMaster888 (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Taksoh17 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would counter that being listed on a stock exchange does not make a company notable, as per WP:LISTED. Coverage by independent sources is still required to meet notability. SallyRenee (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Think this could do with more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Dclemens above, there are analyst reports (beyond reports that simply regurgitate share price movement and the company's financial reports) available on this company and these sources meet the criteria for notability. HighKing++ 12:29, 18 January 2025 (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. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:29, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Dubrulle

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

Cited sources are not enough to establish notability, and I can't see anything better. I'd redirect to the company of which he is CEO, but there is no such article TheLongTone (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The personality of note had a professional career in aerospace industry before starting multiple aerospace ventures. The first part: cited a research paper which has one of his works. His business ventures: bios from the internet has this mention on former ventures; current venture: there are multiple stories around VC funding of his venture, awards etc. Scenecontra (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Scenecontra (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
--> Since there are enough citations already, I request to keep this article. I will add more links as soon as I find them. Scenecontra (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not the number of cites, it's their quality.TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, but aren't sources like Deal Street Asia, Asia Business Outlook, SAE.org, Bloomberg quality websites? And since all of these talk of the subject, I hope they can be considered as sources with quality. Scenecontra (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2025 (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 01:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanger Outlets Cookstown

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a shopping mall, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for shopping malls. As always, shopping malls are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass defined inclusion criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing about them -- but the most substantive attempts at notability claims here are promotional fluff like "Tanger Outlets Cookstown contributes to the local economy through job creation, sales tax revenue, and attracting tourists" and "The outlet hosts a wide range of stores and also provides seasonal events and promotions for additional savings", which are par for the course for shopping malls rather than evidence of distinction, and the sourcing consists of a directory entry on a tourist information website (a primary source that is not support for notability at all) and just one piece of run of the mill local coverage in a community hyperlocal, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly satisfy GNG all by itself.
Simple existence is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a shopping mall from having to have more substance and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (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 01:20, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Junction Shopping Centre

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

Article about a smalltown strip mall, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for shopping facilities. As always, every mall that exists in the world is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and must show some evidence of significance supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, except for a few hits of purely run of the mill local coverage of things that happened at the mall -- but "person stabbed near (not at) mall" and "drunk drivers do wheelies in parking lot at mall" are not significant notability claims, and there's basically nothing that constitutes coverage about the mall itself.
It also warrants note that this was first created in draftspace last year and rejected by an WP:AFC reviewer, but was then moved by its own creator into mainspace last week without a new AFC review, which is not the proper process for getting an article created.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the mall from having to have more GNG-worthy coverage about it (which is not the same thing as "about insignificant things happening near it") than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, run of the mill institution with some possible promotional language, ("where people can eat, shop, or browse at."), fails WP:GNG -Samoht27 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was withdrawn‎. Needs further investigation (non-admin closure) Cremastra (u — c) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Qazanchi

[edit]

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

My WP:BEFORE was unable to verify anything and I couldn't find any similar events that happened on this date. Furthermore, I couldn't very much find evidence of a town named Gazanchi or Qazanchi in Agham. This mentions a church named Gazanchi in Shusha, as does this and this mentions a village of that name. This (which I can't view beyond a snippet) is somewhat more promising but still doesn't indicate a real "event", let alone verify the claims here. If this isn't a hoax, then it still doesn't mean WP:NEVENT. Cremastra (u — c) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Wait, I just saw there's like 20 more ways to spell this. Putting on hold, might withdraw. Cremastra (u — c) 00:26, 18 January 2025 (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.

Previous Page Next Page








Responsive image

Responsive image