Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

24 October 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 23	October 25 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

A Comedy of Terrors

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

Fails WP:BKCRIT. Very poor sources consisting of author's website and the publisher's website. No reviews. Mlody1312 (talk) 19:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Luther Academy

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

No refs on the page for many years. Nothing much else found. Per WP:SCHOOLRFC existence does not imply notability. JMWt (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Missouri. JMWt (talk) 19:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vortex electrowinning

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

Poorly sourced draft that was moved into mainspace. A WP:BEFORE search turned up little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 18:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of best-selling boy bands

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been deleted twice, in 2012 and 2014, for being a list article with an impossible-to-define subject that consists largely of original research. As far as I can tell, this current iteration suffers from the same issues, including selection bias toward English-speaking bands (is BTS not a boy band?) and questionable sourcing.

Notably, the sales numbers are pretty universally incidental to the subject of the sourced articles. In addition, the dates of the articles range from 1995 to 2018. While that doesn't totally preclude the article from existing, it's clear to see that these numbers are not an objective current ranking of sales, and the stretch to source implies that reliable rankings of this sort aren't currently out there. At the very least, the current article is drawing conclusions not made by the sources. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Lists. Thesixthstaff (talk) 18:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tea for the Voyage

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, with one exception. On ProQuest, there is significant coverage, but it's all from a local newspaper, The Kingston Whig-Standard. The band is also merely mentioned in a few other newspapers. toweli (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. toweli (talk) 18:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1881 America's Cup

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

Insufficient sources, fails in WP:EVENTS, and there is a history of a copyvio which is addressed (1253102988) and there is no categories too WP:CAT. Royiswariii (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Royiswariii (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yugendra Pawar

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOL, because not elected to any legislative body and he is about to contest upcoming elections. TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, India, and Maharashtra. TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So much news coverage, yet no significant coverage was found, failing to meet both GNG and NPOL. If the subject gets elected as an MLA, surely this article can be recreated by anyone. If not, I will create it. However, for now, I believe keeping this article is pointless. We can also consider draftification or redirecting it to relevant targets like NCP (SP) or 2024 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election. Let’s me know your opinions. GrabUp - Talk 18:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Liam Payne

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

Feels like WP:NOTNEWS to me. While Liam Payne was famous, he wasn't famous to the degree that Elvis Presley, Kurt Cobain or Michael Jackson were that it would feel like having a separate page solely dedicated to his death would be warranted. What seems to me to be a good comparison would be the death of Matthew Perry , which nobody has decided warrants a standalone article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of knowledge, and a lot of the detail in this article feels superflous. At 3,700 words currently, Liam Payne's article is also considerably below the 8,000 word limit where looking to split the article would be warranted, so I would support the selective merging of the content of this article back into that one. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, Crime, and Argentina. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively as the Payne article is not too long to do this. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but the storied drug-related deaths of Keith Moon and Brian Jones don't have their own articles, heck, not even Elvis. I had a discussion on ITN about the unusualness of accidental deaths of musicians compared to murders, and I'm pretty sure that murder is about the only way that the death of a musician can truly take on a phenomenon of its own away from the artist. Unknown Temptation (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively to Liam Payne, in agreement with the nominator and previous voter. His recent death was indeed tragic for his fans, but this article is unfortunately leaning toward some obsessive and unhealthy trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 19:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Neeley

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

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [1][2]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this the same person: [3]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [4], [5], [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. Maddie Sofia (January 14, 2020). "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave" (Podcast). NPR. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
2. ~~Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.~~
3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
5. Sirois, Cheri (April 25, 2024). "Creating connections when we talk about science". Cell (Interview). 187 (9). Cell Press: 2120–2123. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.043. (added to list Oct 21)
Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bpuddin, what is the secondary independent coverage that is in that interview? GNG requires multiple SIGCOV IRS sources, so even a single SIGCOV source (the NPR interviews count as one source) would not be sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/update: I've struck the Science blogging book ref in my list for notability above as it is a primary source. I was reading sentences in a Google link to the book that mislead me into thinking there was a section about Neeley - once I got ahold of the book I realized there was no secondary coverage. Regarding the other three references, the NPR ones could be considered one source as they both refer to the Short Wave podcast. By my reading of WP:INTERVIEWS#Notability, I believe they provide significant coverage as the host does synthesis of Neeley's background and credentials and presents it in her own words, thereby making it secondary coverage. As noted above, there is some coverage of Neeley in the WaPo reference - more than passing mention but it could argued not significant coverage. Also added another reference to article I found in the journal Cell which is also an interview but has a mix of primary/secondary coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview definitely does not have "a mix of primary/secondary coverage" -- the only secondary coverage is less than a sentence in the intro: science communicator Liz Neeley, founding partner of Liminal and cofounder of Solving for Science. That's nowhere near SIGCOV...

I also just noticed that the WaPo article is an opinion piece, which is explicitly disallowed from counting towards notability as it's a primary source.

So even if either of the NPR interviews contained IRS SIGCOV (which they do not), we would still need multiple sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the WaPo piece is not an opinion piece by Neeley (which would be primary), but she and her work are cited and discussed within it to support the Auchenbach's commentary. (In full, it's an excerpt from a National Geographic feature story "The Age of Disbelief" (March 2015), though most of the Neeley quote and commentary there is as it is in the Post piece.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, opinion pieces are considered primary regardless of what they're covering or who they're by. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Except based on the content, the Auchenbach piece isn't an opinion piece. It's from 2015 when the current "Opinions" section was called "Outlook" and ran book reviews, along with opinion pieces, commentary, and analysis. This piece, despite the current "Opinion" label from the Post's website, is clearly secondary in nature, providing analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of research into the ways people process (and deny) scientific evidence. Neeley is quoted and her work referenced as part of that. If the Post's opinion label on an excerpt makes it primary in your mind, then look to the original article: Achenbach, Joel (March 2015) "The Age of Disbelief", National Geographic, 277(3):30–47... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I said the source was to too far from SIGCOV to count towards GNG even before seeing it was labeled an opinion piece, so this doesn't change anything for me. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Cell interview is in a reliable source and shows a depth of preparation by the interviewer. In the opening the interviewer notes: You trained in marine biology and conservation, but you also have wide experience in communicating a range of ideas, from neuroscience to the COVID-19 pandemic. From there the interviewer notes the subject's “theory and practice of sensemaking" and asks her to expand on it in the context of telling complicated science-themed stories. The proceeding questions ask the subject to unpack how to write for a general audience and differences between technical writing versus scientific storytelling. The interviewer is synthesizing what the subject says, which I consider secondary, before proceeding on to the next question. Nnev66 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interviewer just says You’ve said in the past that you’re focused on the “theory and practice of sensemaking.” That has zero secondary content, it's just repeating what the subject has said about themselves. None of the subsequent questions have anything more than that.

Interviewer questions that suggest a "depth of preparation" are still not coverage unless they actually contain secondary analysis of the subject. Otherwise every interview with a couple pointed questions would be considered SIGCOV. And someone's live reactions to another person's statements are exactly what our policy on primary encompasses: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied [...] They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." The interviewer is a participant in the interview. This is consistent with longstanding practical consensus on interviews at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources are perhaps reliable enough to support the claims in the article, but none of them contributes to WP:GNG; they are not simultaneously in-depth, independent, and reliably published. Among Nnev's selection, the first NPR link and Cell are interviews (most content non-independent). The crossed-off book source is a chapter by the subject about self-promotion (a bit of a red flag). The second NPR link and the WaPo piece name-drop her for some quotes but have no depth of coverage about her. And I didn't see much else. That leaves WP:PROF#C1, and her citation record [7], where she was a minor coauthor in a middle position on one well-cited publication on a subject totally unrelated to her science communication work. I don't think we can base an article, especially this article, on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a no consensus, which is still my read, but following a request I have decided to relist it because consensus is preferable to kicking this down the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gene Robinson (disambiguation)

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

This is a procedural nomination by which the venue of the discussion that began at Miscellany for deletion is moved to AfD as the correct venue. At the time of my creating this AfD discussion, I have not expressed any advocacy or opinion on the matter. The MfD discussion is quoted below, including the real nomination and a single !vote:

Only one topic besides primary topic. There needs to be at least two non-primary topics per MOS:DAB.— Preceding unsigned comment added by GilaMonster536 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Weak Delete I suppose. Keep I guess. I dunno. I'm on the borderline because some tiny but non-zero number of readers will be looking for a Eugene Robinson or Jean Robinson I suppose, and that's too many to go into the Bishop's hatnote, so pointing to a disambig page serves them, otherwise they will not find a link to their desired article, possibly. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
— Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Gene Robinson (disambiguation)

—Alalch E. 17:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changed my mind... to expound... first of all, IMO "Gene E. Robinson" should be moved to "Gene Robinson (entymologist)". That as my opinion as people called him "Gene Robinson" without the E. I think, and I'm not a fan of the middle-initial thing when you could use paranthetical disambiguation which tells what the article is about. But either way, whatever, that is not the question here. The question is, are we going to:

Keep the bishop's hatnote as it is (pointing just to the entymologist).
Have the bishops's hatnote point to the entymologist, to Jean, and to the Eugene disambig page.
Keep the disambig page and have the bishop's hatnote point to just it.

Well... #1 gives the reader no chance to find their article if they are indeed looking for Jean or Eugene (rare but non-zero). #2 is a bit long with three entries, that last two being rare. #3 seems to fit the situation best. It is a matter of opinion, and that is mine. Herostratus (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. —Alalch E. 17:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conor D. McGuinness

AfDs for this article:

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

Already deleted three years ago at a previous AfD. Given the source retrieval dates, and the fact that the same person created the article, it is likely that most of them are the same sources that were already considered previously.

The only main difference (and the reason why this isn't a WP:G4) is the fact that he declared his candidacy for the general election, although that in itself doesn't confer notability. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ireland. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hustwit

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

WP:BLP of a composer and record producer, not properly sourced as having a strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and must meet certain specific criteria to qualify for inclusion -- but the only notability claim being attempted here is that his work exists, and the article is referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability -- mainly his work metaverifying its own existence on the self-published websites of organizations or companies that were directly affiliated with it, but also IMDb -- there's not even one piece of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about him in an independent third-party source shown at all, and absolutely nothing reliable or GNG-worthy turned up on a Google search either.
Also, I strongly suspect conflict of interest, as the article was first created by a WP:SPA who created this as their first-ever Wikipedia edit and then disappeared until coming back four years later to "update" it, and has never edited any other pages on Wikipedia at all.
As his career goes back more than a decade, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with better access than I've got to archives of British media coverage that might not have Googled can find more than I was able to, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to pass GNG on better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Janney, Indiana

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

Appears to be a rail point on a now-abandoned C&O line. A county history doesn't mention it, and there's nothing significant there. Mangoe (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best coverage I could find on the town was [8], but that alone isn't sufficient for notability. Maybe could be merged to an article on the rail line, but not sure how those are typically written. Other clippings: [9]. Not totally sure there aren't better sources, so this is a provisional delete. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jiangkedong railway station

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

No refs on the page for many years. I'm not seeing much which would appear to show that the topic meets the inclusion criteria. JMWt (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and China. JMWt (talk) 15:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
also to add - the account of the creator of the page was indefinitely blocked with the reason that it appeared to be a bot which was rapidly creating articles. JMWt (talk) 15:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Priyamvad

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

Doesn't seem to be notable. I'm unable to find any coverage. Fails WP:BIO. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Literature, Poetry, and India. --Ratekreel (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratekreel, When you nominated the article, at that time only two references were there in the article. Now number of references are 10+. All references are from national newspapers or books or authenticated government websites. Author have written many books, all can not be listed in the article. Two stories are base for two different bollywood films. Some work by the author is translated in multiple languages by well known authors and translators. Looking at these things, article should not be deleted. There are some research articles which are clearly comparing author's work with Premchand, which is also like an award for Hindi writers. ☆★Sanjeev Kumar (talk) 09:04, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a made up in one day award for a writer who has gotten coverage - but in unreliable sources. The India Times was once a good source, but now it’s deprecated. The added sources are a wall of puffery. Bearian (talk) 15:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asoz Rashid

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted at AfD, and all sources given date from before the last AfD, so no indication that he became more notable in the meanwhile. Same issue as before, with the sources primarily being about iQ Group rather than the CEO himself. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iraq. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

James Drummond Anderson (1886–1968)

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

No refs on the page for many years. I haven't been able to WP:V the facts on the page and not seen much to suggest that this colonial administrator meets the notability standards for inclusion. I would be interested to hear what others can find. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and India. JMWt (talk) 13:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People) Tesleemah (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Usman

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

The BLP was created in the main namespace and later draftified by Maliner. The creator then submitted it for review, but later unilaterally moved the BLP back to the main namespace, to avoid AFC review process. So I feel compelled to take this to AFD so the community can decide whether it should remain or be deleted. IMO, it fails both GNG and NAUTHOR, as none of the works are notable enough. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed per nom. Clearly fails GNG and NAUTHOR Wikibear47 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Likely to be contested, so let's get a more firm outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Although I couldn't find sources providing significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV, I did come across some sources that support the subject's notability, though not conclusively. These include 1, 2, 3, 4, and ~~mentioned~~ featured in BCC Urdu's poetic collection here. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TheBirdsShedTears, Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep : Some links like Dawn and The News seems authentic.--Gul Butt (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Gul Butt, What do you mean by "authentic" ? The News coverage is an opinion piece while Dawn coverage isn't considered a SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xiao-i

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

does not clearly demonstrate the company's notability through significant independent sources, which is a key requirement for Wikipedia. Much of the information appears to rely on primary or promotional sources, lacking in-depth third-party coverage that would confirm its broader impact or importance. Additionally, the article may contain promotional language, which violates Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 12:14, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Farley (manners expert)

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

None of the references provide anything close to in-depth, independent, secondary coverage about Farley. Yes he has appeard on TV and has written for or been quoted in newspapers, but that's not what WP:NBIO calls for. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Social science. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Large portions of text without any references/sources. Mlody1312 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I am the subject of this article and absolutely appreciate the importance of adhering to Wikipedia’s standards for verifiability, notability, and neutrality.

I am consistently consulted and featured on national and local American television networks; global television outlets; radio stations; in newspapers; magazines; and on podcasts on all aspects of modern manners and contemporary, societal etiquette. I began this work in 2000 and for more than two decades now, my name, likeness and commentary appear with regular frequency in outlets that are broadcast to millions of viewers and listeners.

I only learned of this deletion discussion after being approached by several external parties offering paid services to influence the outcome. I have ignored those emails, choosing instead to engage with the community here, according to Wikipedia’s established guidelines.

For those who have legitimate concerns about the page as it stands, I do hope the community can offer further specific guidance on how the article can be improved—and what my role in that improvement would correctly be.

In my research for how to weigh in appropriately on this discussion, one of the things that has impressed me most is the community’s sincere focus on being respectful of others. In that spirit, I truly appreciate your consideration and welcome your assistance to bolster the page in ways you deem necessary.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

[Thomas Farley, Mister Manners] 12.157.19.205 (talk) 06:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's difficult to sort through the fluff here given how often Farley himself appears as a writer, but obviously those sources don't meet WP:INDEPENDENT. I was not able to find any significant coverage of Farley himself so I'd lean delete unless some can be produced. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 16:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Life Insurance Association

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

No significant coverage; I managed to find occasional trivial mentions only. 美しい歌 (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; lot of coverage in Korean. [10][11][12][13][14][15] and much more. If you haven't, please try searching in the native language of articles before nominating for deletion seefooddiet (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless substantive independent coverage is found, in which case I'll reconsider my vote. Based on a google translate review of the sources identified above:

https://www.hankyung.com/article/2024080159261 - announcement of video series, reads like a press release
https://news.nate.com/view/20240801n33291 - slightly longer announcement of video series, reads like a press release
https://daily.hankooki.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1056990 recitation of corporate changes, company's logo at the top of the article, seems like a regurgitation of a press release
https://www.womaneconomy.co.kr/news/articleView.html?idxno=223463 - article isn't really about the KLIA but briefly discusses a report they wrote
https://www.hankyung.com/article/2024080159261 - announcement of video series, reads like a press release
https://www.hankyung.com/article/202311132361i corporate announcement, seems like a regurgitation of a press release

I'm all in on the message that people should be capable of doing native language searches, but what turns up has to qualify for notability and in my opinion none of these sources meet the requirements of SIRS. Oblivy (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 11:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the Real

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

No refs on the page for 4 years. Nothing much found which would count towards the WP:GNG JMWt (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. JMWt (talk) 09:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Air America (radio network): Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 16:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Implant bars

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

No refs on the page for many years. Not clear whether this is a notable sub from dentures and not much found in independent third party sources outwith of commercial marketing JMWt (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Freenet (Central Asia)

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

No refs on the page, little independent third party sources found to show notability per WP:GNG. There seems to be more about the Internet Access and Training Program but that's unreferenced too and I'm not sure it could be shown to be notable either. This topic in particular appears to be a short lived programme of the US government with unknown ongoing importance. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. JMWt (talk) 09:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KidzSearch

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

Fails WP:INHERENTWEB. Almost all references are the website being described. No reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage. The website hasn't attracted notice. It has received very little attention from independent sources. Mlody1312 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlody1312 (talk • contribs)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:12, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Agreed this subject has had little or no lasting impact. Searching for references to it via Google, there are few results and mostly just a paragraph in articles listing kid-safe search engines. Rather than delete outright, maybe redirect to Internet filter. I think there could be scope for a generic article on safe search, distinct from SafeSearch which is about the feature built into Google Search. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This somewhat malformed-named nomination is ostensibly a redundant nomination to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/KidzSearch, but it's this one that is linked from the article and has attracted a legitimate comment. This may require administrative help to fix; any NAC would now split the discussion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for that. However, when I added a notice box at the top of the article, the phrase "the deletion discussion" was lighted in red, which meant that the notice box was not linked to the deletion discussion. So how should they be linked? Mlody1312 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to copy and paste my comment to the correct location. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biratnagar Kings

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

Teams that compete in a barely notable tournament, so don't need separate team articles. One team from the NPL was already redirected after AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pokhara Avengers- though editors keep reverting that redirect against consensus)- and the same non notability applies to these other NPL teams. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating other NPL team:

Keep: This team already participated in the Dhangadi Premier League and have many coverage article about it in Nepal.Godknowme1 (talk) 13:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pokhara Avengers

AfDs for this article:

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

Repeatedly recreated over the redirect, but as per the last AFD, this team isn't notable enough for a separate article, even though the page has been updated some more. I propose restore the redirect and WP:SALT it. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Cricket, and Nepal. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy deleted‎ by Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arthoba Nayaka

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

Not meeting Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 美しい歌 (talk) 08:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Tagged under criterion G11 since the page is clearly promotional. CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:32, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

KidzSearch

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

Fails WP:INHERENTWEB. Almost all references are the website being described. No reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage. The website hasn't attracted notice. It has received very little attention from independent sources. Mlody1312 (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Websites — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mlody1312 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by MeTV Toons

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

Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. Fram (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or delete other articles First, note on the reason this article was created. The material in this article was transferred from MeTV Toons, which made the article as noted "too long to comfortably read the main article". This article/list is not any different from others on Wikipedia. It contains references provided by other editors for verification. This article is directly the same as others under the category: Lists_of_television_series_by_network. Please visit this category to confirm. If we limit articles/lists to original programming and not list rerun programs, we will need to delete a lot of articles/lists such as ION or Antenna TV for example. Thus, what do we consider as "notable"?. This is not the only channel that is currently listed on Wikipedia as per quote "Channel with 99% reruns of older series, their programming lacks notability." Msw1002 (talk) 19:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masayoshi Takayanagi

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

Huge failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played a couple of football matches. No usable sources in ja:wiki, is it apparent for everyone that they are exclusively WP:PRIMARY (or too short, as #1). Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:46, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nada Zeidan

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

Fails WP:BIO, reads like promotional material, most sources are either broken or unreliable 'socialite' content. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 07:23, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ario Nahavandi

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

I'm not seeing third party SIGCOV, probably not enough here for WP:NBIO. KH-1 (talk) 05:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Iran, and England. Skynxnex (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shreeraj Kurup

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

Fails to meet WP:SIGCOV and so unable to satisfy WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Poetry, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't even find three articles that were reliable (WP:RS) and had significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 09:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability of musicians, No awards nor significant honour

Tesleemah (talk) 13:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research on tornadoes in 2024

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

This is a niche topic that fails WP:N and is likely WP:LISTCRUFT. Nothing is inherently notable about routine tornado research that requires a Wikipedia article to be written about it. United States Man (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge — Several RS articles written about tornadic research this year: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Several lists are similar to this one including 2024 in climate change. Key to note, this article is a split from a parent article, History of tornado research. The 2024 article is nearly half the size of the parent article. So no matter what, deletion should never have been proposed, given it is a split-off article from the parent article…a merge proposal would have been better either into the parent history article or Tornadoes of 2024, which has a research section linking to this article as the “main”. That said, I think it has clearly enough RS and peer-reviewed secondary sources to back up notability. If consensus was falling more in line with a merge or deletion, I would support a merge over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article looks like someone typed "tornado" into Web of Science, with "2024" as the publication year, and wrote a brief summary of the abstract of every single paper that came up. Completely indiscriminate collection of routine, incremental research findings that nowhere is discussed in the aggregate as a particularly notable topic. As for it being spun off from History of tornado research, it never should have been put in that article in the first place. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the world's knowledge, not archive the world's press releases and abstracts. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~: WP:LISTCRUFT.

On second thought, I wouldn't mind a merge. Sir MemeGod  13:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least I would support a merge into History of tornado research#2024. Procyon117 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:WeatherWriter. I see no net benefit for the encyclopedia by deleting it. It could be trimmed and organized a bit, perhaps.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. 2024 at least deserves a section on History of tornado research. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are very different opinions on what should happen with this article and its content so I'm giving this discussion more time in hopes of achieving a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to History of tornado research. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to History of tornado research. This article meets at least two criteria for WP:LISTCRUFT (#1 and #2). At best, it can be trimmed and some of the information merged into the other article. Keeping it would invite an article for 2025 and 2026 and 2027 ad infinitum. Such articles are not needed as WP:STANDALONE - expanding the original article will be enough. DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As copyeditor, this article seems really useful to some (also per WeatherWriter). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still isn't a clear outcome from this discussion as of yet. I'm relisting this for perhaps more input into this discussion and a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: An abridged version of this article should be included in History of tornado research. SirBrahms (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jyotirvidya Parisanstha

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

Subject does not establish notability. Sections devoid of information. Poorly written. Written in a non-formal and non-neutral way. Sushidude21! (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as the subject is plausibly notable. See here. Marathi sources (that I can’t access) may also be available. Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Astronomy, and Maharashtra. Skynxnex (talk) 17:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Souls (video game)

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

A draft that was copy and pasted back into mainspace (so, it's been objected to). A PROD would also likely be objected to. A WP:BEFORE brings up another game. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 04:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find any reliable, published sources documenting the existence of this game. The best I can find is a random TV Tropes article (as you probably know, TV Tropes has far less strict policies on "notability" than Wikipedia).

Fails WP:V and WP:N. ApexParagon (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no notability. Seems like it has a tiny insular group of fans, and has made no impact outside that group. ApLundell (talk) 05:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI There is an unrelated board game with the same name. ApLundell (talk) 05:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the article was published before too the same day but I moved it to a draft as it had no sources and to give the creator of the article time to establish if it has potential merit, however I haven't seen any other sources confirming its a game notable of having a page and as he re-published it I simply don't see any arguments for keeping this article. BastianMAT (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of meeting the GNG, seemingly created by a WP:SPA. Sergecross73 msg me 14:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Egyptian bus accident

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

Lacks sustained coverage and had no lasting effects. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Egypt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good grief. Fails everything from WP:GNG to WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS and all points inbetween. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 55 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS: Whilst tragic, with the casualty count being high, significant or in-depth sustained continued coverage of the event seems to be lacking along with demonstrable lasting effects. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event also lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a horrific thing to contemplate that a road accident killing 55 anywhere in the world wouldn't be notable. We've got little to go on, there are news reports but little ongoing coverage. That said, I don't read Arabic, it seems likely that there would be sustained non-English coverage. I'm going to say unsure in that I would hope that there was more than I'm seeing. JMWt (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete – (Revised vote) – Borderline in my opinion. I've found some "detailed" coverage dating back to 2008 plus one in 2013, however, the lack of actual sustained continued coverage post-2009, and the lack of demonstrable lasting effects are enough for me to vote delete, albeit a weak one. Sources found:^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "كارثة جديدة تتعرض لها مصر" [A new disaster is facing Egypt]. Al Fajr (in Arabic). Turess. 17 December 2008. Archived from the original on 25 July 2013. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
^ "مصرع 46 مصريا بعد انقلاب حافلة في قناة مائية" [46 Egyptians killed after bus overturns in canal] (in Arabic). Al-Quds Al-Arabi. Agence France-Presse. 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
^ "النائب العام يأمر بمحاكمة المتهمين فى انقلاب أتوبيس الصعيد الأحد القادم" [The Attorney General orders the trial of the accused in the Upper Egypt bus accident next Sunday]. El-Bashayer (in Arabic). 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.
^ Ghaffar, Minya (2 October 2013). "أهالى المنيا يطالبون بإسناد طريق "مصر- أسوان" الزراعى للقوات المسلحة" [Minya residents demand that the "Egypt-Aswan" agricultural road be assigned to the armed forces]. Youm7 (in Arabic). Retrieved 19 October 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The article obviously needs some work, but could meet criteria if sufficiently sourced and expanded. SirBrahms (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Islamophobic incidents

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

Since I nominated List of antisemitic incidents in the United States I should nominate this too, since it has the exact same problems.

Extremely, extremely broad and vague scope, with barely any quality control. Making this list anywhere close to comprehensive coverage of its baffling scope would be impossible, and would mostly contain low level news stories (as it does). If this was going to be a selection of notable pages (and changing it to that would require deleting 99% of the list) maybe, but the problem is in the title still: "Incident". Incident is so broad as to be useless, it can be anywhere from a terrorist attack to someone calling someone a mean word on the bus, this is a completely un manageable scope. Anti-Muslim terror acts or hate crimes targeted at mosques would likely meet NLIST, and if there is consensus to rescope to that we can, but that would also require nuking most of the page. Also, weasel words: "could be considered Islamophobic"? What? Also has WP:BLPCRIME concerns in that it accuses people of crimes without convictions. It also has WP:NOTNEWS issues, which is not inherently a problem for a list, but is a problem when it's based on an inherently POV and negative concept and one with a scope as vague and with as many possible entries as "incident" PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Islam, and Lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The list should be rescoped to only contain notable events with broad coverage. It may also be viable to rename it to something like "List of Islamophobic terror attacks" or "List of Islamophobic hate crimes", depending on the new scope. I don't think outright deleting the page would be productive. Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 07:39, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: I don't know why you are doing this. But this list is super-duper notable. Lots of references are added to the article. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 13:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Is currently on the main page (non-admin closure) NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 03:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times Simulator

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

I could find only one secondary source - https://www.niemanlab.org/2024/04/a-new-game-parodies-the-new-york-times-gaza-coverage/ - and even this would probably not be a conventional WP:RS. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Games. Fiachra10003 (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep article is currently on the front page and 1 2 3 are RS secondary sources per Wikiproject video games 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 03:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

JoonYong Park

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject seems to fail WP:GNG. Very little coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Mostly primary sources... press releases, a few interviews which per WP:INTERVIEWS would be primary sources, and the one small independent secondary source (the AdAge piece, ref #1 and #7) is the same piece just republished. WP:BEFORE search just shows more primary sources, social media, LinkedIn posts, etc. RachelTensions (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 03:06, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, South Korea, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rudy Takala

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

Article does not provide any indication of notability per WP:GNG, WP:NPOL, or WP:NAUTHOR. He ran for state legislature but did not win, and the sources are links to things he wrote, rather than articles about him. I am unable to find significant coverage of him from a Google search. ... discospinster _talk 02:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Minnesota. ... discospinster _talk 02:43, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'd have to say. As OP said, all those many refs are stuff by him. Not notable enough. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. No independent coverage of Takala himself outside of a few mentions in small local newspapers like this. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 03:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Journalism, Conservatism, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:38, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:POLITICIAN. Local party worker and commentator in his youth. No indication he ever held office other than within his own local party affiliations. — Maile (talk) 13:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The statement "Takala was elected chairman of Minnesota's Pine County Republicans at the age of 18. He was re-elected in 2009 with 60% of the vote, and again in 2011" looks promising except that it is without citation. Subject does not meet the notability of a politician and it fails WP:GNG Tesleemah (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carroll (lottery winner)

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

Lack of any real notability, apart from having won the lottery and being a moron. Lack of citations makes this even worse, as there's hardly anything to say about this guy. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is a bit tricky because it does seem like there's a lot of "lasting" coverage, but most of it is just rehashing the same tabloid article going back many years and isn't quality. It seems like the only coverage in reliable sources is very clustered around his troubles with the law - I'd argue that if it's this, rather than the act of winning the lottery, that makes him notable, he fails WP:PERP. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:56, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only because it is shot thru with deprecatory bits... all true, all ref'd, but in the spirit of WP:BLP we don't want to do this, and you kind of can't delete all of it or you don't have an accurate article. If it wasn't for that, I'd probably say keep it. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject lacks significant coverage to meet WP:Notability (People). Even the lottery wins is uncited Tesleemah (talk) 13:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Men Who Lost China

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

Similar to the recently deleted article on The World Without US by the same filmmaker, no signs of significant coverage. The article's current sourcing is not independent or significant, and I could not find any signs of further coverage after an online search (given that the film has less than 100,000 views on YouTube, I doubt that coverage exists). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Film. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:59, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suppose... Either way is fine really. I think our de facto standard for films is "it exists (or did)". There are a number of film articles that have less than info than this in them I think. And the director is bluelinked... on the other hand, it looks like he shouldn't be. And it is only 52 minutes... not a short film, but is that long enough for a feature film? If it had a serious release in a serious number of commercial theaters I would probably change my mind. But there's no indication of that, and it seems doubtful. Herostratus (talk) 03:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Katongole-Mbidde

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

Fails WP:BIO. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is primary. Could not find significant coverage of this individual. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. This article establishes him as the only oncologist at the Uganda Cancer Institute in 2004. And is now director of the UVRI. Both of which have close relationships with other high standing research institutions (e.g. World Health Org). I would say this falls under WP:NACADEMIC#C5. He also received a lifetime recognition award at a scientific conference giving support to other NACADEMIC points. He also has decent citations on papers based on a quick glance, particularly for someone working in a smaller country. I'll see what else I can pull up for sources. Cyanochic (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SiniyaEdita (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JUSTAVOTE. LibStar (talk) 04:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:SiniyaEdita. Herostratus (talk) 03:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Siniya is WP:JUSTAVOTE. Your vote is just WP:PERX. LibStar (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centre FORA

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

Non-notable organization. BEFORE search leads to nothing, failing GNG and NORG. Kline • talk • contribs 00:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felo Barkere

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

there's nothing that mentions Felo Barkere and Baunez Ridge together that isn't Eric Gilbertson related/sourced. This location doesn't appear to meet WP:NGEO. Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Africa, and Senegal. Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Bikku Bitti have used peakbagger and summitpost blogs as a source, so what's the difference with this article? Any highest point of a sovereign nation should have its article on Wikipedia or at least be mentioned. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people like Eric or Ginge are the only source of information on peaks like this. Allowing one highpointer's firsthand information (like Ginge on Bikku Bitti) but not allowing Eric's on Felo Barkere seems strange and inconsistent by WP policy. Also, peakbagger has extensively been used as a source for minor mountains (which Felo Barkere would fall under), so what is the sudden change against this? Also, peaks promoted to the main database on peakbagger are looked over and verified by administrators, so some "child sitting on his dad's shoulder" won't be messing up the measurement by 5-6 feet on a peak in the main database as much of the data comes from professionally done surveys. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing up Bikku Bitti. I've cleared out totally unacceptable low quality diary/blog, which appears to have been added over a decade ago. As you look at different articles, you will sometimes find articles written over a decade ago that is chock full of complete trash and ad articles that look like a press release written entirely off of company site. On less lower traffic article that sort of things tend to happen. When you find contents written based on personal website, first see if the site cites a reliable source that meets WP:RS standards. If it does, replace it with that source. If not, I personally encourage removing contents based on some anecdotal evidence. Pruning low quality information is part of improving Wikipedia. If there's trash all over both sides of the road and someone cleans up one side, you can go ahead and clean the other side. Graywalls (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and by delete I probably mean redirect somewhere. I think I'm very permissive when it comes to geographical place names, but I don't see anything here which passes WP:NGEO's permissive rule of provided information beyond statistics and coordinates is known to exist. The only other Wikipedia which even mentions it that I could find is Czech, which calls it "nameless hill." It's clearly more than a hill, but I can't find anything to add to the article. SportingFlyer T·C 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe redirect to Geography of Senegal#Physical features, which can have a mention of Felo Barkere / Baunez Ridge? KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point us to just one reliably published secondary source linking the term "Felo Barkere" to Senegal or Baunez Ridge? I did find Worldatlas linking Baunez Ridge to Senegal as the highest point. Without a reliable source linking "Felo Barkere" to these, it would be inappropriate to re-direct this to Senegal, as it is to re-direct this to say... elephant or zebra. Graywalls (talk) 04:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to allow time to find a RS to justify the redirect
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. CIA Factbook [40] says the highest point in Senegal is unamed so conflicting with "Felo Barkere". Barkere is apparently a village in Guinea so it's questionable the peak has this name in Senegal. This website just calls it "Senegal High Point" [41] and is 10 metres higher than stated in the article. Agree with the nominator's comments and reasoning. As it stands there's basically a single source for this name, so notability not established and it would be wrong to redirect to the Geography of Senegal page under this article's title. So, unless further reliable sources found to back up Felo Barkere, I'm inclined to delete. Rupples (talk) 03:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not seeing a way to WP:V so it doesn't feel like there is an ATD. Maybe sources exist in a format we can't access, so this might change in the future and the page can be resurrected. JMWt (talk) 19:21, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation for Education Support

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

There is no assertion of notability and while I do not read Russian, Google Translate accesses it with some ease and I'm unable to find N:ORG level coverage. I do not think a redirect to or merge with Gymnazium Union of Russia is viable as I'm not sure that would survive AfD either although the name makes a BEFORE more challenging. Star Mississippi 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Education, and Russia. Star Mississippi 01:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - without seeing significant third party reliable sources that show that the inclusion criteria have been met, I can't see how we can tell how important/significant this is. It has been reported but it seems to be only a small ripple in the media, and I'm not even sure how reliable those sources are. JMWt (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pentest-Tools

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

No WP:SUSTAINED establishment of notability with WP:RSes. Clearly promotional. Amigao (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Internet, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Delete: The sections Products, Awards and accolades, Services and Community contribution definitely have to be either rewritten (to avoid promotional material) or deleted outright. The rest of the article can be kept (especially if it can be unorphaned). Regards, SirBrahms (talk) 08:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SirBrahms, @everyone, Please help me with any suggestions to improve the page, i'm willing to improve it in order to follow Wikipedia's guidelines.Ionutzmovie (talk) 18:03, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft - I'm not seeing enough here to meet the GNG, although it might be close if there was more time to draft and improve with better sources. JMWt (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "كارثة جديدة تتعرض لها مصر" [A new disaster is facing Egypt]. Al Fajr (in Arabic). Turess. 17 December 2008. Archived from the original on 25 July 2013. Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[2] "مصرع 46 مصريا بعد انقلاب حافلة في قناة مائية" [46 Egyptians killed after bus overturns in canal] (in Arabic). Al-Quds Al-Arabi. Agence France-Presse. 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[3] "النائب العام يأمر بمحاكمة المتهمين فى انقلاب أتوبيس الصعيد الأحد القادم" [The Attorney General orders the trial of the accused in the Upper Egypt bus accident next Sunday]. El-Bashayer (in Arabic). 17 December 2008. Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[4] Ghaffar, Minya (2 October 2013). "أهالى المنيا يطالبون بإسناد طريق "مصر- أسوان" الزراعى للقوات المسلحة" [Minya residents demand that the "Egypt-Aswan" agricultural road be assigned to the armed forces]. Youm7 (in Arabic). Retrieved 19 October 2024.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]