Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

4 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 03	October 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Flow (software)

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

I couldn't find sources to add confirming that this meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Software. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Refugee lens investing

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

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of notability under GNG or SNG. A vague term invented by a company for something that it does. The references have a bit on the company (most of them just passing along self-published material) and the leader, but there is no coverage much less the required in-depth coverage on what this actual is. As result the article is just vague arm waving and related platitude about refugees without even cover covering the putative topic North8000 (talk) 18:24, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whats your plan to get it delete. There is quite heavy block of academic references on it. I reviwed it and thought the chances of deletion were slim. scope_creep^Talk 20:31, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This neologism was coined by John Kluge Jr. and Tim Docking of the Refugee Investment Network in a Stanford Social Innovation Review article and it does not appear to have gotten independent, reliable source coverage since. The Rockefeller Foundation report was coauthored by Kluge and co-published by his organization. A World Bank report on the topic was peer-reviewed by Tim Docking (see page 6), which calls its independence into question. The Bloomberg piece (viewed via the WP Library) and the EuroMoney article are WP:INTERVIEWs and thus not independent. The Forbes piece is a "Forbes contributor" source and thus unreliable. The citation to the Robin Wilson book appears to be an attempt at WP:SYNTH as the source does not mention refugee lens investing, Kluge, or the RIN at all. The MarketLinks blog post is essentially a primary source, since it is published by the host of an event that highlighted the Refugee Investment Network on a panel. If anyone turns up other coverage, happy to reconsider my assessment, just ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chase Alisauckas

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this American football player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 18:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Low-level college and indoor football player. Fails GNG. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Pereiro Lage

AfDs for this article:

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

This article -- a biography of a businessman who fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO -- has now been twice recreated. (Its first creation was by a now-indeffed editor; its second creation after a PROD was by the current page creator, who requested speedy deletion under G7 after I nominated it for deletion.) The sources are all WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in the context of his company or WP:PRIMARYSOURCES; there's no WP:SIGCOV in reliable, independent sources. This version includes a claim in the infobox that he was a member of the Spanish Congress of Deputies. Interestingly, none of the sources verify that, and he does not appear in Wikipedia's list of members of the 12th_Congress_of_Deputies. To combination of his names appears on the Congress's website, nor do any other links on on the web confirm this statement. Even Pereiro Lage's own webpage makes no reference to being a deputy. (If anyone can provide reliable source evidence that he was indeed a member of the Deputies I will withdraw this nomination under WP:NPOL. Until then, there's still no evidence of notability.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Spain. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1980 Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection

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

I don’t understand why this page exists. Every other vice presidential candidate selection article pertains to the party’s presumptive nominee, and in 1980 Jimmy Carter comfortably won the Democratic nomination again there was no selection process for his running mate with VP Walter Mondale being selected again. This article primarily pertains to Ted Kennedy’s selection of a running mate, who was not his party’s presumptive nominee. Most of this information is already covered in Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign. Essentially, the Democratic Party in 1980 was Carter, not Kennedy. Shivertimbers433 (talk) 17:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 18:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As stated, there was no legitimate "selection" process for the Democratic Party VP nominee in this election, and virtually all of the relevant info is already covered in another article. No valid reason for this to exist as a standalone page. Sal2100 (talk) 19:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The folks in the gallery are listed at Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign#August and the actual vote is at 1980 Democratic National Convention#Vice president. This is pointless and duplicative. Reywas92^Talk 19:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Cubbard

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

Local councillors, even those who become mayor, are not presumed to be notable. Cubbard doesn't have significant press coverage to qualify under WP:POLITICIAN; a Google search finds only coverage in local media, mostly related to the fact of his candidacy. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project Sora

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

Repeatedly contested WP:BLAR. Insufficient information is available to warrant a standalone article as per WP:GNG. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Not sure an AfD was necessary, this just seems like a WP:NOTHERE IP's attempt to edit war. The studio isn't standalone notable, lacking SIGCOV in reliable sources. Even if it was, there would be too much WP:OVERLAP with Kid Icarus: Uprising to justify a page. They were essentially just its dev team. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Nothing in this article indicates that they are notable enough for a standalone article and is an unnecessary WP:REDUNDANTFORK. cyberdog958^Talk 18:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sora Ltd.

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

Repeatedly contested WP:BLAR. Insufficient information is available to warrant a standalone article as per WP:GNG. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, and Japan. Jalen Barks (Woof) 16:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect Too inextricably tied with Sakurai to justify a standalone article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Global Securities Lending

AfDs for this article:

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

Not able to find anything on 2i Media, GSL, Jon Hewson and Mark Latham apart from PR articles Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Finance. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Number Six

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

A trivial, ephermeral, People-Magazoid piece of mung. Qwirkle (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#6. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hold and pause on discussion per WP:SK#6. Once it is taken off (approximately 7 hours, or at 8 PM EDT), then we can discuss deletion. But not now. Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 16:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I think we can do better with deletion arguments than "trivial, ephermeral [...] piece of mung". Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist 8000 16:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A Google search finds sources such as the New York Times, Wired and USA Today. Jannaultheal (talk) 17:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[If this AfD is speedy-kept and the article is re-AfD'd after midnight, please copy this comment to the next.]
I agree there's a serious problem with this article: While we do cite in-depth coverage from high-quality sources Vanity Fair, Wired, The A.V. Club, USA Today and The New York Times, in addition to two less prestigious but still entirely reliable sources from three years ago (ephemeral indeed), we still haven't gotten around to updating it for all the other reliable-source reporting that's emerged. There's still The Wall Street Journal to add [1]^PQ, and El País [2], and Complex [3], and maybe this Slate podcast [4] (haven't listened yet). These add both missing facts and important analysis about the social implications of the search and its resolution. I'll be sure to add them all in when I next have time to expand this.
I can't find any coverage in People magazine, though. I guess they avoid covering the same things as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 17:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SK#6 and Tamzin's references. This AfD reminds me of the successful Where is Kate? AfD, but I also !voted keep there, too. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#6, WP:GNG and others. - Sebbog13 (talk) 18:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

this actually seems interesting, and might assist in possible research SAMURAI-OF-BISEXUALITY 19:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China Milan Equity Exchange

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

No establishment of notability and no cites at all. Looks rather promo. Amigao (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Economics, China, and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulugʻbek Shodibekov

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

Not notable either per WP:NACTOR or WP:SINGER. An earlier version of the article falsely claimed that he has received the State Nihol Award. It's not a state award, nor does the cited (and unreliable) source mention anything about any award. Furthermore, the sources cited in the entry entirely lack WP:RELIABILITY.

Kun: an interview with the subject of the entry.
Malumot: a Wordpress blog (with an incorrectly spelled name).
Savol-javob: another a Wordpress blog with no credible standing.
Daryo: another interview with the subject of the article.
Uzmedia: a highly unreliable entertainment blog.

Lastly, it is worth noting that his entry has also been proposed for deletion on the Uzbek Wikipedia. Nataev ^talk 15:50, 4 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, and Uzbekistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moorland railway station

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

Train stations are not automatically notable and must meet WP:GNG. Defunct station, no information on when it closed. No sources. Completely fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. AusLondonder (talk) 15:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

George Street tram stop

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

Train stations are not automatically notable and need to meet WP:GNG. This individual tram stop which is simply a raised piece of concrete where trams stop does not meet WP:GNG. Both sources are primary and do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and England. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, tricky one. I agree that "a raised piece of concrete" appears not to be notable. However I see from the Tramlink article that every stop on the system has a blue link. Are we proposing to delete all of these? I would also imagine that there are many railway stations (or "halts") around the world which have minimal infrastructure, but nevertheless have their own article. To give an example, the tram stops listed in List of Manx Electric Railway stations each have their own article, despite having minimal infrastructure and much less traffic than the Croydon Tramlink (and the Manx rolling stock being more flimsy than that in Croydon). Ehrenkater (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OSE. If you find other non-notable articles, please nominate them for deletion. Please assess this AfD on its own merits. If this AfD results in a consensus to delete/redirect then we can do that for other non-notable Croydon stops. AusLondonder (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Manx Electric Railway has been around a century longer than Tramlink, so there are plenty of books about the history of the system that are used as sources in the articles about it. I suspect it'll take a few more decades for Tramlink to be in that situation... Adam Sampson (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There was clear consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gravel Hill tram stop that notability of these stops should be discussed as a set, not by individual AfDs, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars#RfC: Notability and Tramlink stops that AfDs for individual stops were not a good use of editor time. I recommend you withdraw this AfD and work with editors from those past discussions to reach a conclusion about which (if any) articles should go to AfD, and batch them accordingly. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 16:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is absolutely extraordinary. No attempt to address the notability of this stop. We've been told by several editors from this topic area that some tram stops are notable and others are not. So there's no point taking a set to AfD. Now you're saying we can't take individual tram stops to AfD, either. Isn't that convenient? AusLondonder (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some stops being clearly notable does not mean you can't take others to AfD. All I am requesting is that you discuss with other editors to figure out which subset of the stops would make a reasonable AfD bundle(s), and then take that bundle(s) to AfD. For example, Church Street tram stop, Centrale tram stop, and Reeves Corner tram stop are all extremely similar to George Street tram stop. It would make far more sense to discuss their notability at the same time rather than in multiple AfDs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahbaz Khan's invasions of Mewar

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

Non-notable campaign. Only a POVFORK of Mughal conquest of Mewar, article was also created by a sockpuppet. Ratnahastin (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahsan Khalil

AfDs for this article:

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

I draftified this PROMO BLP because I don’t think it meets the NAUTHOR or even GNG. However, the creator of this BLP, who’s also a newbie and might have a COI, reverted my changes. So, I feel like my only option now is to nominate this BLP for deletion which relies on unreliable sources. Previously, it was created by our v. prolific sock master Nauman335 and deleted via AFD. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Kemerovo Let L-410UVP-E crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. 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 lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete per nom, non notable run of the mill incident. tragedy doesnt neccestate an article. Lolzer3k 14:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baduizm World Tour

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 September 27#Baduizm World Tour. C F A 💬 13:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 13:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Theodoros Veniamis

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

Being a wealthy shipping line owner does not in and of itself confer notability. Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Greece. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:35, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A lot of sources. Indicative, https://www.tradewindsnews.com/tag/theodore_veniamis, https://maritimes.gr/en/one-hundred-people-2019-32-theodore-veniamis/ Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 17:36, 21 September 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. There’s lots of sources, yet all save one is literally a listing. There’s nothing notable. Everyone in 2024 knows that we have notability standards. Bearian (talk) 00:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't check the sources I cited, otherwise you would have seen that none of them are lists. In fact, the first one is a CATEGORY of articles that include Veniamis. Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:11, 29 September 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 11:01, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep a category with articles that includes Veniamis in the most reliable maritime newspaper isn't enough? Well, Greek internet is full about Veniamis. See here here here and much much more... Pallikari ap' ta Sfakia 18:19, 29 September 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. ✗plicit 13:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

weak delete: Being on the "richest person list" isn't notable. I can find minimal coverage [5] and this [6]. Hardly enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chughtai Lab

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

Fails WP:NCORP - collaborations, partnerships coverage is not useful per WP:CORPTRIV. Gheus (talk) 10:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, COVID-19, and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is a very prominent lab within Pakistan. I think it should be tagged for a rewrite or something like that. Wikibear47 (talk) 01:42, 22 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Very notable and prominent lab in Pakistan. Also it already has 3 existing references from major newspapers of Pakistan. AfD forum is not for clean up. Frankly, getting tired of seeing this 'dismissive attitude' towards many legitimate references as 'promotional'...Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2029 United Nations Security Council election

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

Deleted in May via PROD, not eligible for CSD. Does not satisfy exemptions in WP:CRYSTAL. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, Politics, Africa, Asia, Europe, Oceania, South America, and North America. Goldsztajn (talk) 09:37, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is too soon, and I couldn't find anything notable about the upcoming elections that would warrant a separate article this far out. Dr vulpes (Talk) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Due to the insignificant coverage of this considering the fact this is in 2029 meaning information is bare, this article should be deleted.

See WP:CRYSTAL

Hildy Brooks

AfDs for this article:

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

She was in the original Broadway cast of Sweet Bird of Youth, but her TV and movie work is strictly routine, thus failing WP:NACTOR. (She does appear in an Al Hirschfeld caricature.) Clarityfiend (talk) 11:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notable, but needs editing. Original editor has not been active since 2015. I've added some External links at the bottom of the article, which are just a tip of the iceberg about what is out there on this actress. She certainly had a decent amount of acting background, but I didn't have time to research more, or clean up the article. — Maile (talk) 15:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Super Black Racing

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

Defunct and unsuccessful racing team that only competed for three seasons. The few citations are trivial & routine coverage of a sports team, failing NCORP. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Motorsport. Macktheknifeau (talk) 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:44, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrej Segeč

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2018 Winter Olympics#Cross-country skiing because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:24, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2025 China League One

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

This article isn't ready for mainspace and I believe it should be draftified until ready. It consists of mostly empty templates and only a couple of references. It was draftified soon after creation by User:Dan arndt but article creator User:Qby moved it back to mainspace almost immediately with limited improvement. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 10:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, Asia, and China. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 10:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft and SALT Until needed. Govvy (talk) 13:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Albania, The Hague

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

Fails WP:ORG. Only 1 primary source provided. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Albania, and Netherlands. LibStar (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Albania–North Macedonia football rivalry

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

This whole article is simply WP:OR and WP:POVFORK of other articles. The article does not even discuss any official rivalry between the Macedonian and Albanian teams but about incidents which have occurred between the fans of Macedonian and Albanian teams within North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 09:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Albania, and North Macedonia. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @StephenMacky1: You mentioned content fork, but didn't mention the articles you feel this is a fork of. There are long term geopolitical issues with these two countries and they do spill over into sport. The article is limited in it's scope and hasn't mentioned all the numerous issues, but there are always problems in the Balkans, [7]. I believe there is scope for an article with the issues regarding football rioting in the Bulkan states. However I am unsure about how much depth there is between Albania vs North Macedonia at international and club level football. This topic rivalry is a viable topic in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 13:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a content fork from the articles Anti-Albanian sentiment, Albania–North Macedonia relations and the Macedonian football teams' articles. I think the rivalries can be covered in their respective football teams' articles and some already are, I think. There are always problems but not every problem is notable to include. This is covered by WP:NOTNEWS too. Either way there is no source currently that discusses the rivalry between teams from Albania and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nabarup Jatiya Vidyapith

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

No references cited and lacks coverage to meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:SCH. Saurabh ^Talk? 08:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Assam. Saurabh ^Talk? 08:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Manchester bus route 263

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

Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greater Manchester bus route 8 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/West Midlands bus route 7 (2nd nomination), bus routes are not inherently notable, fails GNG. Bundling the following articles that are recently created with similar notability status.

Greater Manchester bus route 471
Greater Manchester bus route 368
Greater Manchester bus route 201
Greater Manchester bus route 203
Greater Manchester bus route 216
Greater Manchester bus route 11
Greater Manchester bus route 163
CAT5 Cheshire Cat
Greater Manchester bus route 100
Greater Manchester bus route 135
199 Skyline
Greater Manchester bus route 59
Greater Manchester bus route 18 (Stagecoach Manchester)
Greater Manchester bus route 8
Greater Manchester bus routes 36 • 37
Greater Manchester bus route 103
Greater Manchester bus route 330
Greater Manchester bus route X50 Justi yaya 08:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and United Kingdom. Justi yaya 08:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but weak keep for 135? - Wasn't a fan when these articles started being created, especially with some very low-quality images, and I observed the user wasn't listening to any of my suggestions. The history related to these routes just aren't as in-depth as, say, London Buses route 1, and it feels like they've been made just to make up the numbers. Would have put in the AfD myself but was weary of upsetting the applecart.

Having given rewriting the route 135 article a good shot, though, I think if more well-sourced notability besides the use of bendy buses (bit of a rarity in NW England) can be established, consider potentially retaining the 135 article. Wouldn't be too upset if that didn't turn up anything, however. Hullian111 (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now - appreciate it's frustrating when people create poorly sourced articles but there may be enough sourcing for some of these articles to meet WP:GNG. A reminder to article creator @TL9027 there are many bus route articles on Wikipedia so they can be notable, but we do need better sources than just timetables.

Often branded routes/airport routes are easier to write about. For example, Skyline 199 has [8] and [9]. Garuda3 (talk) 12:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another source on 199: [10] Garuda3 (talk) 12:55, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, Route 216 being similar to route 192, was a 1920-1930s tram route converted to bus operation. There will be so much to write. TL9027 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Garuda3 I don't see how transportdesigned.com (source 1) could be useable as it looks like a blog (or a marketing/communications company). The other source does look good though, thank you for the comment :D Justi yaya 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The route 199 coverage is extremely WP:ROUTINE. Local newspaper coverage of a bus provider extending service to a Sunday does not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ROUTINE is an essay, not policy. Per your below comment, you seem to be dismissing bus routes because you don't like this type of content. Garuda3 (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Route 216 have this:[11]. Besides, updates will be needed as these bus routes have either joined or will join the Bee Network soon. This is a system similar to TfL which may increase their Notability.TL9027 (talk) 13:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Wikipedia is not a transport guide. This content is unencyclopedic. Sources presented above are routine coverage and blogs which fails to establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition–Labor Gaza arrivals controversy

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

While this is certainly a policy debate in Australia, I'm struggling to see how the debate itself is suitable for a standalone Wikipedia article. The article is currently a collection of back-and-forth quotes from politicians and seems to be focused on politicians' views rather than the substantive topic of Palestinian immigration to Australia and/or Palestinian refugees in Australia, which are covered elsewhere. There are dozens of other ongoing policy debates that receive similar levels of coverage. I T B F 📢 08:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Australia. I T B F 📢 08:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: SYNTH. Outside of the political quotes, this doesn't appear to have analysis or other critical notice. Political controversies happen all the time. A collection of people "talking" to one another about an issue doesn't really make this much different than any other discourse in politics. Oaktree b (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

B. R. Nagesh

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

Lack of references and don't think this is notable. Gauravs 51 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Gauravs 51 (talk) 08:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Karnataka and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:29, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

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

Being the director general of NITDA isn't enough to demonstrate notability. I've removed some fluff, but I've checked a few more misleading cites, and just concluded this is probably some paid article full of soft mentions, and doesn't pass the strict test for a WP:BLP article. Instead it is a resume. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Chandra Sharma

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

I don't see anything except clones of this article on other websites. I have no idea how this has lasted so long without going to AFD before. The article says "was", but it would appear it should say "is", which means it falls under WP:BLP, and for that, clearly fails for inclusion under the stricter rules for biographies of living persons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and India. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Shit, it’s a completely unsourced and blatant promotional article. Thanks for finding and nominating it. It was created back in 2012, and still, no one has been able to find or report it, lol. The article completely fails WP:GNG, WP:BLP, and WP:AUTHOR, with no sources found after searching. I think a speedy deletion under WP:G11 can be attempted before nominating it here. GrabUp - Talk 13:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some person uploads a biography, looks like it was taken straight from a word processor and pasted here verbatim... I don't find any sourcing about a writer, there's a recent golfer with a similar name. doesn't appear to be this person. Delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asian Cinemas

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

Fails WP:ORG; does not demonstrate sufficient notability, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the content appears to be largely promotional and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage, in The Hindu, to which one can add https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/asian-cinemas-to-open-nine-more-multiplex-screens-shortly-114041000365_1.html https://telanganatoday.com/allu-arjuns-aaa-cinemas-is-now-open-in-ameerpet-hyderabad https://thesouthfirst.com/entertainment/venkatesh-and-mahesh-babu-join-hands-for-a-new-multiplex-in-hyderabad/ https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/new-cineplexes-come-up-in-hyderabad-suburbs/article6304545.ece etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "promotional", how?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Baehr

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

Fails WP BIO; depth ot the sources is not enough for proving the notability; general notability fails here; dependent or primary sources do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject. A person is presumed to be notable if they have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Notability criteria may need to be met for a person to be included in a stand-alone list. This page falls beyond that primary criterion. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are 1.3 million attorneys in the US. I don't see any justification for why Kristina Baehr meets Wikipedia standards for notability. ScienceFlyer (talk) 08:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG, WP:BASIC with WP:SIGCOV in Law.com, CNBC and KXAN Austin. See source table below.Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One issue is that the CNBC and KXAN articles perpetuate misinformation and are not reliable medical sources. The concept of airborne toxic mold is long-discredited. ScienceFlyer (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're not relying on them for claims about mold and the article has been edited (by you) to include appropriate information that balances claims made by the subject. We're asking if they are generally reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the subject. They are and they do. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table: prepared by User:Dclemens1971
Law.com, https://www.law.com/texaslawyer/2023/08/18/3-8m-texas-verdict-lawyer-leaves-intellectual-property-practice-for-toxic-torts/?slreturn=2024100483307	See RSN discussions here, here	✔ Yes
CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2021/12/15/what-homeowners-need-to-know-about-toxic-mold-exposure.html		✔ Yes
KXAN, https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/how-toxic-mold-cost-one-austin-family-their-home-health/	Major local news station	✔ Yes
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}}.

Keep: Article has sources and the person is notable. Dealing with articles about lawyers is always a little tricky. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dclemens1971 and Dr vulpes. Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

British Electric Traction Company (Mumbai)

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

due to its lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, making it difficult to establish notability. Additionally, the content primarily relies on primary sources and promotional material, failing to meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to CESC Limited, the company that this firm was ultimately merged into per Raman Dubey, 2015, as an AtD. No standalone notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Science Room

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

Lack of notability. Note that most of the article is effectively unsourced & tagged as such. Surely if there was any true notability for this lump of fancruft a cite or two could have been whipped up. TheLongTone (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is effectively unsourced and I don't see a way this passes WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with above, not really notable. (I would vote for a redirect to the relevant List of SNL sketches by year page, but I noticed there's been a discussion on whether to merge those pages into the main article, so I'll pass that off for now.) Spinixster (trout me!) 14:33, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cookeen

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

Appears to be a non-notable cooking ingredient. Google search under 'news' tab didn't turn up anything. Only source is a bare mention in a story about various brands removing hydrogenated vegetable oil. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and United Kingdom. Valereee (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan Niven

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

I couldn't find any reliable sources, so WP:GNG and WP:BIO aren't satisfied. Also, his works don't appear to be held in any major collections or reviewed, so WP:ARTIST is out. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Photography, and Utah. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pink Peg Slax

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. No coverage. scope_creep^Talk 09:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and England. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm struggling with this because according this blurb which is repeated on various sites, they've been featured in NME on at least five occasions which if true, probably is SIGCOV. But there's no date or issue number to help actually find those sources. -- D'n'B-t -- 08:17, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Scattered mentions in books [12], [13] but I don't find enough to build an article. Sourcing now used in the article isn't enough, mostly imdb. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Void Cube

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

Topic is not notable; a web search reveals no reliable sources. Note that since I am new to AfD, I am using this singular article to test the waters as WP:BUNDLE recommends. However I intend to nominate V-Cube 7, V-Cube 6 and several other non-notable puzzles linked in combination puzzle as a group deletion later. It is a wonderful world (talk) 08:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Toys-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kagarama

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

This possibly passes WP:NGEO but would be far better servied merged inside Kicukiro District due to lack of sourcing or possibility to expand prose here. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 12:34, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Rwanda. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Khai Xing

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

Fails NBAD and BLP Stvbastian (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Malaysia. Stvbastian (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Controversies surrounding Pinoy Big Brother

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

WP:UNDUE for what amounts to tabloid fodder. I feel this should be consolidated to a single concise section in the main series article rather than a litany of every single controversy attached to the show. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Big Brother (franchise)#Controversies. At least the ones that had the authorities threatening to pull the plug on the show. Borgenland (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that huge chunks of the article are uncited and probably tainted by editors with vested WP:FANCRUFT interests. Borgenland (talk) 06:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the main Pinoy Big Brother article and trim as much fancruft as possible. -Ian Lopez @ 14:13, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge but also trim because we don't include every single "controversy" here, only the ones that would probably be significant enough to affect the show itself and not just the contestants (after all, it's not hard to imagine conflicts between contestants in a show like this one). --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it looks like we have two different Merge target articles suggested here (please supply a link to an existing article any time you suggest a Merge or Redirect)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the "controversies" section as suggested in the first comment seems like the best choice. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, redirect and trim to Pinoy Big Brother#Controversies and criticisms Most of these "controversies" are only so to local gossip shows and websites, not normal people, or were not even between the houseguests, but outside groups needing to stir up some attention for their own interests. Anything involving "A lot of criticisms by netizens" needs to be removed as it's completely unsourced. Nate • (chatter) 16:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dar es Salaam School of Journalism

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:ORGCRIT. I couldn't find multiple reliable sources, which are independent and address the organisation in depth and in detail. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Education, Schools, Africa, and Tanzania. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endor AG

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Created by a blocked user. I would argue the previous AfD of this article was withdrawn in error, as the supposed sources given were of the company's products, not the company itself. Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes.

Possible ATD target could be Corsair due to the recent merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Fanatec as best alternative. The idea that "Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes" leads to the absurd conclusions at AFD that "List of X products" would be notable but "X" would not, even when the article is substantially about X products. In any case, I maintain that Fanatec as a line of products passes WP:NPRODUCT. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:LISTN would imply that a list of products from a company that is not notable, would also be non-notable. In other words, only the individual products by the company Fanatec may be notable. The article Fanatec Forza Motorsport CSR Wheel would be indisputably notable if it was created ([14] [15] [16] [17]). The company - not so much. This notability of products over developers is rather common in video games too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Technical failure

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

WP:DICDEF Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although it is a DICDEF right now, I can see ways it can be expanded into an article. For example, we could write about the most common types of technical failure, the impacts they have on people and organisations, and summaries of famous technical failures. QwertyForest (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa

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

I have found next to nothing online that establishes notability for this organisation. The content could possible be merged to National Library of New Zealand as they seem to be the main drivers of the project. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, Internet, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manouchehr Behzadi

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

Apparent memorial page for an Iranian activist based on related or possibly unreliable sources. Holding senior positions in Tudeh does not seem to me to amount to a claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John "Hannibal" Smith

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

Fails WP:GNG tagged for notability since 2021 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Military. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Gül

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

Being mayor of a town of 50,000 doesn’t make for a WP:NPOL pass, and despite his local controversies I don’t think the subject is a GNG pass either. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurora Threats

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

Fails WP:NCREATIVE based on sources cited. Created by either a paid or COI account on behalf of the subject (self-admitted at WP:Help desk) that has now been blocked. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 02:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who created it doesn't really matter here, of course, though it doesn't help. I'm a very, very weak keep on this one and hope that editors will find the sources to improve it--I looked but it's thin. Drmies (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, California, and Louisiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are quite a few sources for this person but from my quick overview it's not really helping their case for notability. I'll try to dig a little deeper and see if I can find something. They did publish a book which got me excited but it was self-published and the first review I found was from a newswire. Dr vulpes (Talk) 04:28, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, a search finds the usual fluff on social media but per Dr vulpes nothing much that would establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Her sole claim to notability so far is her film Supercilious, which was nominated for a notable award. The only coverage I can find of her in reliable sources is passing mentions of her name in connection with that film's nomination, and tame interviews (like the Sheen Magazine source cited), neither of which really pull her over the line for WP:NCREATIVE. My cleanup of the unsourced puffery was a bit of a battle with the paid creator, and though I did manage to find her inclusion in a list in Success magazine, as that WP article notes, it's not the magazine it was since its change of ownership in 2007. If other editors can find some decent coverage of her, I'll change to a "keep". Wikishovel (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for the reviewing admin: User:Hamley24/sandbox is a mirror of the article before it was scrutinized for notability. It's full of puffery and doesn't qualify for CSD as far as I know, but should be deleted along with this article. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Rock Township, Divide County, North Dakota

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

Fails WP:NTOWN. All references I found were either trivial, census/directory information, or referring to the historical site. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 22:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 22:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't necessarily disagree that WP:NTOWN is failed here, but I do want to mention that there are a plethora of city-related articles that fail this test. Should we delete them all, too? I believe that simply having the historical site there makes it much more notable and worthy of an article than thousands of other places covered on Wikipedia. I should note that I also made this article within the scope of WP Cities, and adhered to their guidelines for US places, where applicable. SouthernDude297 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we should be deleting and merging more places like this. The township is not notable because there's a historic site within it; that fact is also at Divide County, North Dakota. Reywas92^Talk 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is NTOWN violated? It is a populated, officially recognized place. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of its sources (or any that I could find) confer notability. As for its current sources, census data and GNIS info does not provide notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 23:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NTOWN is a notability guideline which specifically addresses this class of article. While the first reference is not useful, the census most definitely is a reliable source and all that's needed to satisfy NTOWN. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It establishes reliability, but not notability; which NTOWN explicitly excludes census data from determining. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I thought Townships were always kept _pbp 06:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence of its legal recognition that would definitively meet the criteria for the presumption of notability for NTOWN. GNIS says its a civil township, which would likely count as being legally recognized, but GNIS isn't reliable for the declaration of that. Further, I can't find any information from Divide County (which it is located in) explaining its status, beyond what just looks like tax information. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this would help, but here it, and the rest of the Divide Co. townships, on a map published by the Divide County government, found here. SouthernDude297 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It contributes to reliability, but not inherently its notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 14:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Divide County, North Dakota#Townships. It's not true that townships are always kept. As seen at List of townships in North Dakota, only a small portion of the state's more than 2,500 townships even have articles since there's literally nothing to say about them beyond the census statistic. Only 1,314 of these townships actually have local governments. These are also not the same as towns and NTOWN does not really apply: the entirety of state was historically divided into townships and most including this one are mere artifacts and statistical areas. Reywas92^Talk 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Can you point to a previous example of a North Dakota Township being deleted? Have they actually been deleted, or just never created? _pbp 15:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any others specifically in North Dakota, but there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of La Harpe Township, Allen County, Kansas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albright Township, Chatham County, North Carolina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Averasboro Township, Harnett County, North Carolina. I do not believe these townships need their own articles and that the very limited information can be (and already is) covered in the county article and township list. Reywas92^Talk 15:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the applicability of the ones you've listed. The Kansas ones seem to overlap with other entities and the North Carolina ones seem to be legally defunct. This is neither, it just only has three people in it. _pbp 18:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Wikipedia:OTHER is an argument NOT to make in AFD discussions, so don't really matter. Djflem (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was that township articles are always kept. It isn't true, as he showed by these examples. WP:OTHER is irrelevant. Mangoe (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHER is relevant whether claiming they are kept or not kept.Djflem (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the townships which have elected boards, Writing Rock is among [https://www.nd.gov/government/local-government 1,314 of 2500 mentioned above) (see: https://dividecountynd.hosted.civiclive.com/county_government/county_offices/auditor/township_officers and https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t58c04.pdf), so it is defined geographic populated place and political entity, (https://www.ndstudies.gov/gr4/citizenship/part-3-local-government/section-3-township-government) which pass Wikipedia:NPLACE, plus it's home of historic site.Djflem (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Divide County, North Dakota#Townships. We do not keep township articles in every state because their importance varies wildly. For example, in North Carolina they were enacted and then almost immediately ignored. I get the impression that in ND they have some function with land use/zoning matters, but they otherwise do not appear to provide any of the other aspects of local government; I could not find anything that outlined what their powers are but I found a state land use form requiring a township officer signature. Be that as it may, I note that the list of officers in the state website gives the names of three people living at the same address which indeed is within the township, and if you believe the census, those same three people are the only people living in the township! It's easy but meaningless to hold an election when the only people who can vote are the officials (and I note that of the other three listed, one lives elsewhere in the county and the second lives in another county; the third has no address provided). I'm also quite dubious that location of the eponymous monument is a point of notability for the township; I had to verify it with a map. The fact that such a large percentage of the townships lack officials indicates their relative lack of importance, and when it comes down to it, it appears all that we can give for them as a rule is geography and populations, which can be served well enough with a map and a table, respectively, in the county article.

As far as ND township articles as a group, it doesn't look as though a great many have been created. One or two users started mass-adding them but did not get far. I found this stale user page for example which for the first county has a reasonable idea for a county table structure. And it contains most of what one would put in an article, so I'm not seeing the need for individual articles. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(North Carolina and North Dakota are not the same state.) Would seem that the name of the Writing Rock monument likely lends its name to the township, and is an important piece of history located within it.Djflem (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I an aware of which state is which, and if you think I confused them, you need to reread the passage. Yes, "it would seem", but that doesn't give the township any notability, and never mind that I have come across no source for that belief. The point is, townships are not necessarily that important in the state scheme of things, and they range from non-existent (Maryland) to vestigial (NC) to possibly more important than counties (NJ). What I'm seeing in ND is that they appear to be of minimal importance, especially given that around half of them have no governance and appear to be just lines on a map. Indeed, the very difficulty of finding out why they exist and what function they serve is an indicator that as individual bodies they are probably no more than minor administrative divisions. Mangoe (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Seemed you wanted to make a point about NC as being relevant to ND and therefore mentioned it in the 2nd sentence about ND. Djflem (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As Djflem noted, this community is included as one of the townships with governmental officials and appears to be a political entity. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Regardless of whether a single household is actually being treated as a "political entity", NGEO only provides a rebuttable presumption of notability. That this extant US place has no accessible sources on it beyond directory-level info shows it has no need for a standalone article at this time. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND as it is a populated, legally recognized place and there is enough in-depth historical information about Writing Rock Township specifically in books such as Stories and Histories of Divide County (1964) – the main section about the township is on p. 454 but there are also other pages discussing various aspects of its history. In addition, as others have mentioned, the township is the location of Writing Rock State Historical Site, which makes it distinctive. Newspapers.com turns up obituaries about people who were born in or homesteaded in Writing Rock Township; a five-year-old girl who was killed by a horse in 1960; a farmer who threatened his neighbors with a rifle and tried to kill himself when approached by police in 1920 – even if none of this is worth mentioning in the article, it demonstrates that it was a real place where people lived (and not "just" a directory listing). (Of those clippings the most interesting one is the Bismarck Tribune article about how the 1928 election returns for Writing Rock Township were not counted by the North Dakota secretary of state because the automobile transporting them was destroyed by fire on its way to Crosby.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infinity Exchanger

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

This crypto exchange does not appear to meet WP:GNG. My search does not turn up any coverage in reliable sources, only mentions in crypto forums and blogs. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Websites. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items [18]... And putting in the article that you don't do "know your customer" analysis, nor money laundering tracking is pretty much admitting you're an illegal financial operation, just an fyi. That's not really helping notability, and admitting to illegal activities on the open web might not be the best business decision. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IC 167

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

Could not find any individual coverage on this object. Should redirect to List of IC objects.

Added after Praemonitus's vote: While there is coverage of the group it is a part of, I couldn't find any coverage of the object specifically. Sir MemeGod  18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Sir MemeGod  18:54, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's borderline. I find brief discussions of IC 167 in a few studies, particularly of the NGC 697 group. Praemonitus (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:21, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – Per Praemonitus. Potential academic interest due to interaction with NGC 694. Svartner (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moorlands railway station

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

Not notable. References in the article either give passing coverage or are unrelated to the station. A basic BEFORE search uncovered nothing of any use. Should be either deleted or redirected to Pinnaroo railway line, South Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and Australia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:59, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete. If sources can't be found then it should be merged and redirected, pretty much every passenger railway station where existence can be verified should be a blue link. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject"; fails WP:GNG. AusLondonder (talk) 15:44, 4 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 delete‎. ✗plicit 06:56, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Carlos Vélez

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

Uncited for years and promotional. (I took out some of the more obvious promotion but some remains, such as the professional head shot). ... discospinster _talk 22:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, News media, Economics, and Colombia. ... discospinster _talk 22:27, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hm... this is a hard one. On the one hand, being a columnist for Semana, and his radio work at RCN (one of the two largest media companies in Colombia, where radio is still pretty important media) suggests some degree of notability. However, the only sources I can find about the guy are articles in trade focused magazines that I'm not sure are RS, or articles in RS with clear COI (i.e. a Semana profile). Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Insufficient coverage. 181.197.42.215 (talk) 23:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This one's a bit tough. The article itself does have zero references to back up the claims made there and has for many years, as mentioned by disco. So, can we fix that? A quick Google search of the guy in the news section shows sporadic coverage from various Colombian news websites over the years, and most of the articles I've looked at (both English and translated from Spanish) don't address the criteria at WP:CREATIVE. A good reason for deletion can be provided through WP:INHERITORG: he is a man who has worked for notable businesses and organizations but does not inherit notability from said businesses and (from my observations) lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage of his actions or life. As such, I would conclude that Mr Vélez here doesn't deserve an article solely about him. Sirocco745 (talk) 03:38, 4 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.

Onimim Jacks

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject biography has no source to proof the statement are true. The reference from 2 to 5 are all dead links. Subject fails WP:GNG except the ref one source is to be considered which is the only source that still doesn’t meet WP:GNG. Gabriel (……?) 00:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Women, Law, and United States of America. Gabriel (……?) 00:36, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Nigeria, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The first two sources are Wordpress blogs, the other three are dead links. A search online found no significant coverage, just some passing mentions. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Quick google search reveals no WP:SIGCOV. The article is badly sourced Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk? | contribs) 07:13, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: archive versions of sources have been found (what happened to WP:BEFORE?). She was Commissioner for Agriculture for Rivers State, which appears to be the equivalent of a Ministerial position (from Rivers State Ministry of Agriculture). PamD 08:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aside being a commissioner 95% of the biography statement can’t be verified. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. You can check on WP:NOR. You are free to clear all statements with no source and we see what is left. Gabriel (……?) 11:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Gabriel, A commissioner in a state cabinet in Nigeria is inherently notable because they clearly pass WP:NPOL. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay cool. Would have love to withdraw the nomination but I’m afraid an admin might revert the edit due to the above reason for the delete vote. I have seen where that happened before so what do you think? Gabriel (……?) 16:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Subject passes the criteria for politicians as the commissioner for agriculture for Rivers State. Commissioners are members of the state cabinet. Please, read this explanatory note. Best, Reading Beans 15:32, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to add that deletion is not cleanup. If an article on a notable subject can be improved through normal editing, do not put it through a deletion discussion. Best, Reading Beans 15:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]