Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 18: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 02:32, 26 August 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 17	August 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Axworthy

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

Ambassadors not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO, source 1 merely confirms details from an entry about her husband, sources 2 and 4 are primary. Source 3 is a routine announcement from the Vatican. A search for sources found passing mentions of her as ambassador but not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Bilateral relations, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a cursory search for sources immediately shows up two in-depth articles in The Tablet at [1] and [2] plus lots of lesser stuff. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. The sources cited by Jonathan A Jones and this [[[3]]], which I archived here [[[4]]] because it is paywalled, may meet the minimum of WP:SIGCOV to prove notability. Prof.PMarini (talk) 12:08, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY, because based on the sources found, this is enough. Bearian (talk),

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I wish those who had argued for Deletion had returned to review these newly found sources but they didn't. But I don't see the point of relisting this discussion so I'll just close as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Egbema tribe

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

~~Stub article with only one source, poor formatting. While possibly notable, it should be draftified at the very least to be remade.~~ LR.127 (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - I think these sources brought up are enough to prove notability for a standalone article. I may expand the article myself soon, using open sources (and if anyone has access to The Wikipedia Library, I would appreciate their help expanding the article with sources they can find as well). LR.127 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups and Nigeria. LR.127 (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or keep . The article is 16 years old. No one is going to fix an article that old if it is draftspace so at that point that's just putting it in limbo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable publications. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yamaguchi先生, can you take a look now? Best, Reading Beans 06:44, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, although you could redirect it to Ijaw people. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. These sources make some mention of this tribe [5][6], there seems to be at least a small room for improvement here. Badbluebus (talk) 18:04, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: While this article needs expansion for clarity, there are multiple publications to keep it from being deleted:
- Ike, Eruali Ukachukwu (2009). The People and Culture of the Egbema Kingdom. University of Port Harcourt Press. ISBN 9789789003501.
- Tiemọ, G. O. E. (1968). Egbema-Ịjọ Customs and Traditions. Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan. OCLC 112682.
- Williamson, Kay (1974). Reading and Writing Egbema. OCLC 63300648.
- Onyige, Peter Usutu (1979). The Impact of Mineral Oil Exploitation on Rural Communities in Nigeria: The Case of Ogba/Egbema District (Thesis). University of Birmingham.
- Alagoa, Ebiegberi Joe (2005). A History of the Niger Delta: An Historical Interpretation of Ijo Oral Tradition. University of Michigan. pp. 42–45. ISBN 9789783731455.
- Nnadozie, Emmanuel U. (1995). Oil and Socioeconomic Crisis in Nigeria: A Regional Perspective to the Nigerian Disease and the Rural Sector. Edwin Mellen Press. pp. 44–49. ISBN 9780773442405.

I believe that this could be considered as significant coverage. Best, Reading Beans 06:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The essence of AfD is to determine whether a subject merits a standalone page, which in this case it is clear that Egbema tribe merits one. For God’s sake, AfD is not cleanup and articles shouldn’t be sent to AfD if they are clearly notable. It is also clear that a BEFORE wasn’t done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"It is clear that Egbema tribe merits [a standalone page]" ... "they are clearly notable" how so?

I find this comment a bit vague, sorry - could you say more? Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have to say anything more. AfD is not a place to tell us an article needs more sources; it is a place to determine whether a subject notable or not. You have to read the WP:AFD page to familiarise yourself with what it is about. The Egbema tribe in Nigeria is clear-cut notable ethnic group, you're not a Nigerian and as such you cannot tell. I hate seeing things like this at AfD, it utterly sucks. If an article relies on largely or entirely on a single source then tag it, if it has already been tagged and you come across it, you either fix it yourself or you leave it alone, or with a good faith, ask at a noticeboard for example the talk page of WikiProject Nigeria where you might find users who would be willing to do the work of researching and finding more details. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are several pages about the Egbema in one of the papers in the book The Izon of the Niger Delta (Google link for convenience; if you have access to Muse via the Wikipedia Library or otherwise, then the whole book is accessible there). The book The Igbo and the Tradition of Politics also has a paper about "The Political Arrangement of the Egbema Community". Combined with the titles of some of the works given by Reading Beans above, it appears that there is WP:SIGCOV in reliable academic sources. --RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see further review (as much as possible with off-internet books) of these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RL0919 detailed presentation. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎ all. Daniel (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmedabad–Darbhanga Sabarmati Express

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

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Arnav Bhate (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bihar, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:59, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my arguments every other time one of these articles gets nominated. Thryduulf (talk) 12:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The first two articles are extensions of named trains however the titles are not reasonable search terms as they are made up by the author "[TERMINAL A] - [TERMINAL B] [TRAIN NAME]" and not used by any official or reliable sources, so a redirect wouldn't be appropriate. The content in the articles are mainly a reproduction of the timetable or WP:OR which is either unsuitable for article space entirely or would not require keeping redirects for attribution since its a copy of a different source. The third article is an unnamed train with made up title "[TERMINAL A] - [TERMINAL B] [FREQUENCY] Special" and should be deleted entirely. Jumpytoo Talk 21:48, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Soliciting more participation here to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: all I concur with Jumpytoo's rationale. This is much like a directory of trains within a rail timetable, WP:NOTDIRECTORY applies 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Didi Zindabad

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

Fails WP:GNG. With the exception of one source, everything falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Churnalism and press releases as well as no-bylined articles. CNMall41 (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Bangladesh, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Zee_Bangla#Drama_series -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:37, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is not even a newspaper name under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. And the page is well notable. So I think it needs to be kept.

103.127.222.50 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - By checking the reference, you will understand that the coverages are very significant. Besides, no reference of Newspaper under WP:NEWSORGINDIA has been used here. Nilpriyo (talk) 10:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No GNG whatsoever. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- These references [[7]],

[[8]],[[9]] clearly passes WP:GNG.103.102.136.170 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - You can see the page with Review, I have added many important references. Which is able to pass 100% WP:GNG. User:Nilpriyo (talk) 8:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point out which one(s) out of what you added are reliable? I checked the first two from the TOI and both are unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA based on a recent RSN discussion. The bylines are "TOI Entertainment Desk." --CNMall41 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The cited sources are press releases, so not independent (zee5, editorji, ottplay, timesofindia); have no reputation for accuracy or fact checking (prothomkolkata, tollytales, khabor24x7, calcuttastory); or, although from legitimate news outlets and sometimes having a byline, are almost entirely based on coming-soon promotional materials (eisamay, aajkaal, hindustantimes). The greatest degree of independent analysis beyond a recap of the plot as revealed by promos is a mere two sentences in aajkaal. Searches did not find better sources, so not remotely notable. I'm disinclined in this case to redirect as an WP:ATD because of the extent of promotional editing around Zee Bangla TV series. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harvey Spencer Stephens

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

Actor primarily known for one part in one movie. Accordingly, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources discussing the one movie and one part, but none for other significant acting parts. Tagged for notability since 2018. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 14:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and England. C F A 💬 14:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: He was nominated for a Golden Globe, which is usually enough to be considered notable. C F A 💬 14:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The_Omen#Cast: that is what he's notable for and it's sourced. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:30, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The articles on his arrest clearly show there has been continued coverage of this person.★Trekker (talk) 15:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is an odd one, the sourcing used is about the criminal charge/conviction, but it's in RS. The Golden Globe nomination makes him notable, but the sourcing is about him, but for another reason. I guess it doesn't really matter, the article isn't about his crime, but about him. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Keep based on the numerous articles in RS about his arrest; they do go into detail about his prior acting roles, so they are about this person, but not about his award nomination. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there are several sources about him though, many are about his arrest, his acting career was also referenced in the headlines. This goes to show that his acting career was notable and I have brought in some sources about his career not the arrest and sentencing. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. If anyone wants this content available to do a rewrite and a refocus, let me know and I will draftify for you. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ecoism

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

Page on a philosophy with only primary sources, and no evidence of any secondary or other coverage. Original editor reacted to notability tags by removing references to Hares Youssef, but not in fact improving notability. It appears to be mainly promo of WP:OR, quite probably with COI as the only other edits by the original author were for Hares Youssef. I see no notability proof, so nominating for deletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Popular culture, and Spirituality. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Convert to page on the book. The book espousing this philosophy and the primary source used for it passes WP:NBOOK. Reviewed here and here. Probably more but that was from a surface level search. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting suggestion that I would not be adverse to, but someone would have to rewrite. Lets wait for more comments. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revising my opinion about changing it to the book; that would have to be WP:TNT. The book is about Ecologism, which is not Ecoism. This article is about an invention by Hares Youssef, and the book quoted as a source is not appropriate or relevant.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the author of this page seemed to conflate one guy's invention with the idea promoted by the book, which is notable, so it's kind of half half. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a ping to @Oaktree b and Prof.PMarini: in case they want to comment considering the source of Ecoism. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can't open those from the link to Proquest above, I've tried using the Wiki Library, but I don't know what the book is called to be able to look up these sources... Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Library search brings up things related to psychology and what seems to be eco-conscious consumers, so I'm not sure how that could help this discussion Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are pages such as this which talk about ecologism. The topic Ecoism is the invention of Hares Youseff, as stated in this link on the page. Ecologism is an established philosophy, but is not the same as Ecoism from everything I have seen.

The topic Ecologism is different, and since 2006 has been a link to Environmentalism. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we have to sort through sources to try and find some that fit, I don't see the notability involved. We have no sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agreeing with Ldm1954 that Ecologism and Ecoism are different. Ecologism is the better title of an article; though we would still need to WP:TNT this one. The article seems to just introduce the term Ecoism then discuss Ecologism. As noted by PARAKANYAA the article seems to merely conflate Ecologism and Ecoism, in order to lend notability to Ecoism. Ecologism might stand a better chance of having its own article or at least be written as a section under Environmentalism. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sesh Jibon

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

Disputed draftification and moved back to mainspace without source improvements. Everything falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or is otherwise unreliable. A WP:BEFORE shows a bunch of churnalism based on the announcement of the film and the trainler release, but nothing that could be considered significant coverage. Attempted to DRAFTIFY as an WP:ATD hoping more sources would come out once it is released, but here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CNMall41 (talk) 19:19, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, Rajasthan, and West Bengal. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: or draftify until more sources are available. Present sourcing, notability of cast and director are strong indications this may be considered notable, even if, ’technically’, the threshold will probably only be indisputedly reached in a couple of weeks. Opposed to deletion. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, "may be considered notable" and "notable" are two different things. This is becoming ad nauseam. Can you point out the sources that show this IS notable? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The page have reputed media references. Few media links are Bengali publications that might be semi known. But the film is notable and should be keep at main space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arshadkhanwriter (talk • contribs) 05:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Arshadkhanwriter (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Which references specifically? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify for being too soon. Prof.PMarini (talk) 00:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RMA Gold Airways

AfDs for this article:

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

I am nominating the Wikipedia article on RMA Gold Airways for deletion because it violates several key Wikipedia policies, particularly those related to notability, verifiability, and neutrality. RMA Gold Airways never operated any aircraft, had no crew, and failed to launch its proposed services, meaning it did not achieve any significant presence or impact in the aviation industry. According to Wikipedia's notability guidelines, a subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to merit an article, which this airline lacks. The article relies primarily on newspaper sources that provide speculative and critical commentary, with some citations explicitly referring to the airline as "pretend." This raises concerns about verifiability and neutrality, as the article gives undue weight to an entity that never existed in a functional capacity.

Furthermore, retaining this article violates Wikipedia's What Wikipedia is not policy, specifically the sections that prohibit hosting content about subjects that do not meet notability criteria and that function as promotion. The article presents unverified and speculative content, making it more akin to advertising for an unrealised venture rather than an encyclopaedic entry. By not deleting this article, Wikipedia risks breaching its own policies designed to maintain the quality and reliability of its content. Therefore, I recommend that the article be deleted. Ansett (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:07, 11 August 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 August 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Travel and tourism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:05, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it does have some issues with notability, it's hardly a promotion. The proposed airline has been out of business for over a decade, and this article pretty much reflects what information already exists outside of Wikipedia, which has been reported in reliable sources. Unexpectedinquisition (talk) 08:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and Comment This is an interesting page I haven't encountered before. The page had been nominated for deletion twice and had been kept. It's the third nomination now. As per the justifications for keeping the page from the first nomination for deletion, the company "has attracted genuine media coverage is itself evidence that it meets WP:CORP" the venture failed, but the company gained significant coverage and notability (notoriety, I might say.) Prof.PMarini (talk) 16:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fairfax Community Church

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

A run-of-the-mill large church. No secondary coverage in the article, and none found. Just called "Fairfax Church" now, which makes searching difficult. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Virginia. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no proper notable coverage found in my search online. User:R.schneider101 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No WP:SIGCOV; fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Old Four

AfDs for this article:

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

This article has been nominated before for deletion and nothing was decided. There still exists issues on citations and page updates. Google searches of this "conference" offer no notable references or sources. The talk page for the article even indicates discussion back in 2006 on the lack of noatibility amongst the university sport groups. I propose deleting the article. User:R.schneider101 21:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – It's a case that doesn't seem to me to have any independent coverage. If it is possible to locate sources that determine some relevance, because as it is a university competition that does not have notability in itself. Svartner (talk) 21:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Svärtinge SK

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish club with very modest history meeting GNG. The club has languished on the 6th and 7th tier, and it appeared in a preliminary cup round but not the real cup. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Contributor892z (talk) 11:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Söråkers FF

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

Expanding on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish club with very modest history meeting GNG. The club has languished on the 6th and 7th tier for men and the 5th and 6th tier for women. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iranian Ghadir Iron and Steel Company

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

fails WP:CORP, Very ordinary company with nothing special, and no achievements, most of the references are unacceptable: some links from company's website (igisco.ir), some links are company info page in stock websites or profile, some refs are WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Iran. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage to prove notability; the available online sources, as mentioned by nominator are either self-published sites, directories or trivial mentions. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to DNA Oyj. History is thereunder should someone want to merge sourced material. Star Mississippi 02:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PlusTV

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

The page doesn't cite any source, doesn't seem neutral enough, and its notability is uncertain. Cornflake000^[T]/_[C] 20:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cornflake000^[T]/_[C] 20:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to DNA Oyj -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with DNA Oyj. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:40, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per @Mushy Yank; not much encyclopedic or verifiable to merge. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Marri

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

I can't find any evidence of a WP:GNG pass for the footballer of this name. The best that I can find is a press release from his club, which is neither significant nor independent of the subject. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Qatar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:55, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Ho

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

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC Possible self-promotion page. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC.

Regarding WP:GNG: essentially all references point directly to the individual's personal website, personal pages at affiliated institutions (Simons, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon University, NYU), or publications
Regarding WP:PROF: the achievements are low compared to the field average (astrophysics), and many claims are not really supported by references even after searching the internet. More in detail, testing the criteria for academic notability:

Impact: citation rates in astrophysics tend to be high, due to membership in large collaborations. Most of the citations come from such memberships
Awards: Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize and NASA Group Achievement Award are group collaboration awards given to members of a large collaboration; Macronix Prize is also given for "leadership in large, international collaborations" as well; Carnegie Science Award and National Blavatnik Finalist have arguable prestige to justify the existence of a Wikipedia page
Scholarly association: the International Astrostatistics Association Fellow is not highly selective or prestigious (its Wikipedia page itself lacks secondary sources)
Impact on Higher education: no evidence
Distinguished appointment: there is no evidence of the alleged Cooper-Siegel Development Chair Professorship, other than the subject's website and CVs. In any case, this is a junior professorship that lasts up to 3 years and can only be renewed once
Administrative post: no evidence
Impact outside academia: lack of broad media coverage
Scientific editor: no evidence

In spite of the brilliant career, the subject's accomplishments and impact do not probably warrant a Wikipedia page? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. There do appear to be autobiography issues here, and that needs to stop, but I don't think that's an adequate reason for deletion by itself. This is a field where participants in huge collaborations get tiny parts in publications with huge citation numbers, and Ho is no exception. My usual strategy here is to look at first-author publications, realizing that this will also produce significantly smaller citation counts. For Ho I find on Google Scholar citation counts of 454 ("Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure I"), 176 ("Clustering of sloan digital sky survey III"), 53 ("Sloan Digital Sky Survey III photometric quasar clustering"), 47 ("The Posterior distribution of sin (i) values"), 42 ("Luminous red galaxy population") etc. If that were all, I wouldn't think it quite enough for WP:PROF#C1. But we also have individual recognition and to some extent in-depth coverage of her with the Macronix Prize [10], (state-level) Carnegie Science award [11], Blavatnik finalist [12], and fellowship of an obscure society. We also have some media coverage of her for her work on AI-based universe simulation [13]. I think it all adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, it seems quite arguable. I am a bit skeptical about WP:PROF#C2 as an additional criterion to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 because it seems hard for me to judge the prestige of the awards. There has been media coverage, but it does not seem to be independent of her affiliations (e.g. CMU).
- Winners of the Macronix Prize (now OYRA [14]) generally do not seem to have Wikipedia pages, and the prize itself does not seem to get much media coverage
- The Carnegie Science award is at the state level and again seems to be mainly covered by her university, Carnegie Mellon (which is enough to document that she won the prize, but not to judge whether it is prestigious)
- It is also not clear whether the Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists is important enough to warrant a Wikipedia page (the wikipedia page itself has not been for a few years)
- Media coverage of her work on AI-based universe simulation [15] comes from the foundation where she is a group leader, the Simons Foundation, and is not a secondary source
It seems that secondary and independent coverage would help to confirm the importance of these achievements. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep?. An unusual GS citation record like hers needs to be scrutinized as there are many reports around recently of citation gaming. This is a high citation field but I note that many of her papers have few authors which supports the strength of her contributions for a pass under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Trying to understand whether this should be considered extraordinary impact, I just had a look at Web of Science (which usually only considers actual citations to peer-reviewed journals). It reads 9 publications as first author (2 of them with more than 50 citations) and 23 as last author (3 of them with more than 50 citations). In addition, there are ~20 publications with more than 50 citations on GS where Ho is neither first nor last author. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact: It should be noted that in Machine Learning (which currently Shirley Ho is publishing in recently this area substantially), the senior author who guides the work are usually at the *END* of the author list, and when there are two senior authors, then they are listed towards the end as well. Notable examples includes the following: Lagrangian Neural Network Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases

It should also be noted that while there were multiple large collaboration papers that included her name that may have biased the citation count, the number of participants in these large astronomy collaborations tend to be hundreds to thousands, while most of her papers have small number (~6) of collaborators where she seems to be the senior person.

Awards: National Blavatnik Finalist award is given 28 scientists across the country (including fields ranging from biology, ecology, life sciences, to chemistry, computer science, engineering, physics to applied mathematics). LINK The website seems to point to quite a serious selection process as well.

Media coverage of her work: She is the PI / director of Polymathic AI (which is a collaboration building an AI scientist). The work of Polymathic seems to have received quite a bit of media coverage: a few examples: [7], [8] [9], [10] [11] Surelyyouarejoking (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the 11 edit (all on this subject) for these comments. Do you have any connection with the subject that should be reported under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

WP:COI: It is indeed an interesting coincidence that "Surely" in User:Surelyyouarejoking is pronounced similarly to "Shirley", and that the page was originally created by a similar single-purpose profile User:Shirleysurely and soon deleted for lack of notability. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Georgebrown5566, you are also a new user account, and nominating Shirley Ho for deletion is your third edit ever. Doesn't this suggest your account to also be a similar single-purpose profile? CaptainAngus (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a triggering event. As a scientist too (in a different field) it hurts to see relatively young scientists using this site to boost their notoriety. Instead of complaining, I thought I could make the difference, and more is coming! You can see more contributions on my side (time permitting), I asked my mentor if I am following the right procedure, and yes, please feel free to give feedback or suggest other ways to help! I don't know the person or the specific awards, this is what I could find online, so please double check :) Georgebrown5566 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Impact: (please see the comment above for the discussion about the questionable impact, considering both first and last authorship); papers should be peer-reviewed to be considered, and [16], which appears to be only a preprint, does not contribute to WP:PROF#1; according to Web of Science, Ho appears to be the senior person on about 14% of her publications
Awards: the question is whether the Blavatnik Prize is a major award comparable with the Nobel prize or Fields Medal, or whether it still conveys a high level of academic prestige; in the case of Blavatnik, Ho is a finalist but did not even win the full award [17].
Media coverage: should we consider the contributions to "Polymathic AI" as general notability WP:GNG? the organization does not have a Wikipedia page and does not seem to conduct peer-reviewed scientific research (I could only find one published paper of arguable impact). The mentioned articles show media coverage but do not show impact, since they mainly refer to the beginning of the collaboration but not to its achievements; it is written in an interview style and many of the articles come from institutions affiliated with the initiative [9, 11], probably not independent.

Maybe this could be considered for WP:TOOSOON? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TOOSOON is what you say, after justifying a delete opinion, when you think they are on track to become notable later. It is not a justification in itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per NPROF#5. A named chair at Carnegie Mellon is listed here ("She joined Carnegie Mellon as an Assistant Professor in 2011, becoming Cooper Siegel Career Development Chair Professor and tenured Associate Professor.")
I consider @David Eppstein's comments on citations and prizes persuasive as well, in lieu of my own capacity to weigh in on their relevance. Oblivy (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- That definitely does not pass #C5, though. C5 is for "a comparable level of achievement" to distinguished professor, a step above an ordinary full professorship. A "career development chair" given to newly tenured associate professors does not match that description. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That makes sense. In fact, I found the listing of dual-roles (chaired professor and associate professor) confusing. So much to learn... Oblivy (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The awards (or near awards) all together come very close to meeting WP:NACADEMIC. I would have expected more independent Google news coverage (so as to satisfy WP:GNG), but I think on net this meets the WP:NACADEMIC guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Per the redirect !votes and Rorschacma's comment, there is doubt about whether redirect is a viable ATD here. Any editor is welcome to create a redirect editorially, and if that happens, it can be discussed at RfD. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Purcell

AfDs for this article:

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

The article cites two sources, both of them are unreliable. It is solely comprised of a plot summary with no reception. Nothing else was found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peyton Place (TV series)#Characters, per WP:ATD. BD2412 T 16:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peyton Place (TV series)#Characters - Since the character is already on the character list and and Redirects are cheap, I suppose this could work as a valid WP:ATD. But given that I can find no sources at all that actually devote any real kind of coverage to the character, and the character apparently only appeared in six episodes of a 514 episode series, I honestly have doubts that the character has even the barest amount of notability to even be listed on the series character list. Rorshacma (talk) 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appeared in only 6 out of 514 episodes (per previous AFD) in a 1960s TV series, redlinked actress, too non-notable even for a redirect. – sgeureka ^t•c 07:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. No significant coverage. Not clear that this would even belong on a WP:SUMMARYSTYLE list. Shooterwalker (talk) 11:45, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Baybayin. ✗plicit 23:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basahan

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

Just a duplicate article of Baybayin. Remsense ‥ 诉 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Philippines. Remsense ‥ 诉 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
merge or redirect to Baybayin per WP:ATD. --Lenticel ^(talk) 07:09, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baybayin (WP:ATD) Rusty 🐈 15:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Morley–Ellenbrook line without prejudice against merger. Owen× ☎ 15:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Springs East railway station

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

This station is not under construction and there are no plans to begin construction anytime soon. Therefore, there are very few sources for this station, and it can be adequately covered at Morley–Ellenbrook line. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Australia. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge too Morley–Ellenbrook line per nom, we can recreate if they build the station Jumpytoo Talk 23:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the point of merging? There is nothing written on this article that is not already on Morley–Ellenbrook line. Steelkamp (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morley–Ellenbrook line per nom. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Morley-Ellenbrook line as there is no content worth keeping; perhaps add a mention on the page for the line? Rusty 🐈 15:12, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MTS (group)

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

Article about a dance music band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is that they had a single chart in specialty charts, like RPM Dance and Billboard Bubbling Under, that are not the primary national hits charts for the purposes of NMUSIC #2, and thus do not constitute an instant notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the band -- but the only other source here is an unreliable source that contradicts some of the claims in this article (compare our "MTS was a Eurodance project formed in Canada" to ""MTS was an American eurodance project created in Miami, Florida"), and a WP:BEFORE search found absolutely nothing else: apart from more unreliable sources, the only thing I found was a brief glancing namecheck of the song's existence as a song getting played on a radio station in an article about that radio station.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than it is, especially given the conflict about whether they were Canadian or American in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - agree with the conclusions of the thorough before research by Bearcat. The fact that "In 1997, they released a studio album." is [citation needed] and the studio album isn't even named speaks volumes. Jonathan Deamer (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Bagín

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

I cannot find any evidence of notability on this young Slovak men's footballer. Search results in news sources only come up with passing mentions and transfer announcements, such as this one, but I'm not sure how reliable the source is. Notability is not inherited from playing for a big club or league. This might fall under WP:TOOSOON, but consider that AS Trenčín is certainly not well-known outside Slovakia anyway, I don't think there will be any significant coverage in reliable sources of Bagín in the coming years. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 13:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per G3 by Bishonen. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sseruwagi Sinclaire Sebastian

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

Seems to be a hoax at some level. I doubt this person edited/composed for these major films at the age of 5. The page even mentions “his compositions have been uncredited for years”. [1] and [2] are movie databases that aren’t reliable and any other verification is based off IMDb. Nothing I can see justifies keeping. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax per nom - I can only find user-generated sources. I suspect that "He is currently a student of the Lubiri Secondary School." and the date of birth are the only correct things here. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism. Look at users contribution history and previous attempts to create this obvious nonsense article. (I also think this have become a case of WP:NOTHERE.) --ZimZalaBim ^talk 12:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ^Complex/_Rational 10:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Finland relations

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

Unreferenced for 15 years. The external links provided are primary. No third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Cyprus, and Finland. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost no information about the nominal subject. For example, "While Finland became a member of NATO in 2023, Cyprus has never been a member of NATO": what has that to do with Cyprus–Finland relations? Athel cb (talk) 09:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I had the same question. LibStar (talk) 10:58, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article has very little to say about this topic, and there are no inline sources provided. If, in the future, the relationship between these countries becomes more established as notable, the article can be re-created at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the information in this article is already included in Foreign relations of Cyprus and Foreign relations of Finland. Since neither of these articles takes preference as a redirect target, the article is best deleted as a WP:CFORK or a totally unjustified SPINOFF. Without prejudice against future inclusion in WP, if someone finds good sources and information. gidonb (talk)
Harmless but Delete. This is more of a "doesn't earn the space it takes up" delete. Even if every fact in the article were perfectly sourced, there just aren't enough facts to establish that Cyprus-Finland relations are enough of a thing to have their own article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Merzak Allouache#Selected filmography. as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 14:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On a Bicycle

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

Simply fails WP:NFILM. Nothing to suggest notability. No critical reception from reliable sources whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and France. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually unknown in France, let alone anywhere else. Athel cb (talk) 10:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merzak_Allouache#Selected_filmography: Notable cast, a few reliable websites in French allow verification and contain a rating, so opposed to deletion and redirecting to director is a good altenative to deletion. Not opposed to keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:45, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Cycling. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Algeria. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Pshenychnyuk

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

This is the same sort of case as Vladyslav Kalyn, Yaroslav Kysil and Roman Savchenko (footballer), all recently deleted young Ukrainian footballers with no significant coverage from independent sources. To qualify for an article, there must be multiple instances of significant coverage to pass WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Please note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from playing for a notable club or notable league and that pointing out that other non-notable players also have articles is not a relevant reason to keep. WP:NSPORTS2022 confirms that the cameo appearances for Chornomorets are not sufficient for notability under current consensus. The references included are trivial; UA Football is a mere squad list mention and Sport.ua is likewise just as bad. Likewise, I found Sport Arena, a trivial mention in the match report and goal listing at the bottom, and Rivne, which lists him in the U19 squad list and mentions him once further in the prose. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In my opinion it's not true if we talk about the recently deleted article Roman Savchenko (footballer), cause there is a reference which imho provides WP:SIGCOV. The same is about the recently deleted article Vladyslav Kalyn ... the article imho has references which also provide WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore Vladyslav Kalyn as player provides enough notability ... he is a ukrainian youth international (U17 and U18), and the facts have been backed by the appropriate references in the article. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"...cameo appearances for Chornomorets..."

What about constant presence in the youth national team (U17, U18) ? I mean Vladyslav Kalyn. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Youth football appearances have never conferred notability, even prior to WP:NSPORTS2022 they were considered inadequate in the absence of WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nom has made very clear, citing multiple policy pages, that run directly counter to your opinions about why this article is notable. I strongly suggest reading those pages and making note of what actually defines a subject's notability. Appearances for youth national teams do not count and neither do appearances for a professional team—see the somewhat recent changes at WP:NSPORTS2022. Anwegmann (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ukraine. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no decent sources at all per nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and consider SALT to protect the page permanently from further re-creation. If anyone could find similar articles of sportspeople from any country, I have no prejudice against nominating them for deletion. @Spiderone: I was wondering... Is there any article of such youth athletes at the moment that pass WP:GNG? It seems quite unfair since almost no media cover significant coverage of them. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of young footballers that meet GNG. Nestory Irankunda and Claudio Echeverri are both the same age as Pshenychnyuk but have achieved way more coverage than him and therefore pass GNG. Age is not the issue, it's simply just the fact that not every professional footballer warrants an article because, simply put, nobody has cared enough to write at length about Pshenychnyuk yet. He may well become notable in the future but he may also disappear into obscurity like tens of thousands of others. It's not our job as editors to predict who will be notable so we are best waiting until they get big coverage like Irankunda, Lamine Yamal etc. before creating an article. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why this protection (=SALT)? Especially if in the meantime the player develops, has a good career, gets media exposure and deserves a wikipedia article. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT—This is a repeated thing we keep seeing. The editor who created this article and several others has not been following WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG standards, and this article is a good example of how that is a problem. Anwegmann (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, to Spiderone's point, it is indeed possible for a young footballer of this age to have sustained coverage if they are notable (fun bit of trivia, I have shared a football field with Irankunda on many occasion!). Pshenychnyuk does not reach that threshold of coverage and therefore doesn't meet the notability standards required by Wikipedia. Daniel (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Rudoy

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

Seems to fail WP:NBIO. The Russian sources on this person's activities presented in the article are either blogs or very insignificant media. The conformity of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SINGER criteria are also failed. Dantiras (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 13:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Rowley (disambiguation)

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

One notable Peter, another not so notable and one partial match can all be handled by one or two hatnotes in Peter Rowley. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:08, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's definitely a primary topic, but 3 other entries readers may be looking for, and this page then might be WP:USEFUL for them. All 3 entries meet MOS:DABMENTION or have an article, and there is also a valid see also. Boleyn (talk) 07:53, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Boleyn. This potentially helps the reader. BD2412 T 16:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information

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

Redirect to Controlled Unclassified Information. Wikipedia is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Mentions of NNPI are solely in this context ([18] [19] [20] [21], not WP:SIGCOV.

NNPI is one of many, many unremarkable categories of Controlled Unclassified Information, to where this article should redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:47, 11 August 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, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Peace Action#Grassroots work. Daniel (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Student Peace Action Network

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

Is not WP:NOTABLE. Within the article, there are no reliable, independent sources listed. Until they are found (if they exist), the article should not exist on Wikipedia. AEagleLionThing (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peace Action. Reywas92^Talk 14:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peace_Action#Grassroots_work where there is a mention of SPAN. SilkTork (talk) 16:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Peace_Action#Grassroots_work, where, as SilkTork points out, the subject is mentioned. Sal2100 (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Magaya Corporation

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Florida. BD2412 T 02:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything. Even if there was something, TNT would apply. Aaron Liu (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing but press releases and company web sites. - Donald Albury 14:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the refs are notability lending (including the off-web note "Binder, an app that adds photos to Magaya transactions"). Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Since the editor who placed the UPE tag on this article is now supporting Keeping it, I tend to weigh that in favor of this article. The nominator didn't help his case with a nomination statement that wasn't specific to this article with an assessment on its content and sources and which was copied and pasted on other AFDs. The whole deletion rationale rests on the undesirability of UPE but that doesn't seem to be a problem to the participants here. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lucas (playwright)

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Having that tag on the article isn't a valid reason to delete. Also, the editor who added that paid tag years ago didn't give any proof or an explanation for why it was added, so I'm not even sure it should be on the article. Instead, for an AfD we are concerned with notability and for that the subject easily passes. In addition to the citations already in the article, there are a ton more out there, including a long list of citations on the article's talk page. Add in all the additional notable citations for this author in places like The Herald (link), American Theater (link), and WBUR (link), along with coverage of his plays in Playbill (link) and many other places, and this playwright easily meets our notability guidlines.--SouthernNights (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We can always ask. @Smartse: what led you to add the UPE tag to this article, and do you think that still applies? BD2412 T 00:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_114#user:Pklucas. The article was written by an editor who created several promotional articles for which I blocked them, and shortly after this article was created, an account claiming to be subject appeared and made several changes. SmartSE (talk) 10:45, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree the article's subject made edits to his article. That said, I'm still not sure why the article was tagged with a paid contributor tag. Probably just a mix-up with the tags years ago. Thanks for dealing with the conflict of interest back then.SouthernNights (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tagged notability on this ages ago (2017) when I was copyediting the article. The playwright only performed at a large festival (Edinburgh Fringe) that has hundreds maybe thousands of different acts, so that in itself isn't particularly notable. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would probably tag "autobio" since it seems to come from someone representing the person himself. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. References provided by SouthernNights are sufficient to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. AFD isn't clean up and any remaining problems can be dealt with. SmartSE (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Hodara

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

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Israel. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Articles can be cleaned up. How does Hodera score under PROF? gidonb (talk) 02:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gidonb: Articles can be cleaned up, but one sitting there with a UPE tag for seven years suggests that it will not be cleaned up. Therefore, the subject's PROF score is irrelevant, because it is better to have a red link that might prompt natural creation of an article rather than indefinitely continuing to host content that violates Wikipedia's TOS. BD2412 T 03:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to clean the article up if the PROF score justifies it. Patiently waiting for the answer to my question. Rest assured that I had read the intro and had taken it into full account before writing my comment. gidonb (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: See analysis by David Eppstein below. BD2412 T 20:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I didn't find any evidence of heavily cited works that could pass WP:PROF#C1, and although the article lists many books I found only two reviews of one of them [22] [23], not enough for WP:AUTHOR. The article lists nothing else that suggests notability. So although there is visible evidence of UPE in the form of the block log of the article creator rather than (as so often) merely the unsubstantiated opinion of the nominator, I think we can delete on the basis of notability alone without considering the UPE. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @David Eppstein: Just to clarify, when you say "merely the unsubstantiated opinion of the nominator", you are referring to AfD nominators generally, and not me specifically, yes? BD2412 T 20:56, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes. I was intending to hold you up as a positive example, of someone whose accusations of UPE can be substantiated, unlike those other examples. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thanks, much appreciated. BD2412 T 21:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I’ve reviewed and cleaned up many biography articles recently, and nearly every second article has one or two tags regarding sourcing, promotional tone, and so on. I don’t think that’s a valid reason for deletion. This specific article doesn’t read as promotional in its current form. The COI tag states, "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view," but this article appears to have already been cleaned up, so I believe the tag can be removed. Whizkin (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Kennedy (speedway rider)

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV about the guy Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Evening Times from 1978 (here and here) states that they were the "Australian under-21 champion". It's not clear what Australian under-21 competition is being referred to, however this may go towards passing WP:NMOTORSPORT. TarnishedPath^talk 10:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some coverage here and here; also found a brief bit from Old Bike Australasia two years ago ("Danny Kennedy, born in Ballarat in 1958, enjoyed seven seasons in UK from 1976 to 1982, the last four years riding for the Poole Pirates, where he was immensely popular. Sadly he died from a brain tumour in 1993."). What makes the book sources in the article primary? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per TarnishedPath's and BeanieFan11's recommendations. SpacedFarmer (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per BeanieFan11's and my comments above. TarnishedPath^talk 05:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input on the sourcing presented, as to if it's significant or not. Late sentiment has been to keep but further input would be great to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Represented his nation. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added three of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 14:31, 22 August 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.

@@ Line 16: / Line 16: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmedabad–Darbhanga Sabarmati Express}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diamond Didi Zindabad}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slime (homemade toy)}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slime (homemade toy)}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Harvey Spencer Stephens}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecoism}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sesh Jibon}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social disorganization theory}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social disorganization theory}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho Tour}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psycho Tour}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RMA Gold Airways (2nd nomination)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fairfax Community Church}}
@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlusTV}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdullah Al-Marri}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jia Rizivi}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jia Rizivi}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shirley_Ho}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharon Purcell (2nd nomination)}}
@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTS (group)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Bagín}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NNI News}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NNI News}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Furqan}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Furqan}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sseruwagi Sinclaire Sebastian}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyprus–Finland relations}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On a Bicycle}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Langdon}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Langdon}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oleksandr Pshenychnyuk}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bratislava}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bratislava}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrey Rudoy}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rowley (writer)}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Rowley (writer)}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Zougam}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamal Zougam}} --><!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Nordic race}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Continental Nordic race}} -->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Madrid train bombings suspects}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Madrid train bombings suspects}} --><!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Rowley (disambiguation)}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information}}<!--Relisted-->
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context}}<!--Relisted-->
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context}} --><!--Relisted-->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eva Carboni}} --><!--Relisted-->
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buang Ruk Kamathep}} --><!--Relisted-->