Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 5: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:32, 5 July 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 04	July 06 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Sajan

AfDs for this article:

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

fails GNG in the sense that the sourcing presented is either not indepdenent or not significant coverage. Indication of COI. See previous account creators are blocked. CresiaBilli (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United Arab Emirates. CresiaBilli (talk) 08:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems to pop up every six months... Still not notable, with nothing found in RS. What's used now for sourcing are still in un-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, falls below all relevant notability requirement. The only credible source I could find is Forbes India other than that all other sources are either interview or primary sources. Ednabrenze (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seems like this subject just can't muster enough reliable sources, maybe it's time to say goodbye to this article. Waqar💬 18:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and a weak deletion nomination statement. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

INFINITT Healthcare

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

Stub created by a paid account, seemingly no notability whatsoever. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Technology, and South Korea. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 08:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:09, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete:~~ As a public KOSDAQ company, coverage exists. This would appear to scrape notability for companies, but sourcing I could locate is way too dependent on press releases such as https://www.arabnews.com/ejada-and-infinitt-forge-health-care-links. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC) - Weak keep CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:36, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Needs searches in the Korean language. Try googling "인피니트헬스"; you get much more results. [1][2][3][4][5][6] I am mindful of the fact that the page is tainted by a paid creator, but it doesn't read excessively complimentary to me on a quick glance. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 11:07, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] and [6] are press release, [2] is about the CEO, and I have reservation on [3] and [4] as routine stock coverage. [5] is good and I did not see it before: changing my vote. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 07:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while the article is short and incomplete I do believe the subject itself doesn't violet the notability guidelines for companies as it is a a public company with some coverage, but it should be improved and expanded. EncyclopediaEditorXIV (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎ with subject / author's consent. Also this is a BLP and this discussion was going nowhere productive. If an editor believes a redirect would be helpful, that can be done outside this discussion. Star Mississippi 23:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Claesson

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

Non-notable political candidate and author who made himself a Wikipedia page. Of the 6 articles cited on the page: 1 is the candidate list on the Alaska Divison of Elections website; one is a WP:ROTM article from Anchorage Daily News which has 1 sentence about Claesson; 1 is a page on "glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com" on which the only mention of Claesson is the inclusion of his book in a "recommended books" list; 1 is an article he wrote; 1 is a press release; and the final is a Los Angeles Times article by "Lawrence Graner" apparently written about him. Strangely enough, this article can't be found online, despite the fact that it was published in May 2023; the link in the citation leads to a paywalled Newspapers.com page, and I can't find any evidence that anyone by the name Lawrence Graner has ever written for the LA Times. Regardless, I don't think these cited articles are enough to determine notability; I can't find anything better on Google, and he doesn't seem to have any other claim to notability. I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 04:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Politicians, Journalism, Alaska, California, and Iowa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BottleOfChocolateMilk has an extensive history of deleting Wikipedia pages of politicians or political topics in which the views don't align with his. If you look on his Wikipedia 'talk' page, he's had complaints dating back to 2016. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 04:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have started over 41 deletion discussions on Wikipedia, for politicians across the political spectrum. I guess that means my views don't align with literally any politician in existence. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing a reason to delete this article. I'm seeing a pattern of bad behavior by @BottleOfChocolateMilk that has been reported beyond Wikipedia. 1.177.147.29 (talk) 05:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This IP user has only ever made edits on this deletion discussion. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article is sourced just fine. If bottleofchocolatemilk wants to improve Wikipedia, there are a lot of pages with no sources and misinformation that he can focus on. SpookyGhostMouth0 (talk) 05:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This Wikipedia account was created today. They have made 8 total edits, all on either Samuel Claesson's page or pages related to crime noir, which is the subject that Claesson writes about. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of Wikipedia is to spread knowledge, not to delete biographies of individuals who have opinions that you disagree with. The article shouldn't be deleted. In response to one of the comments on here, I do see that there are some reporters online who accuse BottleofChocolateMilk of being a political operative. While I don't know if the allegations are accurate, it does deserve some investigating: https://www.politicalcortadito.com/2024/02/18/manny-cid-wikipedia-page-questioned/ 1.177.147.29 (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you bothered doing "investigating" for yourself, Mr. IP user who is definitely not Samuel Claesson, you'd find that the page talked about in that article was deleted after numerous editors agreed that Manny Cid is not notable. The fact that you're spreading clearly bogus allegations from a random blogger shows how little credibility you have. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it should be deleted to me. You shouldn't classify something or somebody as 'non-notable' because you're unfamiliar with them. 1.177.147.27 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was this IP user's first ever edit. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

in addition, your staatement about www.glamourgirlsofthesilverscreen.com not mentioning him as being the nephew of Dennis Crosby is inaccurate. I just looked at the page and it clearly states it. Please examine these pages before flagging them. 1.177.147.29 (talk) 06:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, my mistake. There is indeed a single sentence on that page mentioning that Samuel Claesson accepted an award on someone's behalf. I fail to see how that helps prove he's notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd perhaps tag it as a stub, but not delete it. 115.22.92.132 (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another IP user who has only ever made edits on pages related to Samuel Claesson. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:YOURSELF and WP:AUTOPROB Samuelrclaesson has his own user page for this content. Even at that, there is nothing in this article that makes him notable enough for a separate article, even if a non-involved editor wrote it. — Maile (talk) 13:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As shown above, Samuel Claesson seems to have made multiple Wikipedia accounts to flood this discussion. He also left a threatening message on my talk page accusing me of being paid to delete Wikipedia accounts. His proof is a Facebook post from some random person who admits they "have no evidence of this." BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A few things:

1. I didn't make multiple accounts. That's a lie.

2. I didn't leave a threatening message. That's a lie.

3. There is a lot more evidence that he's being paid to do this stuff, including an article that someone else posted a link to above. There are similar allegations made against him by moderators on his 'talk' page.

4. I'd advise people to look at BottleOfChocolateMilk's 'talk' page and see the countless allegations of fraud, unprofessionalism, and bias that he has.

5. I'm under the impression that BottleOfChocolateMilk doesn't have any authority or power in his life, so he's using Wikipedia as an outlet to feel powerful. The purpose of Wikipedia -and I've made a lot of articles- is to provide knowledge, not to boost someone's ego and compensate for their insecurities. I don't hate BottleOfChocolateMilk, but I certainly pity him. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol, "someone else" posted the link. Sure. Please do us a favor and summarize the "evidence" in that article (there isn't any). If there's "a lot more evidence" then surely you should be able to produce something. Or you could just keep threatening to tell the admins on me, which would probably result in you getting banned, not me. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I never "threatened to tell the admins" anything. If you're gonna threaten to get me banned, you should at least be truthful. I merely said that your 'talk' page has dozens of complaints from editors about your conduct. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 01:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you're trying to lie about this when anyone can look at my talk page (or this deletion discussion) and see what you said. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. No WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:GNG. Based on their editing behavior and behavior in this AfD, Samuelrclaesson should arguably be banned. Longhornsg (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looking only at the article itself and doing a quick WP:BEFORE search, this article fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 16:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Fails WP:NPOL and search shows no evidence of meeting WP:GNG. I think an SPI may also be warranted here; I agree it should be taken to ANI first though, which I may do soon if no one else does. On a bit of an unrelated note the content creator also seems to have made several other CoI creations. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In response to AllTheUsernamesAreInUse... He's only chiming in because he's colluding with BottleOfChocolateMilk. If you see BottleOfChocolateMilk's 'talk' page, he and AllTheUsernamesAreInUse joke about being paid by a politician to edit Wikipedia. I'll be submitting information to ANI tonight about this, as this is not the way Wikipedia is supposed to be managed... long-time donors like myself hate seeing wannabe vigilantes like the two aforementioned individuals using Wikipedia as a way to give themselves authority and accomplishment that they lack in the real world. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 05:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The secret is out...Mary Peltola paid me to make this deletion discussion. I also got paid to start the 41 other deletion discussions I've created on Wikipedia. It's not much, but it's honest work. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 17:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Colluding", lol...and yes, it's a running joke between us because it didn't happen in real life. And ouch, "to give themselves accomplishment that they lack in the real world", be careful about personal attacks there. But yes, submit it to ANI, that would be a sensible course of action; I've little interest in arguing here. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I've notified ANI since I wasn't sure if anyone else was going to. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 17:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives election in Alaska per nom.Djflem (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I want nothing to do with this bias group of morons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuelrclaesson (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the page creator has now requested deletion, this seems like a speedy delete. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

the final is a Los Angeles Times article by "Lawrence Graner" apparently written about him. Strangely enough, this article can't be found online, despite the fact that it was published in May 2023; the link in the citation leads to a paywalled Newspapers.com page, and I can't find any evidence that anyone by the name Lawrence Graner has ever written for the LA Times I can see the newspaper article linked in the reference and it does not match the source definition (nor does it mention Claesson). If I go to the Los Angeles Times page/date specified in the source definition, there is no article about Claesson there. This appears to be a false source. Schazjmd (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Source fraud? That's a new one. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 22:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Take this to WP:AN/I

That Samuelrclaesson should not have created Samuel Claesson is indisputable. But what I'm also seeing, are more serious allegations towards this editor. ANI requires evidence and diffs, not just accusations like we see on this page. BottleOfChocolateMilk you've made a lot of accusations, not the least of which is socking - i.e. creating multiple accounts. WP:AN/I is the place to sort this out, and where something can be done about any violations mentioned above. Longhornsg , if you believe the editor should be banned, then do something about it - don't just complain. Wikipedia:Banning policy will tell you how to put that process in motion. — Maile (talk) 01:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'll do the same. Samuelrclaesson (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. I don't think an additional relisting would bring us to a consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2013 Ekayana Monastery bombing

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

Just a news story, no significant coverage beyond news reporting. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Terrorism, and Indonesia. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. This event did not receive WP:ROUTINE news coverage, but international news coverage [7] [8] [9], [10] and Time magazine analyzed the event in the context of Myanmar's Muslim-Buddhist conflict [11]. Longhornsg (talk) 03:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The coverage was beyond routine in that it was analyzed in the pattern of something else (the Buddhist-Muslim conflict in Burma), however it fails WP:SUSTAINED so I feel like at most this should be merged somewhere. I can't think of where... PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems notable as it passes WP:GNG and coverage seems to go beyond WP:ROUTINE. Ednabrenze (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kicko & Super Speedo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. It lacks significant coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources. The references cited are mainly announcements and TV schedules, which do not provide the necessary independent verification of the show's notability. It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag since May 2023. M S Hassan (talk) 18:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Sony_YAY!#Former_programming - Not opposed to Keep, see User:Eastmain's comment during 1st Afd.My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:12, 20 June 2024 (UTC) (the ~~tag~~ (fact that the page) (edited for clarity) "It has "additional citations needed for verification" tag, even since May 2023, indicates more a cleanup issue than a notability one).[reply]
Redirect to Green_Gold_Animations#Television. RangersRus (talk) 14:36, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect to Green Gold Animations? Or to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are two different target articles proposed here for a possible Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd say redirect it to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!. M S Hassan (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of programmes broadcast by Sony YAY!: Seems more apt. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 13:19, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greater Ozarks Conference

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

Fails GNG. The few sources which mention the subject do not constitute significant coverage of it. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Gödel2200 (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AVOIDCOI, making mention that I created the article. Additional information and sources added. Meets GNG's description of significant coverage, "... addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Even when the article had one source, it sufficiently addressed the topic directly and in detail. Regardless, I have added more information to the article, as well as additional citations from additional secondary sources - all of which meet GNG's definition of significant coverage. I have also added an external link, on the article, to the press release report released by the founding schools when it was established - one of the cited sources also links to it. GuyBanks (talk) 03:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the decision is made to delete all the other articles on individual Missouri high school conferences:
In addition to all the other states high school conferences: Category:United States high school athletic conference navigational boxes

GuyBanks (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Local coverage, such as what has been added here thus far, is usually not permitted for organizations per WP:AUD. Let'srun (talk) 18:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think we need to hear from more editors
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is enough coverage in the page for a pass of GNG. Frank Anchor 19:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:AUD local coverage such as the Ozarks First, Ozarks Sports Zone, and a local radio station (the three sources in the article currently) does not establish notability under WP:NORG for any of these sports leagues. Let'srun (talk) 21:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:AUD says news coverage must be regional - which is what the "Ozarks" news sources are. GuyBanks (talk) 21:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Earth Island Institute. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:08, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brower Youth Awards

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

No WP:SIGCOV about the awards themselves to establish WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Environment, and North America. Longhornsg (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert on this process but it seems that even a quick online search yields entire news articles about the awards and winners. Just a few I found in 5 minutes:

What's the process where it's like this article just needs more citations demonstrating WP:SIGCOV?

208.58.205.67 (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@208.58.205.56 I am not sure, personally I have no interest in fixing the article Mr Vili talk 06:43, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A review of the recently found sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As a response to @208.58.205.56, The Nation looks like a reliable source and is green on the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources list and there is no consensus for The Mercury News and Grist.com. However those three articles are about winners of the award, not significant coverage about the award itself. There are other sources such as Yale University ([[[12]]]), University of New Hampshire ([[[13]]]), and Institute of Competition Sciences ([[[14]]]), that discuss the background of the award. I think this at least merits to be kept as a stub and/or a list.Prof.PMarini (talk) 06:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Earth Island Institute - The problem with the Yale, University of New Hampshire and Institute of Competition Sciences pages are that these are all non independent/primary links for people wanting to apply for the award. What I am not seeing is any source that demonstrates this award is notable, by which some secondary source talks about it as a thing in itself, and not as "our student won" or "this is how to apply". It is not a huge award, but it is an award of Earth Island Institute whose notability is indicated in having a page. That page has one line on these awards that could be expanded with one of Prof.PMarini's sources to describe the award (information that is not clearly on the page, so not a merge), and that is then all we really need. Rather than keeping this as a stub, per Prof.PMarini, we can keep that information where it sits in the context of the institute's work. The redirect preserves page history should this become notable by secondary sources taking notice, and the long list of winners can go because Wikipedia is not a database (WP:NOT), and this is all unsourced and outdated. There are 5 years missing. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Earth Island Institute. The program seems fairly well-established and is a reasonable search term. However, the sources mentioned here and in the article itself each mostly focus on a single winner as a local human-interest story; sources that cover all of the winners of an award would be significant coverage of the event as opposed to the person, but that doesn't seem to be available here. The sources that don't fall into this category are just listings of scholarship information that seem more like database entries. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:41, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Clifford

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

Notability concerns. The article is about a British professor of geography; no secondary sources. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and United Kingdom. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (no opinion yet). This Nick Clifford appears to be Nicholas J. Clifford, author of research works involving river bed sediment. He should not be confused with Nicholas R. Clifford, a sinologist who appears to be notable (William R. Kenan Professor at Middlebury College). It doesn't help that I keep finding NRC's books listed as being by NJC. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is a weak case to be made for WP:PROF#C1, with a few triple-digit citation counts in Google Scholar. But I can't find any sources that verify even the basic times and dates of his employment, and without that it is difficult to write even an adequate stub that passes WP:V. (To be clear: through affiliations listed on his publications one can place him in certain universities at certain dates, but nothing with a bigger picture of his career.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This archive URL of his profile from Loughborough has Cliffords employment history: [15] - I've also updated the citation in the article to include the archive-url. Furthermore I've identified and added two SCOPUS profiles including [16]. ResonantDis_tortion 21:34, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Noted academic.... Full Prof at KCL and Loughborough till retirement 2020. Lots of cited works (including Key methods in geography Cited by 1500+) (Perhaps searching GS under NJ Clifford, Nicholas Clifford (and checking is the same Clifford) adds up to substantial pubs... Technical clear Pass of WP:prof (8) by virtue of being (formerly) the editor of Progress in Physical Geography. Added refs, including editorials in the journal, substantiating this (Msrasnw (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC))[reply]
- Is the River Science Wikidot source reliable? I had assumed not, but on further review it does seem to be a closed-wiki with some editorial control. Walsh90210 (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The author of the article is another UK academic in the same field. BhamBoi (talk) 01:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agreed with the !vote by Msrasnw, in particular 4 figure citations. Furthermore a quick google identified secondary book reviews [17], and [18]. Also the worldcat profile here shows his books are held by hundreds of libraries, which should count for something. ResonantDis_tortion 22:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Prof: was a full Professor at a major university, and has lots of citations. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the subject of this article appears to meet the guidelines (WP:ACADEMIC). He has a considerable publication record and his work, especially Key Methods in Geography, has been cited over 1,500 times. His role as the editor of Progress in Physical Geography adds even more weight to his notability. His teaching roles at King's College London and Loughborough University also prove that he is notable. Other references and articles support the claims in the entry, further enhancing his standing.--AstridMitch (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep can be considered notable according to WP:PROF#C5 (Readership at Nottingam) and WP:PROF#C4 (key methods in human geography by Clifford is an introductory level textbook used in British universities) Vorann Gencov (talk) 13:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to LGBT rights in Kurdistan. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Newroz clashes (2023)

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

WP:NOTNEWS, local event only covered by Turkish media sources. Ecrusized (talk) 01:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Sexuality and gender, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge some of it to LGBT rights in Kurdistan (where it is mentioned briefly, needing some elaboration). No standalone notability. Geschichte (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to Turks in Germany. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almancı

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

Possible Wiki dictionary item, the term itself is brief enough to be merged with Turks in Germany. Ecrusized (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Ethnic groups, Germany, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Turks in Germany: WP:NOTDICT Aintabli (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zygote Media Group

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm unsure why the last AfD nom was speedy closed by a non-admin, but there is a distinct lack of sourcing for this item. It's been tagged since 2006 and has not improved. I find nothing about this group other than the Google Body app that was taken over by them when Google discontinued it. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Oaktree b (talk) 00:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I closed my own AfD as speedy keep as I found [[19]] and [[20]] just after submitting it but I'm not super convinced that there is enough here. Let'srun (talk) 01:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Companies, Medicine, Technology, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I don't think the sources listed above by Let'srun are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unable to find the sources needed to meet WP:NCORP. Let'srun (talk) 14:41, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm having trouble finding strong sources to back up the info in this article. Maybe letting this one go might be the best course of action. Waqar💬 18:33, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Islamokemalism

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

Fringe term only cited by a few Turkish news reports. Uncertain whether such an ideology exists or whether it is term coined by a few news websites. Ecrusized (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Islam, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:45, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, the former state ideology is just “a term coined by a few news websites”. Have it your way. You are on a rampage of nominating my Turkish topic articles for deletion after making the bold accusation that I am “trying to make the Turkish government look bad”. Engaging you is not worth my time as you make it clear from your statements that you are too emotional. I won’t participate in the discussions, whatever the admins decide I’ll take it and won’t argue. Next time you go on another nomination spree, let me know. I had no idea until I did my routine article check. Ilamxan (talk) 18:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article title can be discussed, but the article should kept, unless there is a good merge proposal. The references in the article include mainstream news outlets or notable columnists, all discussing a coherent theme around the marriage of Kemalist and Islamist ideologies.

TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe the article does make a decent case and cites a couple of mainstream sources. I think it is notable enough. Brat Forelli🦊 22:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can't say that this is as established in the sources as major ideologies are, but there seems to be plenty of discussion (significant coverage) of it. It should be noted that searching Islamokemalism returns a few publications, but looking for different combinations of the Turkish form helps rack up more sources. See [21][22][23] and so on. Aintabli (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finley Jeffrey

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

Article created by user with COI. Immediately PRODed, but unPRODed by same user with no explanation. BLP has many "citation needed" tags and the only two citations present do not appear to be independent and reliable. Subject shows no notability. GoldRomean (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. GoldRomean (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Gseach is straight to social media, then not much else pops up. Flowery wording, but nothing found in sources to support the claims made. Lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Grenada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails WP:SINGER and the two cited sources do not establish notability. Gödel2200 (talk) 13:54, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article reads like an advertisement and doesn't provide any credible sources to back up its claims. It seems promotional rather than informative. Waqar💬 18:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Miner

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

Prior efforts to remove a large volume of promotional materials reveal how much of a nothing-burger this page on an American sales speaker is. There is no significant coverage and much promotional material, and it almost merits speedy deletion. It turned up on my radar because it received 7,000 views in June despite being an orphan. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:24, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I suppose having a best-selling book in the sales category could be notable, but other than the listing, there is no coverage... None, other than places to listen to his speeches or sales mantras. I don't find reviews of his books or mentions of this individual in RS, this appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 00:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:47, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems heavy on promotional info about the speaker's books and events, and there isn't much beyond links to the speaker's own materials. Waqar💬 19:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep‎. (non-admin closure) Let'srun (talk) 00:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zygote Media Group

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

Subject does not meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of coverage discussing the company in-depth. The best I could find through multiple searches was a couple of sentences at [[24]] and [[25]], nothing to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. A 2006 PROD was removed by the since blocked User:Zygote Media Group so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Utah. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rizwan Sajan (3rd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/INFINITT Healthcare}}<!--Relisted-->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Claesson}}