Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

20 December 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 19	December 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Severo Tiago

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

Seems to fail notability guidelines

Courtesy ping @user:Spiderone, since you contested the ProD Jay Cubby 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Portugal. Jay Cubby 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails NFOOTBALL. Deriannt (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fayçal Lalioui

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

Entirely promotional and no indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia is not linkedin. Deriannt (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Algeria, and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galileo FX

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

Entirely promotional and no establishment of WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 19:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - fails WP:NSOFT, sources are self-published PR. Deriannt (talk) 19:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tulika Mehrotra

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

Do not pass WP:AUTHOR or even WP:BASIC ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Uttar Pradesh, and Illinois. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:59, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a book review from Vogue India and an article from The Hindu on her books. Not too familiar with the English-language media landscape throughout India, but I think there's a good chance there is sufficient coverage that would make this pass WP:NAUTHOR (e.g., book reviews), especially considering the books were published by Penguin (one of the Big Five publishers). Bridget (talk) 01:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bridget Thank you for your efforts. I also conducted a search for relevant sources initially, but I did not find them to meet the notability criteria. Both sources are primarily interview-based descriptions. The piece in Vogue India is a one-time article by Ridhima Sud, and the The Hindu article also revolves around an interview. Neither of these, on their own, can establish notability. While publishing with Penguin is a significant accomplishment, it alone does not satisfy the notability requirements according to Wikipedia's standards. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:AUTHOR, interviews are not RS. Deriannt (talk) 19:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus Wilson (basketball)

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

Prolific high school/college basketball player fails WP:NHOOPS. Page is an absolute mess and was likely created as promotional material by an WP:SPA. Novemberjazz 18:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, Basketball, Israel, France, Germany, Montenegro, Poland, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine, Venezuela, Indiana, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eudora OSE

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

Appears to be an open source version of Eudora, article is virtually entirely original research. Any notability seems tied to Eudora or Thunderbird. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Contains a bunch of information and references. A couple of articles link to this one (Special:WhatLinksHere/Eudora OSE). 2A02:3036:206:65CA:8888:9AD2:A4A0:79C6 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid Keep rationale. We do not keep articles because it "contains a bunch of information": all articles do. We keep them on the basis of significant coverage. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, though mainly for historical interest. However, I have a weak spot for Eudora, which was head and shoulders better than Mail, Thunderbird, Gmail etc. I only gave up on Eudora (in around 2012 — long after it stopped being maintained) because our computer service more or less insisted. Athel cb (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could you figure out what could be salvaged from this article and merge into Eudora? IgelRM (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid Keep rationale. We do not keep articles because you think they're interesting: we keep them on the basis of significant coverage. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of the Keep !votes carry much weight in terms of P&G. Please focus on the key issue of notability per our guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Eudora (email client)#Hiatus and source code release (2006–2018): it is mentioned there, making it a valid-enough alternative to deletion. Given the existing sourcing (all of which seem tied to Qualcomm or Mozilla, which is not what we're looking for in 2024), I'm not sure if anything "exclusive" to the current separate article makes that much sense to merge, but that doesn't preclude a redirect. That this is a separate article at all is more an artifact of the lower inclusion standards of 2006 than anything else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Devarakonda

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted due to lack of sourcing, this article was refunded to draftspace after an editor said sources were available and then moved to mainspace. However, the newly supplied sources still do not support notabilty. Each of the three sources included here ([1], [2], [3] has a single paragraph or less out of a full-length book on this battle. These sources verify that this battle took place, but is not WP:SIGCOV to pass WP:GNG. The only other source I found in my WP:BEFORE is a post on a blog of questionable reliability. (It says it allows "anyone with a reasonable grounding in the Dharmic Indian civilization to air their views.") If there's a valid redirect target I'm open to it but I don't know what it would be. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Telangana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can find sufficient significant coverage (SIGCOV) in all three sources. The first source provides more than a page of coverage (pages 33–34), not just a paragraph. The second source also offers nearly a full page of coverage. While the third source is not fully accessible, its preview suggests at least two pages dedicated to this event. These sources should be sufficient to establish notability, and there was no need to consider a non-reliable source like Pragyata in the first place. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source contains 336 words on this battle. The second source contains 211 words. These are paragraph-length passages; one of them is a literal paragraph. (The third source, which you said you can't see, has only two references visible in search to the battle, so it's quite a leap to assume from those snippets that it's SIGCOV.) The article itself is 411 words long, which suggests some degree of WP:SYNTH or WP:OR in managing to find more to say than its source material. That indicates this battle is insufficiently notable for a standalone page per WP:NOPAGE. Again, open to a redirect if there's a war or campaign this battle was part of, but I don't know what that would be. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. The article body has 339 words (lead and infobox should not be taken into account). And, as far as I know, that is not what SYNTH and OR state. Even if it exceeds the sources in word count a little bit, I don't see a problem here. It is not necessary that content words in a Wikipedia article should match exactly with its sources. Coming to the third source, from what I can see, there is a certain pattern on pages 53–54 that follows the other two sources in terms of describing this event, so it is safe to assume that it contains at least 2 pages, or roughly 3 pages, of coverage. Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

15.ai

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural nomination. This article was recently deleted by consensus. A deletion review process was filed; the filer meanwhile created a new fresh draft using different sources which was passed by a reviewer at AfC. I have closed the DRV, so that the new draft may be evaluated on its own merits. By this nomination, I make no judgements on the outcome. BusterD (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Software, and Websites. BusterD (talk) 17:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This AfD was procedurally created because an old version of the article was deleted as a result of a previous AfD, which was largely due to the misbehaving of new Wikipedia editors who participated in sockpuppetry and canvassing, and as such the new research and citations I found after relisting were not taken into consideration. In the previous AfD, it’s worth noting that after my new sources were posted, no new delete votes were submitted. As per advice given to me by User:Liz and other Wikipedia administrators, I was encouraged to create a new draft of the article from scratch and submit it to AfC, which I did, and the newly written article was accepted via AfC within several hours by an impartial third party who was not previously aware of the AfD and DRV. I followed all of the correct processes as was recommended to me by experienced editors. User:Barkeep49, the closer of the previous AfD, can attest to the fact that I did not have a copy of the old version of the article when I wrote this new version from scratch.

According to archived discussions on the Teahouse, a good rule of thumb is three independent and reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage to establish WP:GNG. Here are the major reliable sources that provide significant coverage for the subject:

[NEW] United Daily News [4]. Reliable as one of the largest and oldest-running newspapers in Taiwan. Listed as one of the three major Chinese-language newspapers in List of newspapers in Taiwan. Significant coverage includes an overview of the technology behind 15.ai, particularly noting its ease of use and limited data, and also discusses how 15.ai works, its features, and the viral videos that have spawned using 15.ai. Over 400 (approximate since the article is written in Chinese) words of coverage.
Den Fami Nico Gamer [5]. Reliable as listed in WP:VG/RS. Significant coverage includes an overview of the DeepMoji technology used for emotiveness, applications of the voices not restricted to viral videos, and how to use it. Over 400 (approximate since the article is written in Japanese) words of coverage.
AUTOMATON [6]. While not listed in WP:VG/RS, AUTOMATON is one of the largest and reputable gaming news outlets in Japan, and has been used in multiple GA's like Only Up!, Visions of Mana, and Sprigatito, Floragato, and Meowscarada. Significant coverage includes DeepMoji, a list of characters available on the application, examples of video content users have created with the platform, an overview of the pronunciation capabilities of the model, as well as a mention of how to use ARPAbet strings. Almost 800 (approximate since the article is written in Japanese) words of coverage.
[NEW] Rionaldi Chandraseta [7]. While the article itself is written on Medium (which is not considered reliable), Medium is only being used as a vessel to host the article itself (similar to how Google Docs can be used to host an article), which is part of a very popular newsletter called Towards Data Science, which has almost 800K followers on social media. Following alone means nothing in determining the reliability of a source, but Rionaldi Chandraseta, the author of the article, is an IEEE-published machine learning specialist who has published papers that are listed on Google Scholar [8]. The newsletter has a solid editorial board [9] that consists of multiple masters and PhD's in machine learning and computer science. Over 1,000 words of English-language coverage detailing every facet of 15.ai, from its capabilities to its underlying research.
[NEW] Yongqiang Li [10]. Since the article is locked to foreigners without an account, I asked a friend to translate this for me. The article goes into great detail about the technology behind 15.ai and talks about its features, its future, and potential problems. The author is a professor at the Harbin Institute of Technology and has multiple publications listed on Google Scholar [11] and ResearchGate [12].
Eurogamer [13]. Reliable as listed in WP:VG/RS. While the main focus of the article isn't 15.ai, it goes into detail the controversy and Twitter exchange that happened when Voiceverse NFT misappropriated 15.ai's work. From However, in now-deleted tweets, Voiceverse was found to have boasted about using its tech for the voice of a cartoon character - which was in fact created using 15.ai, a popular non-commercial text-to-speech service. to "Hey @fifteenai we are extremely sorry about this," Voiceverse NFT wrote. "The voice was indeed taken from your platform, which our marketing team used without giving proper credit. Chubbiverse team has no knowledge of this. We will make sure this never happens again.", this is about 300 words of coverage.
Stevivor [14]. After doing more research, I found that Steven Wright, the author of this article, also writes for Inverse, a solid and well-known technology and gaming publication. In addition, Stevivor is reliable and independent, and it is the most-read independent gaming news network in the Oceanic region.
Kotaku [15]. While Kotaku is in WP:VG/RS, it also states News posts from Kotaku between 2010 and 2022 are considered reliable, (the article is from 2021, so it meets this criteria) but also states although editors are cautioned of blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance. It's still debated whether an article from the "Odds and Ends" category is considered "News", and the entry in WP:VG/RS says articles should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is no clear consensus to this, but the description for the "Odds and Ends" category is "Odds and Ends - Gaming Reviews, News, Tips and More.". The argument in the previous AfD was that this article did not meet reliability, although it met independence and significant coverage. I personally believe that this article is reliable.
Game Informer, PC Gamer, and Rock, Paper, Shotgun [16] [17] [18] All three of these sources are found under WP:VG/RS, but there has been a debate whether these three met significant coverage. While they all pass WP:100WORDS, it is not a Wikipedia policy and their significant coverage can be debated.
NME [19]. WP:RS notes NME is reliable in its expertise, and it has been debated whether gaming is one of their areas of expertise. The Wikipedia article for NME states that this is so, and gaming is listed as one of NME's header sections, but there has been debate whether NME's expertise extends outside of music. Similar coverage to Eurogamer, but with fewer words, but still above the threshhold for WP:100WORDS (which, again, is not Wikipedia policy).
Andrew Ng [20]. The author, Andrew Ng, is one of the most famous and influential artificial intelligence researchers in the world, with a healthy Google Scholar profile [21] and was included in the Time 100 Most Influential People in AI list in 2023. While 15.ai is mentioned as a blurb and likely does not meet significant coverage, it shows that the subject wasn't a mere curiosity and was under the radar for a large number of prominent figures in AI while the service was active. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GregariousMadness (talk • contribs) 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

However, some of these have been contested in some form, the arguments for which I personally disagreed with. Think of these sources as you will. I still haven't gone over many of the the sources that are used in the newly written page, but I will continue to do my research and update this.

Yes, I'm aware that this is a contentious article that was submitted to AfD. But the AfD was closed largely due to the misbehaving of new Wikipedia editors, who are likely to be children, which is not surprising given the popularity of the application among younger people. I'm committed to doing this subject justice, and I argue that this subject not only meets the bare minimum of notability, but meets it well-within question. GregariousMadness (talk to me!) 17:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought the AfC submission was okay but should have been with a different AfC reviewer. Someone who was not involved with these past discussions. This AfD is overkill. – The Grid (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid For clarity, as the AFC reviewer in question, I was entirely uninvolved with the initial 15.ai discussions and didn't know of their existence at all. I was only notified of them after I'd already passed the article. I've been keeping an eye on these newer discussions that followed my review, but for the case of the initial review, I was an entirely uninvolved third party. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no complaint with User:Pokelego999's review of the article. I've commented at AfC talk that comparing new submissions to recently deleted versions is probably a wise precaution. We should not generally be passing drafts which are currently at deletion review, IMHO. Is your namespace currently the subject of a deletion process? That seems like a quick fail. BusterD (talk) 18:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references in the article clearly show enough coverage to meet GNG. QuicoleJR (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NWEB and WP:GNG.—Alalch E. 19:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maks Bajc

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

Seems to have only had a few supporting roles (might be wrong here), unclear how he meets NACTOR threshold. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 16:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Slovenia, and Yugoslavia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IREDES

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

Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone about a nonprofit, and has been unsourced since its 2008 creation. Search turns up no independent coverage of subject. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Engineering, Computing, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pasming Based

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

Fails notability by a long margin. Jay Cubby 15:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jay Cubby 15:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable Indonesian internet celebrity, i just got confused on the writing format. Clearly pass WP:GNG because he has a profile written by Kumparan and Tempo. De Shiree (talk) 15:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And clearly the subject has 320 thousand followers on his TikTok which clearly show that he is notable enough. De Shiree (talk) 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Britishisation

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

The term looks made up, and seems to be OR, we also have other articles (even linked here) for much of this. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article can be changed to a more neutral wording, such as "British influence on the world".

In my view, duplicated information is not a sufficient reason to delete this article. British influences on the world have taken place both before and after the British Empire, so having some kind of dedicated resource to discuss this seems fair, and the current Legacy of the British Empire link goes only to a relatively short section in the British Empire article, which is insufficient to communicate the full impact of British influence, as well as implicitly colouring to some extent the overall British impact in more of a Imperial-political light, rather than giving a wholly global overview. In general, it should be possible to learn (or at least be linked to) the same information from different articles on Wikipedia, as this allows for a more comprehensive coverage of any one given topic while still showing the linkages between various topics. Also, there are articles discussing many other forms of -"-isations", such as Americanisation or Croatisation, so having one for a prolifically influential country like Britain seems paramount. GreekApple123 (talk) 15:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Music, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saurashtra Premier League

AfDs for this article:

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

Not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 14:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridgeport, Indiana

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

What's at the site is the Ridgeport Community Church, and it is labelled on the topos as "Ridgeport Ch" until the 2010-era redo of the maps, which seemingly not coincidentally is when a lot of errors show up (such as label drift and back-copying onto the maps from GNIS). In this case I was able to find this old county history which states, "Ridgeport is a hewed-log churchhouse on that ridge, west of the village of Cincinnati." And that is all it has to say. It has since been replaced by a modern generitarian building which continues to sit in isolation on the side of the road, so unless someone can find something else I think this one can be chalked up to questionable map reading. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 20 December 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 December 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason-Shane Scott

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

I struggled to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE (there are a few interviews on soap opera related websites, but nothing of substance to my mind. The one significant role in One Life to Live does not meet the bar for WP:NACTOR, and so I submit that the subject is not notable. I proposed a Redirect to One Life to Live. The article is also not written from a terribly neutral point of view either, but that is somewhat by-the-by. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Nevada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as the nominator does not advocate deletion. The article can be boldly redirected as desired. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:39, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't mean to be unclear. I do think that the article should be deleted. My suggestion of redirection was as an alternative to deletion, and I wanted to get some consensus before doing that. Cheers SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NACTOR, had a notable known role in One Life to Live and a notable recurring role in the web series The Bay. He also appeared in numerous films and television programs. He also meets WP:GNG from the sources found in Newspapers.com, Jason-Shane Scott: Acting based on looks along isn't true success (The Times and Democrat), 'One Life' actor Scott has family members who are there for him (Richmond Times-Dispatch), To Scott, talent counts more than looks (Austin American-Statesman), Dream come true: Wooster star get soap job; Diller goes undercover; Springer visits (Reno Gazette-Journal) and Jason-Shane Scott follows destiny on 'OLTL' (Oakland Tribune). Those five Newspapers.com sources shows that the article meets WP:GNG. MoviesandTelevisionFan (talk) 02:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Team Epic

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

An article about unnotable 10-year old canadian web series which has no significant coverage from media. All sources in this article are just brief mentions of this show and do not prove its notability. Please do not be confused with Pop Team Epic, it is a completely unrelated series. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only bring up Pop Team Epic, which is a different thing than this. Sourcing used now in the article are blogs, imdb and other non-RS. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see a few sources that are independent and significant coverage including critical appraisal and they were published in reliable media. -Mushy Yank. 21:48, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lantau Link Visitors Centre

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

Even after addition of sources, topic still seems unimportant. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: GNG is clearly fulfilled after I deproded the article. The two Oriental Daily News articles (source 1 and 4) and the am730 article (source 5) are full-length articles with detailed coverage on the centre's history and current condition. "topic still seems unimportant" is not a deletion rationale but a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Tsing_Ma_Bridge#Tourism - I don't think the sources constitute significant coverage, Source 1 and 4 are basically the same article from the same source, Source 5 is barely in-depth and just those two sources don't reach the level required; this article will never be able to expanded upon based on the available sources. I think merging into Tsing_Ma_Bridge#Tourism would be better. :JeffUK 14:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tsing_Ma_Bridge#Tourism: "Seems unimportant" is not a reason for deletion, but everything I found (with the help of Google translate) ties it into the bridge. Length isn't an issue, so I think a merger makes the most sense here. Star Mississippi 14:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @JeffUK and Star Mississippi: I am interested to hear more detailed comments on the sources from you guys. Even if articles from the same media outlet count as one like Jeff suggested, the Oriental Daily News articles are a still decent source that detail the development and current condition of the visitor centre's lack of maintenance. The am730 article is barely in-depth? The 1,800-word article is entirely about the centre, ranging from its construction history, to its tourism development, and to the recent public discussions about revitalization. I would really like to hear what Jeff thinks this article is about if you believe it is not focused on the visitor centre, and how does it relate to the bridge when it was only briefly mentioned for four times throughout the article? GNG only requires SIGCOV from multiple sources, and these two articles already meet the criterion, not to mention other sources currently listed in the article, like the Sing Tao Daily article (source 9) which is also entirely about the centre and viewing platform. I think a potential factor leading to our varied analyses of the sources may stem from the disregard for the mentions of the viewing platform in those articles. The official name of the location is actually Lantau Link Visitors Centre and Viewing Platform[22][23] (like the Chinese translation suggested: 青嶼幹綫訪客中心及觀景台), and they are the same place. (I believe a move is much needed if this article is to be kept.). —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  As WP:GNG says "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." I think it will look great as a part of the Tsing Ma Bridge article. On the specific source, barely means 'it is in-depth, but only just', the fact it's 1,800 words long isn't relevant, it's a lot of talk that says very little, the reason we have WP:SIGCOV is, partly, to ensure there is enough unique information available for us to create an article. JeffUK 15:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with @JeffUK here @Prince of Erebor. The reader wants to learn about the bridge, which includes this viewing area. They are the same subject and it makes sense for them to be covered together. WP:NOPAGE is also helpful here. It would be different if there was information independent of the bridge and/or there was a length issue. I think the official name isn't a strong issue, it can be addressed with a redirect should this close as merge or be retained as a standalone. Star Mississippi 15:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  [Edit conflict] JeffUK, I apologize if my emphasis on the article's length caused confusion. I understand that your initial comment was about the article lacking SIGCOV on the subject, which I respectfully disagreed with, as the article is entirely focused on it. I do not believe your interpretation of SIGCOV aligns with what SIGCOV means. SIGCOV refers to a source that addresses the topic directly and in detail, rather than providing only a passing or brief mention, so I do not think the am730 article fails to meet SIGCOV. I think you are more likely referring to WP:NOPAGE, and I understand your perspective and the rationale that notability alone does not guarantee a standalone article. If the current article were a stub with only two sentences and only two sources just to bypass GNG, I definitely agree with you. But the article has sufficient notability, especially with a revitalization project underway and ongoing news coverage, including articles published as recently as this year (the Our China Story source). Therefore, I do not agree with your assertion that the article has no potential for expansion, and I do not see a need to merge it. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, Star Mississippi, we were writing at the same time, and my comment was only addressing Jeff's arguments. However, I also thought you guys were leaning towards the NOPAGE side, and imo, the revitalization project mentioned in the am730 source already indicates the subject's independence from the bridge. I realize I may have failed to express my final comments regarding the official name of the Centre. What I meant to convey is that the viewing platform is also part of the subject, so perhaps you guys overlooked the lines discussing the viewing platform or observation deck and thought they referred to the bridge instead of the Centre, because I was a bit confused when multiple editors found that article lacked in-depth coverage of the subject. Apologies for the confusion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Anyway, thanks both for clarifying things for me and I now understand the arguments from you guys, which focus not on the sources but on the lack of independence of the subject. Let's see what other editors have to say about this. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  All good @Prince of Erebor and we'll see where this lands. I'm not against retention, I'm just not sure it's the best solution for readers. Thanks, as always, for your detailed input. Star Mississippi 19:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salavatabad (mountain)

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

I struggled to find a single non-Wikimedia related source even mentioning this mountain range. Article is unsourced as well. Most mentions are indirect, such as through a local village with the same name. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems to also be transliterated as two words, "Salavat Abad", I haven't found much more with this but there are a few examples e.g. | (PDF) A GIS-based logistic regression model in rock-fall susceptibility mapping along a mountainous road: Salavat Abad case study, Kurdistan, Iran this might at least give us enough to merit a mention in Sanandaj or Sanandaj County JeffUK 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alessia Aureli

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Italy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emire Khidayer

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

Not convinced this passes WP:GNG. The current references are certainly not up to scratch, and I could only find one reference on Google News relating to the subject here. Uhooep (talk) 12:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Slovakia. Shellwood (talk) 12:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Women Rising

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

UPE spam for not notable organisation. Created by a sock of a blocked sock farmer. Lacks independent coverage in reliable sources. Founder talking about her business is not independent. Clients talking the business is not independent. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:PROMO article for a subject that fails WP:NCORP. Sources are unreliable and/or non-independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing found for this outfit, some hits on the phrase. I don't see notability and the sourcing used is iffy. Oaktree b (talk) 15:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plateau (game)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable board game, seemingly authored by its creator. Lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. ✗plicit 11:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not being notable. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Misgeld

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

The article lacks any clear indication of WP:Notability. Xpander (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 10:51, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top Third Ventures

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for notability issues for years. Imcdc Contact 10:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Mauritius. Imcdc Contact 10:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Direx Universal Gun

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

I'm not sure there are enough RS for this. I did find a referral to one of the references here:[24] from which there seems to have been direct copying to the article, so much of it is copyvio. Doug Weller talk 10:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Switzerland. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astra Tech

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

Blatant advertisement. Only coverage is press releases/companies announcements. No secondary coverage. Probable COI. Fails WP:NCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and United Arab Emirates. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Bakhtar40: if it's blatant advertisement, it would be eligible for CSD G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Killarnee (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Killarnee, You might be right. Since it was already marked as afd. How can we move it to the G11 standards now? Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vimal Singh Mahavidyalay

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

The sources listed do not establish notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Uttar Pradesh. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haroun (Fadhiweyn)

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

Article about an unnotable headquarters of a Somali rebel group. I couldn't find any significant sources on the subject other than this article. Most sources in this article are either broken or not related to it at all. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was already deleted in June 2024 as it failed to meet WP:GNG. Somebody has recreated it in November 2024. Edit: having read the new sources, I am not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The Spectator source seems to be the only one with a focus on him, and it’s reliability seems questionable. Other editors may like to evaluate. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, News media, and Entertainment. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was passed through the WP:AFC process[25] and WP:G4 presumably doesn't apply. This doesn't mean a guaranteed keep, but it does mean that the nomination should be closed as Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT#3 (unless Zenomonoz can update their nom with an proper rationale ref WP:DEL-REASON before someone gets to it) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - struck. Pinging AFC reviewer Grahaml35 for comment. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Snowman304 for comment, who rejected Avaldcast's initial draft for this article. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please reiterate what the problem with the article is again?

Notability and source reliability (original issue) was addressed after it went article creation process and was approved.

Is the issue that it was deleted, improved and then re-approved? Avaldcast (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avaldcast, it's quite hard for editors to evaluate the article when you were inserting reliable sources that do not even mention Patrick Bet-David. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the last two AfD, non-notable business person with passing mentions in sources. Being a podcaster isn't notable in 2024. I'd SALT at this point, three times in AfD is more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was claims that the sources were not reliable but as this individual has become more notable, more reliable sources have been published. Therefore being approved despite being deleted. Avaldcast (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Patrick Bet-David played a notable role in the 2024 presidential election discourse by hosting significant figures such as Donald Trump on his podcast tour. His platform, Valuetainment, served as a space for Trump to engage with his base and discuss campaign messaging, drawing millions of views and contributing to public conversations about the election. Bet-David’s interviews with Trump and other political figures have been widely covered in reliable sources like Vanity Fair and The Spectator, highlighting his influence in political media. This demonstrates that Bet-David is a public figure of notability, with substantial impact on contemporary political dialogue. Avaldcast (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Avaldcast. ChopinAficionado (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please see my comments in the last AfD for source evaluation. Nothing has changed none of this new coverage is specifically about David, but only mentions him in passing, and the majority of sourcing is from self-published sources like podcasts which are not indicative of notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was approved when new articles from reputable sources were published since he interviewed President Trump and Crown Prince of Iran and other politicians and notable guests. Avaldcast (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for pinging me, Hydronium Hydroxide. I approved this article and moved to it to mainspace because of the sources that were added to the aricle with the the Vanity Fair one added very in depth coverage. With the other sources of CNBC and RealClearPolitics I felt that it passed WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a brief look over some of the sources added by avaldcast, and they did not verify much of the content added to the article. See: Talk:Patrick Bet-David#Editing by Avaldcast. I've done tidy up, but might be helpful if other users considering this AfD could briefly check others before they decide. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please just delete lol you have a personal issue with this person. Avaldcast (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in RealClearPolitics, ABC News, and Vanity Fair among others. Fernweh0 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analyst would be helpful at this point. User:NebulaDrift, I assume you didn't mean it when you asked for the article to be deleted. AFD discussions are a give and take between editors who hold different opinions, getting to a consensus is part of the process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think its a keep because of the sources already mentioned above because as per my experience experts often say that even if its one article in a reliable source it should be good. NatalieTT (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I really don't know why this is even at AFD. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Fixer Ltd.

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

Sources are promotional or maybe sponsored, not seeing WP:SIGCOV coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. GrabUp - Talk 07:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 07:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Anti-Corruption Commission has corruption charges against this company and companies founder . So I created this page which I think fulfills the importance Susdtr (talk) 07:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey

AfDs for this article:

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

The people in the 2016 discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chamber_of_Commerce_in_Turkey who did not want the article deleted have not added or suggested any inline sources and I don't think the general sources listed are enough to show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Turkey, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy's Building Supply

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

Clearly fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of this company anywhere online Cutlass ^Ciera 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local news stories and PR items this was about all I could find [26]. No sourcing in the article now we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 02:17, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is new. Granted, needs work. Local/regional news stories: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]

Listed as one of USA's top retailers: [35] Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And national news^ Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://familybusinessmagazine.com/growth/supplied-for-success/ Tejano512 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A little too quick on the deletion-axe there, as this is a brand new article still being worked on, when it was put up for deletion here. I just surfed the internet and found many mentions of this company, branched in Texas and multiple other states. The article could use more work, but the business is legitimate and a pretty big operation overall. — Maile (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the sources are PR-type articles, and the few others that are local sources don't provide enough for significant coverage. An announcement claiming that a company had made a donation does not provide notability and significant coverage. Cutlass ^Ciera 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources don't meet the rigor required by WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
New sources have been added Tejano512 (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As stated abv, new sources have been added. Are more sources needed? A good amount of articles are industry news and not PR. Tejano512 (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. While it could definitely be improved (judging from the AI use) and more reliable sources should be added, WP:ORGCRIT requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" for a company to be notable. I think the article's current citations suffice for this requirement. Additionally, this article was only created around two weeks ago; let it breathe a little more. Beachweak (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The coverage fall short of required threshold for WP:NCORP. The sources are PR articles and just two[36][37] appear to be independent with WP:SIGCOV but not sure of their reliability in terms of RS. And even if those two are reliable it still not enough to sustain the article. Mekomo (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. The sources are not very robust, so I agree that the article falls short of WP:NCORP. However, since USA Today lists it as one of America's top retailers, there's certainly some potential (once better sources can be found).--DesiMoore (talk) 16:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist as I see no consensus here yet. It would be very helpful here if an editor put together a source assessment since I'm seeing different feedback on the adequacy of the sources in the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of inorganic reactions

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

This article has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination rationale makes little sense: if some entries are incorrect, this can be solved by editing; if the entries are unsourced, again, this can be solved by editing. Deletion is not cleanup.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Infinitely-expandable list. "Reactions that involve inorganic compounds"...well, inorganic compounds are pretty abundant on this planet (H2O, O2, HCl, NaCl...) and they all undergo reactions. There is nothing inherently notable about a chemical reaction that involves an inorganic compound, and there is no way any source could talk about all (or even many) such reactions as a cohesive whole, as needed by WP:NLIST, because they would have nothing in common other than involving a reagent lacking carbon. And the list is unsourced. A total mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete As it stands, this would just duplicate a now-nonexistent category, and I'm also finding that it is full of inaccuracies, e.g. shell higher olefin process, which is clearly organic just from the name. Maybe a category would be a good idea but this list is not. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete. ill-defined list. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Point Directory

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources that would establish notability. The previous AfD contained a lot of vague gestures about "historical significance" without suggesting sourcing improvements. If voting Keep, please show that the subject meets notability requirements by pointing to specific secondary sources that are reliable and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV about this topic. Considering this article was created in 2006 and only has one source, I doubt there will be any new or lasting coverage of this topic. Beachweak (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uniswap Labs

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

No reliable sources found for this software developer Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of sources can be found in traditional media, books, and academic papers. For example, the company has received coverage in Bloomberg News ([38][39][40][41][42][43]), the company has been covered by The Wall Street Journal ([44][45][46][47]), and there are two chapters dedicated to Uniswap in the book Automated Market Makers (published in 2023 by a division of Springer Nature). Sources available span multiple years. The subject of the article meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP, even if the current state of the article could use some work. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 04:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the product, i.e. Uniswap. Uniswap Labs has been involved in some legal cases but other than most of the coverage is about its DAO, Uniswap. As a company, Uniswap Labs fails WP:NCORP. Veldsenk (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect not notable on its own. Andre🚐 02:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Uniswap. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has sources from The Economist and TechCrunch, so it's notable. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect with Uniswap, it is difficult to see where one entity starts and the other ends and it appears, for all intents and purposes, they are one and the same. For example this reference says the company was fined for illegal trading and describes is as a crypto exchange - and this talks about enforcement actions by the SEC. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge things if necessary per WP:NOPAGE. With how closely related the two are, a separate article is not really suitable unless there is a truly compelling reason the two should be separate. I see no such reason. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crew-served weapon

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

Fails WP:DICDEF. Only one, apparently unreliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect there's only one source because the creator was lazy. This is a very common term in military circles. I don't as yet have an opinion about Keep or Delete. Intothat darkness 18:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep common concept of weapons systems. Lack of RS on the page not determinative. Mztourist (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument, so please state which sources prove the article passes WP:NEXIST rather than just implying they might exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 18:22, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you do any kind of search before you nominated the article? The Google Books search alone turned up over 6000 hits, and Scholar over 600. Intothat darkness 21:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did, and everything seemed trivial. WP:GHITS is relevant here. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Over 6000 hits is not trivial. That you choose to ignore this is concerning. Grossman's "On Combat" alone contains at least three references to crew-served weapons according to the Google book search, and one of those ties back to SLA Marshall's "Men Against Fire." Both works are hardly trivial. Intothat darkness 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Common military concept and term is frequently used in both specialist and general literature. Intothat darkness 13:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, please include valid sources instead of claiming they exist. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-established term and concept in military circles. Yes, the article is in a bad state now, but Wikipedia has no deadline. I have concerns about the nominator's mass nomination of weapon-type related articles over the last few days, as well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:20, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't cast WP:ASPERSIONs. Furthermore, like others you have not expounded on what sources are there, this is WP:NOTAVOTE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ stop WP:BLUDGEONING the discussion. Mztourist (talk) 03:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think any part of my response pointed to me desiring to force people to change their mind, so it is not bludgeoning... On the contrary, I want to see what kinds of sources people are claiming to possess, which is a legitimate question. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have been here long enough to know that it is BLUDGEONING. Mztourist (talk) 07:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1. Responding to everybody IS central to the definition of bludgeoning. 2. Nobody has made a particularly persuasive case yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soft-redirect to Wiktionary: which already has an entry for it. Multiple routine mentions, or being a well-established term, aren't sufficient for notability per our guidelines. Owen× ☎ 15:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weapon#By_user per Red-tailed hawk. Owen× ☎ 12:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability is not shown. No objection to turning it into a redirect. Nurg (talk) 19:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Allowing another week for discussion of the idea of redirecting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 01:43, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A few editors have claimed that there is sufficient sourcing for an article beyond a dictionary definition, yet no sources have been provided here. Cortador (talk) 06:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The term is well accepted and frequently used. But it doesn't need an article. A dictionary definition is enough. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 14:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weapon#By user, where this weapon type is mentioned. This seems to be an important class of weapons, and I did try to find scholarly evaluations of "crew-served weapons" as a class. But all I found were military training manuals. I disagree with outright deletion as we do have coverage of this sort of thing elsewhere on Wikipedia.
With respect to redirecting to Wiktionary, WP:SSRT states that only topics with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that are commonly wikified words or that are repeatedly recreated should become soft redirects. There are 173 links to this page from the mainspace as of now, so it's not unreasonable to suggest sending it over there. But I think we should try to keep the redirect linking to Wikipedia if it's reasonable, and we have a reasonable alternative here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:40, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You make a good point. I changed my !vote accordingly. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 12:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a list doesn't seem like a good option to me, especially since the vast majority of weapons there link back out to articles. Intothat darkness 13:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Again, to editors arguing for a Keep, please bring new sources into this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This didn't seem to appear here when it was relisted. That could be helpful given this is a military-specific discussion. Intothat darkness 16:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lycée Jean Mermoz (Saint-Louis)

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

Not finding anything that satisfies WP:NSCHOOL. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless several references to reliable sources independent of this school that devote significant coverage to this school are provided. This two sentence stub makes no plausible claim of notability. Cullen328 (talk) 06:22, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Cullen328: I found that a French newspaper covered the school. You can check the articles via Google Translate, and please let me know if this is the kind of coverage that would be useful. Thanks! WhisperToMe (talk) 05:02, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply WhisperToMe, three articles from the same newspaper is certainly better than nothing, but it looks a lot like run-of-the-mill local coverage to me. I guess it comes down to whether "the largest school in Alsace" is a plausible claim of notability. Thanks for finding those sources and adding them to the article. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're welcome! I found another article from a different newspaper which compared the school to that of a city (I'm not sure how significant that is in the universe of French high schools). I cant see all of it yet since it seems to be paywalled. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I'd like to see a more solid consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ - This is a tricky one, but I am leaning keep. First thing to note is that there are at least 8 schools named for Jean Mermoz [48], but even French Wikipedia does not have a page for this one. Newspaper sources exist as above, but news reporting is a primary source and does not count towards notability. I cannot see anything that goes beyond reporting and into analysis. However, when you look at mentions in books, there are a lot. Many are directories, at least one is self published, but some at least speak to a widespread recognition of school programmes, such as the mentions in this book [49] talking about Astronomy as an educational subject (presumably because this school has such a programme - their programme does seem to be significant). Similar treatment around humanities [50]. But you can't write an article from such brief mentions. But there are several books that reference a paper:
* Wiederkehr F., Goetschy O., Wunschel R., (2008). Projet stéréolithographie. Saint Louis: Lycée Jean Mermoz.
As indicated, the school published this themselves, and it does not appear in any journal, but it can be read here [51] and is cited in the likes of [52]. Work at the school is also referenced on page 87 of this doctoral thesis: Microstéréolithographie de céramiques (2018). The problem remains that there is little to write an article from based on the sources found so far, but I have a feeling that a school with this kind of output and this kind of profile must be notable. I really wish we could find a history of the school though.
ETA this source [53] does give information that we can write an article from. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per sirfurboy and as per the articles I found. I'm thinking that the school's size is a big deal in the Alsace region. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeerStream

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [54] [55] [56], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, Websites, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree this fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, edit history doesn't inspire confidence. Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see the 2017 brief confusion of this firm's Snap Interactive name with Snap Inc as appropriate for a mention on the Snap Inc. page. However as this firm is now Paltalk Inc and there is a longstanding page at Paltalk, that may provide an ATD target? AllyD (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War

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

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Ukraine, and United States of America. Garudam ^Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:04, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that the article is notable on its own. WP:SPLIT is justified for significant battles of the Soviet-Afghan war. Wikibear47 (talk) 17:38, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This could be merged at best. Otherwise, I don't see a reason why this article should exist in the mainspace when the parent article itself does not cover this topic or lacks sources, even if it does. Garudam ^Talk! 19:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: pure violation of WP:SYNTH. The topic is not notable and the article itself appears to be pushing a POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:18, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has standalone notability of its own established through significant coverage and a necessary split from Soviet-Afghan war article. Muneebll (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The topic is not even notable for its parent article and lacks citations, clearly it does not pass GNG & SIGCOV. Garudam ^Talk! 14:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are real signs of notoriety here. Furthermore the story must be told without fear of repercussions from Moscow. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine question, what do you mean by repercussions from Moscow? WP:LEGAL for more info. Conyo14 (talk) 08:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:GNG: The topic has not received significant coverage with the article appearing to push a POV. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: PoV pushing at best. found nothing notable in my WP:BEFORE.
Malik-Al-Hind (talk) 13:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Soviet–Afghan War. My very best wishes (talk) 18:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Soviet–Afghan War: It's pretty short as it is, and does need some work to let it less pov-y. It might also need a bit of a copyedit Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 12:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any more support for merge as ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Soviet–Afghan War. Besides the reasons suggested above, there's not enough content to warrant a standalone article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This does not qualify under Wikipedia guidelines for a standalone article. It could be argued if the "raids" ever occurred in Soviet Afghan or it is just a mere hoax, quoting from the Foreign involvement section:MI6 directly remitted money into an account of Pakistani leader of Jamaat-e-Islami Qazi Hussain Ahmad who had close links with Hekmatyar & Massoud. MI6's aim was for Ahmad to spread radical and anti-Soviet Islamic literature in the Soviet republics in the hope of rebellions against their Communist governments. I do not find a single raid so far, rather there are just plannings and some covert money transfers to terrorist organisations it seems like a WP:HOAX. Do not merge it when there are only passing mentions of a few words regarding Pakistani raids which are dubious or say hoax event. Nxcrypto Message 11:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan–Syrian Union

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

This article is at least two-thirds fluff. In its entirety, it is background, direct excerpts from a book, an uninformative scheduling timeline, and the personal puffery and conjecture of the respective heads of state. Given it is about a polity that never existed or even got at all close to existing, coverage of it should likely be limited to a blurb between a sentence and a paragraph in length on a handful of related articles. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Africa, and Middle East. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify or Merge into Federation of Arab Republics#Other Federations of Arab Republics. The topic appears to be notable, e.g. The Washington Post, but probably not as an individual article, and the current set of sources are mostly offline and/or non-English, and the current editors have left in place in the current version what is very likely a WP:COPYVIO, which even has numerical references apparently from the original source retained: which provided for an "organic union" [7] or a complete merger of the two states. [5] [2] ... and thus become the core of a pan-Arab union . [9] ... effectively meant that the project failed. [10] [11], implying that no serious copyediting of the article has been done yet. The merge would best need someone in addition to EpicAdventurer to also have access to the existing sources, which appear to be mostly offline and/or non-English, or else to online English WP:RS such as The Washington Post (reliable in this context for factual type statements). Boud (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libya and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I agree a standalone article is probably not warranted but there’s enough for a section in a broader article. There was a time when hardly a week passed without Arab states announcing unions. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: We also have the Arab Islamic Republic, which is smaller in size and surrounded by many unverified rumors. Additionally, we have the United Arab Republic (1972), which I doubt many have heard of. There are sources, books, and interviews about this experiment, and we even have interlanguage links about it. Valorthal77 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big Belly Burger

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

Fails GNG no real world information just a list of apperances Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Food and drink, Television, and Comics and animation. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 04:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's marginal with what's already in there. References 2, 50-53, and 55 are interesting non-primary sources but I don't see a good solid 2+ IRS references for GNG. At the very least, there's probably enough here to merge into one of the DC Universe pages, but I haven't the foggiest idea which. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While I think that suggests that there could be more out there to further develop this article (so Keep), if you're looking for a merge target, maybe List of DC Universe locations? - jc37 06:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is entirely in-universe cruft with nothing to establish notability. I don't think it's even worthy of merging/redirecting to any DC-related article. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Casualty. I see very little in this article worth preserving, since this seems to be a minor in-universe element with little in the way of real-world notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

J.P. Turner & Company

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for multiple issues for years. Firm is defunct. Was previously deleted under a different name. Imcdc Contact 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 04:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Spain

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

Non-notable news anchor. Only obituaries and no viable career coverage, while a real estate agent dominates name searches. Article was created by blocked editor whose objective was to promote Jacksonville TV personalities on Wikipedia. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG (WP:NBIO / WP:JOURNALIST) criteria. Lacks WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma talk 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paige Kelton

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

Non-notable news anchor with no viable independent coverage. Article was created by blocked editor whose objective was to promote Jacksonville television personalities on Wikipedia. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Florida. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Radio, California, Florida, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG (WP:NBIO / WP:JOURNALIST) criteria. Lacks WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma talk 11:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neverland (audio drama)

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

Fails WP:GNG, can't find any reviews of it online, checked Google and ProQuest, though I might've missed some due to the search term I used to avoid false positives. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 03:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Muslims

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

This page was a disambigutation until recently, when someone removed it as a disamb, saying a valid broad concept article could be written about it. Afterwards, I tagged it as unreferenced, and one reference was added. I dispute the fact that this is notable as a broad concept and think it should be restored as a disamb. The concept of "Black Muslims" is not relevant outside of these specific examples, and Black as a racial category is not universal outside of the US (which we have a separate article on in relation to Islam). PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, it would be better to just restore the disambiguation via a manual revert if your argument is to restore the disambiguation rather than delete the page, or instead start a discussion about that on the talk page pinging the relevant user(s). Waddles 🗩 🖉 01:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13 The question is more the notability of the overarching category of "Black Muslims". If it is notable, this can be kept, and notability is a question for AfD. A second editor also edited with a summary that suggested this wasn't a proper disamb. If these weren't considerations I would have simply reverted. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PARAKANYAA: Technically, whether the consensus is that the topic is notable and should remain as-is or that it is not notable and the disambiguation should be restored, either way the outcome will be keep, so I am not sure if Articles for deletion is the correct venue—that is unless you believe yourself that it makes sense for it the be deleted entirely (or, someone has their own problems with the page and suggests it be deleted). In complicated cases like these that are somewhat reminiscent of a WP:HIJACK (not that the topic was changed, but an established dab page was effectively removed and replaced by an article), I have just gone with making the WP:BOLD move to go back some revisions and restore the page to how it was before it became a problem. Waddles 🗩 🖉 02:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WaddlesJP13 When a redirection is repeatedly reverted you have to go to AfD, and I consider the fact that multiple people thought the disamb was a problem to be a similar situation to that. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't have to go to AfD. That is merely a choice someone my take. Best practice is to use the talk page. Why is that not being used? Thincat (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
People don't watch disamb pages and no one would ever respond. And yes you can't just keep reverting someone over and over. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't a disambiguation page and it wasn't when you nominated it. However you certainly shouldn't repeatedly revert anyone. Thincat (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's why you take things to AfD. Should this be a disamb? Because as it is now, it is an improperly formatted one, or an entirely non-notable topic that should be deleted, which is also a problem. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after changing it to be a redirect to African-American Muslims, preserving the history for future reference. As a disambiguation page "Black Muslims" does not target appropriately and has few (I suspect no} suitable targets.[57] The African-American Muslims article seems to think "Black Muslims" redirects to it but I haven't found a time when it did. This target article has problems in itself but it is quite good enough to work on (suggest by removing or severely pruning the "Notable African-American Muslims" section, etc.). Category:African-American Muslims could suffice for now. However, my editorial opinions here should carry no weight over editing at that page (and its talk). The idea that "Black Muslims" is not a notable topic (think Malcolm X or Muhammad Ali) is, well, curious, but we need to clearly distinguish between African-Americans who are/were Muslims and those that are, or used to be, members of a select group of movements. Thincat (talk) 10:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thincat I oppose this as a redirect, because a sizable portion of the "black muslim" mentions in the US are not about actual black muslims, but about the NoI/NRM adjacent types. I do not think there is a primary topic here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A more clear disamb would be between African-American Muslims and Nation of Islam, which altogether are probably most of the intended traffic from this page. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dmytro Ihnatenko

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG (WP:NSPORT / WP:NSKATE) criteria. No WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma talk 11:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Galyeta

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG (WP:NSPORT / WP:NSKATE) criteria. No WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma talk 11:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasiia Yalova

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG (WP:NSPORT / WP:NSKATE) criteria. No WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma talk 11:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AED Studios

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

Contested PROD; likely WP:UPE for a company that fails WP:NCORP. In reviewing the sources in the article, they don't meet WP:ORGCRIT. Most are WP:ORGTRIV about location openings, capital raises, etc. ([58], [59]). There is also a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A with the CEO ([60], marketing content from a company that installed chargers in AED Studios' parking lot ([61]) and a story that doesn't mention the company at all ([62]). Finally, the article also uses stories from a site that exists to promote Flemish entrepreneurs (see their About Us, which roughly translated says: "We are proud of entrepreneurial Flanders.... We are on the side of these entrepreneurs, to strengthen and encourage them, to ignite their entrepreneurial fire... Our news reflects the optimism of the entrepreneur." This is obviously not an independent source. [63], [64]). A WP:BEFORE search turned up only press releases and more ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Companies, and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Coverage is trivial. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glenn Roggeman

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

A non-notable businessman with a promotional biography; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Attempted to draftify, but a draft had been left behind and can't be CSD'd, so AfD it is. The sources are limited to:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in the context of routine news coverage of his business ([65], [66], [67], [68], [69])
A WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interview ([70])
Unbylined WP:PROMO content ([71]) and several pieces of content on a site that exists to promote Flemish entrepreneurs (see their About Us, which roughly translated says: "We are proud of entrepreneurial Flanders.... We are on the side of these entrepreneurs, to strengthen and encourage them, to ignite their entrepreneurial fire... Our news reflects the optimism of the entrepreneur." Obviously not an independent source.) Also, the stories on this site are about AED Group, not Roggeman.

Nothing else qualifying came up in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ANYBIO. There is little reliable, in-depth coverage of this business executive that shows that he has, as the article suggests, had a significant impact on his field. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 03:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Also extremely promotional, possibly eligible for {{db-g11}}. Created on account of WP:UPE. –Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:46, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding management software

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

Fails WP:GNG. Tagged for notability issues for years. Imcdc Contact 00:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Computing, and Software. Imcdc Contact 00:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The lone (primary) source cited — a wedding magazine — no doubt pulled this "term" from their rear. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]