Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 18	December 20 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Death's Head

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

Fails WP:GNG article is almost all list of apperences + plot summary. Very limited devolpement info and no reception best I could found was this [1] everything else was related to him getting a toy Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 19 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, Comics and animation, and United Kingdom. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 23:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I'm expecting you to actually engage, but what exactly is wrong with Starburst and Amazing Heroes as sources? Beyond them not showing up when you mash words into Google? Not doing any digging until someone lays out what exactly is wrong with the sourcing present, because at the moment it looks like yet another I Don't Like It nomination from this editor. BoomboxTestarossa (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to whatever list of fictional characters from his most relevant franchise is. Pure plot summary and least of appearances - fails WP:GNG. WP:NOTPLOT, WP:NOTCATALOGUE, WP:FANCRUFT... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snooze (Agust D song)

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

Do not believe this passes NSONG. Charting is almost certainly too little (Vietnam Hot 100 page doesn't even verify it's charting; this page does, but that the sourced page doesn't even go past the top 25 of the chart suggests non-notability of the peak position), and the rest of the sourcing is album reviews which all barely mention the song specifically and a database page. Redirect to D-Day (album). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and South Korea. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the song has charted on several national charts (Japan Oricon, Billboard Japan, Billboard Vietnam Hot 100, United States Billboard Digital Song Sales) which is a criteria for WP:NSONG. In addition, there is likely enough coverage in existence to expand the article to be more than the stub it is right now. RachelTensions (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced article, Top 20 in Japan, clearly meets WP:NSONG. 162 etc. (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album per NSONG: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." The only other sources being unimpressive appearances in chart statistics is a very low bar and should be ignored. Tag the redirect as having possibilities. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the WP:NSONG criteria is being met, as exemplified by RachelTensions. The article could also easily be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion of charting in NSONG is about establishing if a song might be notable, not that it is; charting itself is not not a criterion for being notable. WP:NALBUMS too outlines that charting is only an indication that a recording may be notable, not that it is. At this time, the article is two sentences, supported by three reviews of the song's parent album, and its genre stated in the infobox just failed verification in its source. @RachelTensions and Ïvana: you both talk about expanding the article to meet the actual criterion of NSONG; I'd like to see your proposed additions. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Few people are likely to do the work when the article might be deleted after they're done, nor are they obligated to do so. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't ask or suggest that anyone should do the work to expand the article now; you've read between the lines. I am asking for evidence that the article can be expanded to a satisfactory degree, as it doesn't appear obvious to me. Since this is supposed to be a discussion, and not a vote, I don't think my request is unreasonable. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NSONG. dxneo (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to D-Day (album) per nom and Fred Gandt. Charting in and of itself is not a criterion for passing WP:NSONGS. The other sources provided are in context of the album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the album. Charting could be notable, but there isn't enough sourcing for an article on the song alone. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to D-Day (album). Although this article cites reliable sources, their coverage of the song is trivial at best, so it does not meet the criteria for N:SONG. There also is not enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article about the subject.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before we get too carried away saying there isn't significant coverage...
Other sources significantly covering the song (outside of the context of just a review of the album) include:

Its inclusion in Time Out's "Best 23 Songs of 2023" list [2]

And significant coverage in articles at:

...and that's not even going into all the Japanese-language sources that I'm not familiar enough with to verify. Many sources cover the song as it was the final song completed by Japanese composer Ryuichi Sakamoto prior to his death, and, like I said prior, there's more than enough significant coverage here to put together a perfectly acceptable non-stub article (especially when combined with information on the song in sources that cover it within the broader scope an album review), and its charting coverage.

CC: @DesiMoore @Oaktree b @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars @Fred Gandt

RachelTensions (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- And you didn't feel like mentioning this at all when asked directly about it earlier? I'm no longer involved in this lack of discussion. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I’m sorry? I didn’t realize we were on a deadline here. If the discussion hasn’t been closed, I’ll present my research at my own leisure without being chastised for it. Thank you! RachelTensions (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just gonna chime in, We Got This Covered is not considered a reliable source. LoTrWiki (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, removed from the list. RachelTensions (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source analysis of recent sources brought into the discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources from RachelTensions: First Chosen Ilbo is probably sigcov, second is not. Rolling Stone Japan is an interview (not independent). NTV is too short, not sigcov. Entax is an interview. Danmee has a little bit of coverage. Pitchfork is also extremely short. News18 is very short and tabloidy. Crack might be barely enough to count as sigcov, same for StereoGum. JoongAng Daily does not have sigcov of the song. All in all, it seems like a lot of the notability hinges on this being a collaboration with two very notable musicians, one of whom, Ryuichi Sakamoto, passed away soon after. Toadspike [Talk] 10:46, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the sources in the article, much of it is not sigcov, but I think the descriptions in Consequence and this listicle count for something.

I think this is a case where the sheer volume of coverage, the decent chart performance in Japan, and the involvement of several notable musicians (including this being the last song by Ryuichi Sakamoto) push me over the line to keep this article. Toadspike [Talk] 10:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Analysis of the recent sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 23:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinychat

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

Articles about companies must meet WP:NCORP requirements. This one clearly fails them.

1. [12] Puff piece by WP:TECHCRUNCH, an outlet infamous for its COI articles

2. [13] Very brief and clearly promotional article, even including calls to action with a link to the website. Fails WP:ORGIND.

3. [14] non-independent interview article, doesn't say anything of substance about Tinychat.

4. [15] reads like a routine announcement, not deep enough coverage to satisfy ORGDEPTH.

5. [16] Reproduction of another WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece.

6. [17] Routine announcement, doesn't say anything about the company in any depth (WP:ORGDEPTH). Also relies on TechCrunch.

Other sources I found were PR articles and top 10 lists. This article was also created by an editor with the same name as a co-founder of this company [18]. Badbluebus (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Internet, and Websites. Badbluebus (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any good sources either. I found this article that alleges that two celebrity investors used the software to "flirt with underage girls", but the article states that these are merely "rumors". At best, this source is unreliable, and at worst, it's a violation of WP: BLP and should not be added to the article. I also found a book called "Introduction to Omegle" by Gilad James, PhD. I thought that this source would be reliable, but the author's LinkedIn profile indicates that their PhD was obtained from a "distance learning institution". This, regrettably, makes the book an unreliable source. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:35, 7 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 23:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paltalk as an alternative to deletion, since that's its parent company. There's enough sources including Techcrunch (some have bylines and not all of the articles are just rehashes of PR statements) and brief mentions in academic overviews of videochat services, that it should be mentioned on a suitable page, even if it does not meet NCORP on its own (it's at best borderline). -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 00:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a selective Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Paltalk per Patar knight, at the time both paltalk and tinychat articles did meet WP:NCORP. Why is it voted to be deleted now? Koltinn (talk) 13:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reindorf Review

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

There is only one secondary source in this entire page that is even remotely about the subject. This appears to be mostly WP:PROMO mixed with a WP:COATRACK for various anti-trans grievances. Regardless this appears to fail WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Social science, and England. – The Grid (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are allegedly 10 sources on the page, but 4 are just from the review itself so ignoring those, I looked at the 6 remaining:
- Sex Matters [19] is certainly significant coverage, but looking at who they are, they call themselves a human rights charity, and the very name of the charity leads me to believe that this source is problematic because it is clearly advocacy. I am not sure exactly where this one falls down on GNG to be honest. It is independent, secondary and with significant coverage. I have no reason to say it is not reliable, but the advocacy is an issue. ?
- The Times [20] Lawyer demands inquiry into trans ‘gag’ by university is news reporting. A primary source. N
- The Guardian [21] is on topic generally but I cannot see any mention of this review or of Essex. N
- The Telegraph [22] As for the Guardian, no specific mention. N
- The Irish Examiner [23] And another one that doesn't mention it. N
- Impact [24] How can universities promote academic freedom? has significant coverage across two pages (23 and 24). It is independent, reliable and secondary. This one is very good. Y

So I broadly agree with the nom. that there is only one secondary source, but that first source, problematic as it is, still shows something. The Impact discussion lends quite a degree of credibility to the notability of the review, and the general subject is clearly notable. I would consider a suitable merge though. Although the review is at least marginally independently notable, the issue (as indicated by the newspapers that don't actually discuss the review) is wider than this specific review, and the review could be a case study in a larger article (as it is in Impact). Do we have a suitable article about academic freedom that this would belong in? If not, this should not be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Suissa and Sullivan article is a clearing house of "look at how important this anti-trans activist is" apologia. It should not be used to establish notability on an anti-trans topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic, surely, is on academic freedom. Spinning this as anti-trans is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The source demonstrates notability whether we agree with it or not, because it is a secondary treatment, using this as a notable case study. Indeed, although I was concerned about the advocacy element of Sex Matters, I do not actually see what is wrong with that one either, as regards notability, unless we can show the source is unreliable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. One secondary rs shouldn't be used to make a whole article. Agree with sirfurboy that this belongs as part of a larger article instead of its own stand alone article. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These references could easily be added to the article demonstrating its significance and notability: The Times: Stonewall ‘gave bad advice’ to university in free speech row (Archived) "Stonewall has been accused of misrepresenting the law in its advice to Essex University, which failed to uphold free speech when it dropped speakers accused of transphobia." and the Guardian: Essex University makes further apology in trans rights row "Vice-chancellor says sorry over independent report’s impact on trans and non-binary staff and students". The report has also been cited here and here in the House of Lords by Lord Willetts during the debate on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. I'm sure more could be found if necessary but this is clearly a significant page that needs to be kept. Zeno27 (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All four new links are useful links, but they are all also primary sources. For notability purposes we are looking for secondary sources. We have two, but the first is problematic. News reporting about the case is likely to be a primary source. However analysis about what the case tells us about, say, the application of such policies in UK universities would certainly be a secondary source. The Times article, for instance, is about a finding that the relationship between the University and Stonewall was flawed. That is reporting. The Guardian article reports their apology. Thus primary sources. The nature of what secondary sources are likely to look like (analysis of a situation of which this is a case study) does suggest to me that a merge somewhere appropriate would still be preferable to keep. We just need to find where (and if there isn't anywhere, we should probably keep this but recognise that a good development of this page would perhaps lead to a rename in the future). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human Rights Quarterly: Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Higher Education in England 10.1353/hrq.2024.a926223 (pdf) "(ii) Incidents at Essex University Two incidents at Essex University attracted significant political and media attention and were the subject of an independent review by Akua Reindorf, a specialist employment law barrister."

Times Higher Education: Essex apologises to academics disinvited over gender views (Archived) "The university’s vice-chancellor, Anthony Forster, made the “open apology” after receiving the report of an external review he commissioned on the cases. “The report makes clear that we have made serious mistakes and we need to do our very best to learn from these and to ensure they are not repeated,” he writes in a blog published on the university’s website. Essex’s apology comes at an important political moment, with the Westminster government having confirmed plans to introduce legislation on campus free speech in England." Zeno27 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
McGoldrick (2024) is just the kind of secondary source I was expecting, with the primary topic expressed in the title, Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Higher Education in England. It is independent, reliable and secondary and has significant coverage across pages 8 and 9, beyond what you quote. This one is a Y, but I think it still begs a WP:PAGEDECIDE question. This review is not a subject in itself. There is a broader subject and this is a case study. The THES article is a very full one, covering all aspects of the case, including the relationship with Stonewall, but to me it is still a discursive primary source, reporting the apology. I would use it in an article, but I don't think it adds to the notability. However, I think we are already there on notability. The University website material is also clearly primary, as is the news about plans to introduce legislation. Again, this page should not be deleted, but I remain unconvinced that the review itself is really the primary subject. The THES and McGoldrick are really rather similar in what they say (although the THES adds a little regarding Stonewall). This is indicative of the fact that there is really not much more to say about this review. It is a case study. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, there's been no academic notice of this article or the kerfuffle around it, as seen by the lack of Gscholar or Jstor articles. Rest of what's used in the article is non-RS or about the legal issues of the academics, not about this article itself. Could be briefly mentioned in the university's article, but there seems to be no lasting notability, nor any sort of academic study around the events of this article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: As I detailed above, it it discussed in the Human Rights Journal. Zeno27 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep and improve with the additional sources above, or failing that merge with a dedicated section in the background of Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 per the HRQ source, and redirect there. Void if removed (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~@Sirfurboy: you have two !votes - one for weak keep and one for keep. Please strike whichever one you do not intend to retain. You cannot !vote twice.~~ `Simonm223 (talk)

KCMR

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

Short article; no sources; notable only on local level. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Iowa. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ to List of radio stations in Iowa, where this station is mentioned. Not seeing any evidence it passes WP:GNG or any other applicable guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The new sources seem fairly routine, but with them added (and in the interest of consensus), I have no strong objection to a keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I've given this a shot. It's not a very interesting station for expansion because its format has never changed and the articles on it in the local newspaper run on the puffy side, but at least we have a start date and station history and references. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:29, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: If nothing else, the "no sources" issue appears to have been resolved with the newspaper sourcing (and being a short article is not necessarily a reason to delete in and of itself, at least when improvements are possible). The weakness is because this is still more of an "edge" case, as it were, under the current tighter inclusion standards (compared to when the article was created in 2008). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik:, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". Having created this particular article myself, I no longer see this page being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and Italy. Skynxnex (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A perfectly standard page, with sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: A good article, well formatted and written out and perfectly and completely worthy of it's own existence, with enough projects to constitute having an article of it's own to compile them all. Therefore, it is indeed a "page of note" and unworthy of deletion. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:59, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Tolgos

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

WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The only attempt at a notability claim here is that he served as governor of a county, but that represents the local level of government in his country, not the state or provincial level of government -- which means he isn't "inherently" notable under NPOL #1 just for existing, and would have to be shown to pass NPOL #2 on a significant volume and depth of WP:GNG-worthy reliable source coverage about him and his work. But this is referenced to one primary source that isn't support for notability at all, and one short blurb that briefly namechecks him in the process of being principally about his wife rather than him.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have a lot more reliable source coverage than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Kenya. Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I understand, Kenya devolved from a provincial government into county level government. The subject was in the first generation of such local government leaders. There might be some interesting sources of the transition that could help source, but right now, we have virtually nothing. Bearian (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive conservatism

AfDs for this article:

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

Something of a procedural AfD. Article was subject to a delete !vote in 2014 but, irregularly, was turned into a redirect instead of being deleted. I say this was irregular because "redirect" was not the closer's notes. However this led to the eventual forking off of the present version of the page from the surviving redirect. I am personally neutral about whether to delete this article but felt an AfD would be an appropriate way of ascertaining present community consensus regarding how to handle it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and WP:SYNTH. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's interesting to note that there are quite a few references to "progressive conservatism" on JStor - but not with regard to the Canadian political ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise Google Books has reference to "progressive conservatism" in the comtext of US, UK and Japanese politics but, again, not in Canada. Simonm223 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tick-Tack

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

No reliable source referring to "Tick-Tack" as a single; Most information stated derives from personal opinion instead of a reliable source (MOS:PUFFERY). George13lol2 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. George13lol2 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete the whole article though! just change that bit 161.116.133.70 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as per nom, in addition to failed WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV other than passing mention from I'll Like You-related reportings. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I'll Like You per standard protocol for album songs. No reason for an extreme solution like deletion here. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article to remove the MOS:PUFFERY issue, although the subject of the article itself is most likely not notable enough to deserve its own article. George13lol2 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you've removed the MOS:PUFFERY issue, the article will still most likely be redirected and the same thing happened months ago with ILLIT's song "Lucky Girl Syndrome", when it pertains to K-pop mostly, song articles are usually not as notable UNLESS they received significant attention. Eg. A pre-release single is usually notable but songs from albums that have already been released but receive a music video months later tend not to be. This0k (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The song has charted and although it is not a single can be kept as a song article. This0k (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is borderline, as most of the sources talk about the song in the context of the album. But the song charted, and a bit of media interest was raised with the Ava Max English version "Baby It's Both". Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 12 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!} 08:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SONG. I agree with Binksternet that it's borderline, but if the song charted then the article deserves a chance.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rankings of 99 and 140, after one week, are nigh unremarkable. Still think redirect for now is proper. Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True. Tick-Tack didn't do as well as Lucky Girl Syndrome, the other promoted non lead single from the album but it did have an English version which makes it a little bit more notable. This0k (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:45, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the same reasons. NelsonLee20042020 (talk) 13:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cherilyn Elston

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

Article has been around for a few years but does not indicate how the subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NACADEMIC. ... discospinster _talk 17:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Language, and United Kingdom. ... discospinster _talk 17:41, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I found three reviews of her book Women’s Writing in Colombia [25] [26] [27], possibly enough to write an article on the book and redirect to it, but not enough by itself for WP:AUTHOR. The article claims her to be editor of Palabras Errantes, but this is not a significant literary journal, but rather a sporadic and defunct translation project with a usurped web page; it is not enough for WP:PROF#C8. There seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a link to the third review that worked better for me. All three of these reviews provide substantial depth of coverage, I'd say, so Women's Writing in Colombia would meet WP:NBOOK. XOR'easter (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and made an article about the book. XOR'easter (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the new article on the book, our usual procedure when someone has authored a notable and bluelinked book but does not appear to be independently notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per findings above. Deriannt (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the article about the book (as explained above), I don't think this person is quite notable outside of the book. Oaktree b (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urartian people

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

WP:EXTENDED might be required due to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan. Article creator does not have extended confirmed status.

Potentially WP:FRINGE sources. For example, with respect to this claim According to the migration-mixed hypothesis of Armeni ethnogenesis proposed by I. M. Diakonov, the Urartians, along with the Hurrians and Luwians[2], gradually adopted the Indo-European, Proto-Armenian language.

In The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), pp. 537-538:

According to one theory, the self-designation of the Armenians, hay , goes back to the earlier * hātiyos, “Hittite.” This is conceivable only on the assumption that masses of Proto-Armenians settled in one of the Neo-Hittite states, perhaps Melid (Diakonoff 1984 :125–27).

From self-designation to what is mentioned above is quite a jump.

Also uses massively outdated sources such as belonged to the Armenoid race of populations, which cites a source from 1957 Bogazicili (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also reviewing the page at the same time, and was about to remove that last claim. We don't do "scientific racism" here.

More to the point, the topic of Urartian people (as in, the Urartian-speaking ethnic group, partially overlapping with but distinct from the population of Urartu) is very likely notable, but holy crap that article needs a rewrite. It is not clear whether WP:EXTENDED automatically applies (as the article might fall under the second point rather than the first), so my first choice would be keep, but rewrite to at least remove the WP:FRINGE material. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all the sources seem fringe though. The earlier "theory" has a source from 1983. I didn't even read what's in the link, since my browser is giving a security warning for that page. There are no high quality WP:Secondary sources. No peer reviewed journal articles. Bogazicili (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article about Urartians or Urartian people is missing in English-language Wikipedia. But it needs to be written WP:RS. Wikipedia:Competence is required might also be relevant here. Bogazicili (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shellwood, why wasn't it listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Turkey?? Bogazicili (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the topic is notable. Deriannt (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - article sufficiently demonstrates WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but potentially keep it seni-protected. Bearian (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a major clean-up, I don't think its as problematic now. The article can be improved with this chapter, accessible through Wikipedia Library. Bogazicili (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brünnhilde (cat)

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

This article is about a couple of old photographs that "went viral" last year. There's no evidence that this is a subject that attracted significant coverage in the new or elsewhere and as such the page fails WP:NOTABILITY. It is internet pop culture trivia. Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator): I believe this subject passes WP:GNG. It has non-trivial coverage from secondary sources independent of the subject. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources exactly, we have the Library of Congress and what appear to be blogs. Neither of which is reliable or terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semafor isn't a blog. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not, but I doubt it's very good for establishing notability on a subject.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, it got no coverage in RS. The best I could find was in Boing Boing [28] and the Toronto Public Library kids blog [29]... That pretty much shows this isn't a notable concept. The photo is from 1936, so there is obviously no lasting influence if we're only talking about it now, almost 100 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wouldn't even call "Boing Boing" reliable, seems like a bunch of random crap. I mean, Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and Fart Piano??? I'm having a laugh just looking at the site's contents. E_F⁵ 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that writing about strange subjects indicates that a source is unreliable. "Skibidi Toilet Fortnite" has also been written about by IGN, Polygon, and The New York Times, which are all reliable sources. Claiming that having strange article titles or subjects disqualifies a website's reliability just doesn't hold up. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...yes, and none of those are Boing Boing or known exclusively for covering Skibid Toilet Fortnite and related such things.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boing Boing is not known exclusively for covering Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and related such things. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By related things I meant "etc." See the list by Ef5.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, they write about all sorts of non-notable things, which doesn't establish notability in my view. One source is not enough to establish notability, and LOC maintains a huge database, and also doesn't establish notability. All other sources are trivial/non-RS. E_F⁵ 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing significant about it. Deriannt (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado outbreak of November 29–30, 2022

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

Fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:LASTING, I was unable to find any sources on the event or any of its impacts since late 2022. While there are reliable sources that cover this event, such as AccuWeather and Fox Weather, neither of these sources, nor any other secondary source that I could find, has covered it since the event took place, making it fail WP:PERSISTENCE. Because this has seemingly not received secondary coverage outside of a news cycle of only a few days after the event, I believe that this article is non-notable, and should be merged and/or redirected to Tornadoes of 2022. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Science, Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 15:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:LASTING Deriannt (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skye Riley (fictional character)

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

Stub article with little prospect of significant additional content. Proposing a Redirect to Smile 2. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merged to the movie Smile 2. The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability standards for fictional characters WP:FICT. Meritkosy 17:109, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - There are no sources to indicate that the character has come close to gaining enough notability that it would make any sense to have a separate article from the one for the one movie they appeared in. As the current article has no reliable sources cited, and contains nothing but a truncated plot summary for the movie, there is nothing to Merge. Skye Riley already Redirects to Smile 2, meaning this much less likely search term for the same name is not even useful as a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 16:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm finding little bits and pieces here and there, but so far I'm not really seeing where the character is independently notable enough for their own article. There are articles talking about how the character was developed or could be based on like this, this, and this, but it's not really the type of stuff that would show independent notability - it's more something that could be worked into the development section of the film, assuming that this info isn't already there. I think it's just a bit too soon for an article at this point in time - in most cases it takes a while for a character to really get enough steam to justify their own article. I'll hold off on an official argument until others have had a chance to look for sourcing, though. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. There isn't the quantity/quality of sources you'd expect for this to gain notability. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've updated the page and put more information about the character herself, including the development and reception of the character. Akariprescott (talk) 02:09, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the added sources are not valid as reliable sources as they are user-generated wikis, and the third is a general review of the movie. I am afraid they really do not help the character pass the WP:GNG, or justify having a separate article from the film's article. Rorshacma (talk) 04:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Rorshacma. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Smile 2. Viable AtD here and there's no harm in keeping the redirect around. Entirely non-notable but total deletion is unwarranted. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 14:08, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plummer, Indiana

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

I have no idea where the picture in the article was taken, as there's no obvious structure at the point given in the article. That location is wrong anyway, another case of label drift: older topos show this is yet another railroad point where there just isn't anything. Baker talks about the post office and people named Plummer but otherwise is no help. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. – The Grid (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The image is on Commons and there is a Commons category so if the location is wrong the image might need to be renamed or deleted and the Commons category deleted if emptied. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This source--though not especially reliable--describes the community. Although it does not mention any houses there, there likely were people living there if had a store, post office, and so forth. You can see the former railroad track on maps. Plummer was located within "Plummer Township", which is described in several sources: [30], [31],[32],[33]. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked at the visitgc.com site before, and yes, I have misgivings about it. For one thing, it's written as if the post office was a building of its own, which was likely not the case: if there was a train station, then that's where the post office would be. Another possibility would be in the store. And yes, we've found many isolated stores. Also, there's some signs that it depends upon us, as the cases I've looked at there all begin such that the info could be extracted from the corresponding WP article. It would be great if for instance we had some idea of where the extra info comes from, but we don't. Mangoe (talk) 04:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the image names were mixed up - "Plummer" was Newark, "Newark" was Belmont, "Belmont" was Chapel Hill, File:Chapel-hill, Indiana.jpg could be anywhere in Indiana, and there are probably more. Peter James (talk) 21:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletons (Wednesday 13 album)

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

Sources on page are no good, one being the artist's website and the other being an AllMusic page with no published review or rating. And I couldn't find any additional reliable coverage, not even the Kerrang! review which the article suggests exists (though I wouldn't doubt that it does and just isn't archived). But even so, Kerrang! alone would not save this article, and I haven't seen coverage which would. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I got incidentally involved with this while doing some work on the list of 2008 albums article. After I removed an unreliable source for this album there, the entry as a whole was challenged. A couple casual searches didn't find decent sourcing apart from a review by High Voltage Magazine (incidentally, HVM might be an AfD candidate), and my restoration was reverted, and I was referred to this AfD. I was thinking that this probably was a good AfD candidate, but after a more comprehensive search, I'd now say definitely keep. In addition to the possible Kerrang! review, there's reviews by Metal Hammer Germany [34], Metal.de [35], and (albeit less impressively) MetalFan.nl.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important to note that 3family6 added Metal.de to RSMUSIC without any prior discussion, but it was removed right after with a request that such a discussion be had first. 3family6 did start that discussion here, but it has not received any responses yet. There is a good case being made there, but I haven't looked into it myself and can't speak to the source beyond that. All this to say that source's reliability is still an open question, and if it were rejected then that would leave us at just (presumably, if someone can find the Kerrang! review) two reliable sources, which I think is too thin a margin to pass this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair to disclose. I will make clear that I've used this source for years, as have many others, and it has never been challenged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, the reliability of the source wasn't questioned, rather my unilateral addition to it to the reliable sources list without discussion.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balint Miklos

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Romania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Matei

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Romania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2001–02 Swedish Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. I attempted to redirect these articles to Swedish Figure Skating Championships, as had also been done at Spanish Figure Skating Championships, but was reverted. Recommend deletion or restoration of the redirects. I will attach all subsequent competitions in this series shortly. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Skating and Sweden. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Here is a link to a recent AFD where it was decided to redirect all individual articles to the Spanish Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Filer earlier secretly redirected all those articles without any valid reason. Now that failed, he tries it again but now through the formal procedure. The Banner talk 13:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated above, there is precedence for these redirects. See Spanish Figure Skating Championships and Romanian Figure Skating Championships, for example. Bgsu98 (Talk) 13:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let us judge them on their own merits. The Banner talk 14:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the articles contain relevant information which would be lost if they were all redirected, and that it's perfectly possible to source it. I took five minutes to start working on 2014–15 Swedish Figure Skating Championships for example. It's possible that sources are more difficult to access for older competitions, that they have not been digitalized. If so, that should be a separate conversation. /Julle (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Swedish Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per WP:HEY: A WP:BEFORE search yields targeted articles to Swedish sources as evident in 2014–15 Swedish Figure Skating Championships. Conyo14 (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
2014–15 Swedish Figure Skating Championships has had two sentences and some WP:ROUTINE sources added, and is very, very far from meeting Wikipedia:The Heymann Standard. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ClickUp

AfDs for this article:

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

Usual issue. I see there was a minor dispute among previous reviewers (MaxnaCarta, Dclemens1971, it is not entirely clear if the passing assessment was made on the basis of sources already cited or those found in a BEFORE) as to the notability of the subject. After reviewing the sources, I am inclined to quite firmly agree with the negative case. In the interest of not edit warring the tag back in, I will be presenting my source assessment here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?
O'Brien, Ciara (2023-03-08). "ClickUp opens new Dublin office as it eyes further expansion". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike (2020-12-15). "ClickUp raises $100M as venture capital continues to flow to local startups". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Meiling, Brittany (2021-06-21). "Billion dollar ClickUp grabs". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-09. Matney, Lucas (2020-06-24). "Productivity platform ClickUp raises $35 million from Craft Ventures". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Harford, Sarah (2021-12-01). "US software company ClickUp to hire 200 at new Dublin HQ". Silicon Republic. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Lunden, Ingrid (2021-10-27). "ClickUp raises $400M at a $4B valuation to expand its all-in-one workplace productivity platform to Europe". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11.			The first 6 sources are routine coverage of announcements well within the meaning of WP:CORPTRIV. I do not see the need for a more detailed elaboration at the current stage.
Smith, Paul (2021-10-31). "Atlassian's $4b rival plans Aussie assault after big money funding". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	I was actually part way through a more detailed evaluation on whether there is any secondary content; however, I eventually noticed that this is a sponsored article.
Haranas, Mark. "Tech Layoffs: SaaS Startup ClickUp, Once Valued At $4B, Cuts 10 Percent Of Employees". CRN. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			Mostly announcement and quote material
"A comprehensive list of 2023 & 2024 tech layoffs". Tech Crunch. Archived from the original on 2024-01-19.			I don't think I actually need to say for this one
Preimesberger, Chris J. (2022-04-04). "ClickUp launches Whiteboard to develop WFH analytics". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	Appears to be 90% quotes from the marketing material or Evans. So negatived.
Dee, Katie (2022-04-26). "ClickUp acquires search platform Slapdash". SD Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike. "San Diego 'unicorn' ClickUp buys Slapdash to bolster productivity software platform". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 18 November 2023.			Again, routine coverage well into CORPTRIV territory.
"ClickUp launches virtual whiteboards tool to help hybrid teams to create fresh ideas for life". RudeBaguette.	Something like 90% of the content about the company appear to be uncritically repeating company marketingese	– Does not appear to be a well-established source, editorial process unclear, leaning towards exclusion on R also.
Vainilavičius, Justinas. "ClickUp launches AI management tool". Cybernews.			Does not really go beyond announcement either
"Introducing ClickUp Brain: The First AI Neural Network for Work". ClickUp. 2024-01-30. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
"ClickUp launches ClickUp Chat with AI-driven features for improved team collaboration". VentureBeat.	Again, this is like 90% quotes. I'm honestly a little surprised any vaguely reputable source is willing to put their name on it without being paid for it but I guess it could be a slow news day.
On to a few sources not currently in the article: "ClickUp wants to be your AI-powered productivity superhub". Fast Company. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	This is better than the other ones (e.g. [36]). Nonetheless, the fact that most of the material seems to be based off company announcement and press material leads me to exclude based on ORGIND.		–
"ClickUp Review". PCMAG. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	I am again inclined towards a precautionary exclusion due to affiliate marketing and their affect on newsworthiness discussions even if not content.
Cai, Kenrick (2023-02-28). "ClickUp Raises $400 Million At $4 Billion Valuation As Competition Heats Up In Productivity Software". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			routine / mostly quotes
There are also a couple of book sources: Unger, Edward (2024). Mastering project management with ClickUp for work and home life balance: a step-by-step implementation and optimization guide to unlocking the power of ClickUp and AI. Packt Publishing. ISBN 978-1-83546-468-7. Heimann, Yvonne (2023-12-12). Mastering the Basics of ClickUp: Get Up and Running in No Time: Easy Project Management Using Repeatable Processes. Amazon Digital Services LLC - Kdp. ISBN 979-8-3759-6420-1.		However, they are obviously self published or published with well-known vanity/POD publishers, and not those with a selective editorial process, and suitable for neither establishing notability nor article content.

I believe the above source assessment is broadly representative of the state of available sourcing, which is still at the moment well short of that required to meet NCORP (multiple sources meeting all four criteria), though I don't expect it to be entirely comprehensive. I would welcome any additional sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! I edited this randomly as I was Googling Asana and ClickUp. I saw that it was inaccurate and merely wanted to make it accurate.

There are a lot of articles about ClickUp and I've added them as sources before:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91036895/clickup-most-innovative-companies-2024

https://www.crn.com/news/software/tech-layoffs-saas-startup-clickup-once-valued-at-4b-cuts-10-percent-of-employees

https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-vs-trello

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/clickup

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240130528352/en/Introducing-ClickUp-Brain-The-First-AI-Neural-Network-for-Work

https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/27/clickup-raises-400m-at-a-4b-valuation-to-expand-its-all-in-one-workplace-productivity-platform-to-europe/

https://www.fastcompany.com/90856730/clickup-project-management-artificial-intelligence

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clickup-raises-400m-in-series-c-funding-the-biggest-investment-in-workplace-productivity-history-301409506.html

I would feel incredibly guilty if the article was deleted even though it has been stable for a year now because of my interference. Let me know how I could further help.

Thank you! Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Bloomberg article is a great green source? I saw the perennial sources list and it shows Bloomberg as a good source.

Thank you so much for your assistance! It's my first edit so apologies for my mistake. Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a newer Bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors

and ClickUp's Bloomberg profile: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1810376D:US

But I still have sources for ClickUp in Yahoo News/Finance here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/introducing-clickup-brain-first-ai-171400354.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clickup-wants-notion-confluence-ai-162200168.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/productivity-platform-clickup-acquires-calendar-094126461.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/linkdaddy-backlink-agency-clickup-integration-020400608.html Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with you Modernwoman2021, you can rest assured that the article had been on my list now for a while, it just took me a while to get around to it, and deletion on Wikipedia won't mean the content would be lost permenantly (you can request it be emailed and reuse it per the CC BY-SA licence) just that it is deemed unsuitable for inclusion at the current time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the new sources that you found, would you be willing to pick out the best three at meeting the 4 required criteria (WP:SIRS) to establish suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia (WP:NCORP) and explain how they meet the criteria in your opinion? I will be looking at them later when I have time regardless, and you don't have to put them into a table like I have (that takes a lot of effort IMO and probably isn't worth it).

All four criteria must be met by the core sources that you pick: the sources used to establish inclusion must be in-depth (there must be a significant amount of content, and it must not be trivial coverage, which has some examples listed here, though the list is not exhaustive); independent (meaning we can only count things that are not quotes or taken from press material, or appear to be taken from press material, and the source must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest); reliable (has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, probably the easiest one since most news organisations are considered reliable enough); and secondary (the source must include original analysis, interpretation or synthesis by the source, it cannot be simple statements of fact, it must interpret those facts for us to be able to use it on Wikipedia). Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Alpha3031!

I appreciate the effort in explaining to me what the criterias are! They are incredibly helpful :D

But since this is just my first time, I added more than three sources, I couldn't really determine the top three ones so these are what I have:

Source	URL	Reason
Inc.	https://www.inc.com/magazine/202210/paul-kix/clickup-zeb-evans-dying-to-succeed-2022.html	This is an article about ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans that is published by an independent third-party source on Inc., a reliable and secondary news platorm.
London Loves Business	https://londonlovesbusiness.com/businesses-are-optimistic-about-growth-with-85-per-cent-expecting-growth-in-2023/	This article is in-depth but is more like the writer getting ClickUp's opinion on growth? But it is independent, reliable and secondary, though.
Yahoo Finance	https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asana-rival-clickup-hits-1b-120128290.html	This is an article all about ClickUp's growth published on Yahoo Finance by a third-party so I believe it meets all the criteria :D (Please correct if I'm wrong.)
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round	Same article as the above but this is published in Bloomberg, another reliable and secondary source.
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors	This is a very recent article on Bloomberg about ClickUp. It's actually a podcast episode where ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans, talked about ClickUp and its entrance to the AI industry on Bloomberg's official podcast.
Business Insider	https://www.businessinsider.com/clickup-building-seasoned-executive-team-servicenow-zscaler-growth-2022-10	This is an article by a third-party regarding ClickUp's new executive team published in Business Insider.

I really hope any of these can help!

Once again, thank you for the very detailed guide, it is incredible and super helpful in teaching me how to become a proper editor in Wikipedia :D

Thank you and I hope you have a great day!

Modernwoman2021 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate of Banu Talis

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG: no English-language sources seem to mention this tribe or emirate at all, much less any indication of significance. At least some of the cited sources do not appear reliable, such as this webpage with no clear scholarly credentials, or the vague citations to an online transcription of Ibn Khaldun ([37]), a primary source. Much of the article is also poorly cited and may include WP:OR. If there's some alternate spelling of the name that yields accessible and reliable sources, you can mention it here; I've tried to search for a few other alternatives and still found nothing. R Prazeres (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a hoax and certainly existed. Of the sources provided, 2 and 5 are no use as they just link to Google book index pages and not to actual text pages, but the other refs all check out. In addition I found this and this. The ar.wiki article is a very short stub and this much longer article has many unsourced statements that could be trimmed out, but it needs editing, not deletion. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Libya. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 5 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!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xêro Abbas

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

Semi-advertorialized ("on his return he kissed his land and this attitude of his was welcomed by the people with great enthusiasm and love") WP:BLP of a musician not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show certain specific markers of achievement supported by reliable sourcing -- but this essentially just claims that he exists, expresses his significance in terms of flowery fluff like the quote I highlighted above rather than quantifiable achievements, and is referenced solely to a single unreliable source rather than any WP:GNG-worthy coverage. And the interlangs to the Arabic and Kurdish Wikipedias also don't feature any other reliable sourcing that could be pulled over to salvage this: the Kurdish one cites only the same unreliable source, while the Arabic one cites one different primary source and one circular citation to the Kurdish Wikipedia, neither of which are valid support for notability either.
As I can't read the Arabic or Kurdish languages, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read those languages is able to find sufficient GNG-worthy coverage to salvage this and neutralize the advertorialism, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Syria. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 5 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!} 18:31, 12 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!} 09:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilene, Indiana

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

An obvious nothing-there rail spot, not a village. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 12 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!} 09:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A search of Greene County newspapers reveals this place apparently had a 4-H club at one time, and a ladies' club, but I can't find anything more than passing mentions, all from before 1950. Reference 3 in the article is obviously copied from WP, so that has to go even if the article is kept. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hearth Party

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

This political party has sources, but seems completely trivial within politics. Ran in the 2024 Turkish local elections and gathered 2000 of 46 million votes. When reaching such an incredibly low level of relevance in politics, it is of no encyclopedic interest which hand gestures they like or how they view Atatürk. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it should be marged and redirected, into a new 'Hearth Party' section on the Ottoman Hearths article as it is the 'political wing' of that group, both are stubs and there seems to be some considerable overlap already. I don't read turkish (and google translate struggles!) but most of the sources seem to talk about them together. JeffUK 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like PROMO for a low-polling party. Hand signals and how they see history is a good half of the article, which seems like fluffy padding added to bulk-up a otherwise thin article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 12 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!} 09:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Kant (Indian executive)

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

Non notable executive, fails wp:GNG. Zuck28 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, India, and Rajasthan. Zuck28 (talk) 08:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The former CEO of Tata Motors [38] is a non-notable executive??? Clarityfiend (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ale Conners of London

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

Fails WP:LISTN as not having received attention as a group. An individual appointment sometimes gets a mention in a different source (though most of these aren't independent), but that's about it. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 08:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking the time to look for additional mentions and references on this subject. I look forward to receiving the results of the deletion discussion, and will of course be happy with whatever decision the group comes to. Tippylegend (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of acids by Hammett acidity

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

This could probably be merged into the article Hammett acidity function as it currently doesn't provide much context, and much of the list overlaps with the list on Hammett acidity function. It's also a very short list. Pygos (talk) 07:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a ridiculously short list, shorter, even, than the list at Hammett acidity function (not Hammett acidity as given by Pygos, which doesn't exist). It fulfils no purpose not already served by Hammett acidity function, which can be edited, if necessary, by adding other important examples. Athel cb (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I put the wrong link. I've fixed it. Pygos (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was planning on adding more. I mainly created the page because I didn't trust the numbers on the other page so I wanted to create my own list with better sources. I suspect some of the numbers on the existing list are also from people confusing hammett acidity with pKa TariosGD1618 (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added a couple more, no longer shorter than the list at the Hammett acidity function article TariosGD1618 (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's the wrong solution. If there are problems with the list at Hammett acidity function it needs to be corrected, not put in competition with another list. Athel cb (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in Hammett acidity function. --cyclopia ^speak! 11:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Māori

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. Cannot find any SIGCOV of product. No suitable merge/redirect target that I can think of. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Internet, Websites, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page is on my watchlist. Though I agree that there is little to no SIGCOV for Google Māori. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG per lack of WP:SIGCOV. Doubt there will be any coverage in the future either, considering the coverage that is there is from 2008. Beachweak (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google Search would be an easy redirect target, although it appears to be missing of the information on internationalization? IgelRM (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tangatawhenua.com

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. All references that mention it are quite trivial are in reference to other things. The best reference I could find [39] was only a trivial mention of the site. The site's founder could be notable but he doesn't have an article. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Organizations, Websites, and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 07:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lee-Navu Faunt

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this Papua New Guinean footballer to meet WP:GNG, mostly trivial mentions in match reports and squad listings. A possible redirect target is List of Papua New Guinea international footballers, although the list has not been updated to include his name. JTtheOG (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Oceania, and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 07:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Papua New Guinea international footballers per nom. - Lâm (talk) 07:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect – I don't follow sports in the country, but agree with the nomination. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 21:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brysam Global Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 06:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and New York. Imcdc Contact 06:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shugavybz

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

Yet another article on a musician who has done literally nothing notable to pass WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources from here and a cursory search suggests nothing useful. They're either interviews with the subject, or routine coverages that are entirely dependent on the subject. This is, as usual, a properly written article from the author on a non-notable musician to pretend notability. Also, the TurnTable Certification System of Nigeria is dubious in its entirety. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 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!} 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are either puff pieces that are meant to confer notability on him or interviews. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has written more than one major hit record, automatically meets WP:COMPOSER, just like a scriptwriter or director who has directed multiple award-winning movies. Even if he doesn't pass GNG, but passes WP:FILMS, he automatically establishes notability. Likewise he passes WP:ANYBIO, with a special recognition from The Recording Academy as a composer. One last thing, I would say the coverage for example [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], add up to a GNG pass, with an extensive list of production and songwriting credits from "No Girlfriend No Problem", "Away", "One Side", "Yawa No Dey End", "My Baby", and many more.--Afí-afeti (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Afí-afeti your comment makes it sound like you are arguing for a Keep but you neglected to actually declare this.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fabio De Sousa

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 04:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. You forget to mention that this is a common birth name in Portugese-speaking countries that namesakes may be found, unless you've searched in combination with the person's name and clubs. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. That is probably the only way to do a proper WP:BEFORE. JTtheOG (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus Capital Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRIT sources to prove notability. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Anne Glover (businesswoman) fpr the founder. Chipka (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED. This is about the firm not the founder. Imcdc Contact 04:51, 6 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!} 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are WP:ORGTRIV, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and/or WP:TRADES publications; there's no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS and thus it fails WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anne Glover (businesswoman) as WP:ATD HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect is a reasonable alternative. Bearian (talk) 11:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timōrātus

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

Sources are WP:QS and extremely bloggy and they don't adequately support WP:GNG. I suggest deleting it. Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Christianity, and Kentucky. Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the HM reference is good, and the Lloyd Harp IVM review would be pending on the outcome of the RFC regarding IVM. that's two sources, and we'd want three or four. I'm going to take a look before I make a decision.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other coverage I can find that would be RS is from The Metal Resource, and it's mostly reviews. I think for now notability is definitely questionable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Nobody is questioning the fact they exist. So the sources do reliably prove it exists. I'm satisfied with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~:Keep Notable. This0k (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Strikeout vote by sockpuppet whose original account was blocked in November 2023. Graywalls (talk) 03:06, 18 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!} 08:05, 12 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!} 04:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Arega Bekele

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable businessman. All sources are PR, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Aviation, and Ethiopia. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the {{not a ballot}} template on top, seeing how the previous AfD was filled with socks and SPAs. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did my research and read the previous AfD as well. The issues raised in the previous AfD were addressed. I do not think it is right to say sources are PR. For instance, the source with https://aec.afdb.org/ is from African Economic Conference (the equivalent of World Economic Conference in Africa) of African Development Bank (the equivalent of World Bank in Africa). My judgement is that an institution of this nature cannot be regarded as PR Source. Again, from my research, one of the sources TimesKuwait has been in the media space since 1996 and another The African Times have been around since 1989. These are independent sources in their own right. Another source - https://aviationbusinessjournal.aero/ is an influential aviation magazine. Since the subject is a top airline business executive, the rest sources are travel and aviation magazines including one that is associated with Havard. So I think the claim questioning the reliability of the sources is wrong. Again, compare the first article and this article and you will see that all issues violated by the first editor were fixed in this new article. The subject is a notable african airline executive in Africa and North America and I think it should stay with subsequent improvements as with all wikipedia articles. Cheers ! Astra Los Angeles (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, it's not a puffy as last time, but the "group vice president for customer experience" is very much a mid-level business executive, just above the rank and file. Sourcing now is largely from trade magazines, so nothing has changed since last time. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The VP is not a mid-level executive. See this [45] Further research here [46] also shows that there are C, V, D and B level executives and the only category rated as mid level executives here are the B level [47]. VPs fall under the V-suite that are rated senior executives and their roles or level of power depends on the organization and the country. Let's refer to the company itself. The GVP is included in Ethiopian Airlines senior level leadership team as captured here [48] but debating whether VP is a notable position or not is not the main crux and we have to refer to the Wikipedia guidelines on notability here Wikipedia:Notability (people) to consider whether the subject meets the notability criteria. First, the sources are independent and sources like the African Development Bank and the African Business Club of Harvard Business School [49] both mentioned the subject's receipt of US Presidential Lifetime Award which recognizes his contributions. Ethiopian Airline is Africa's largest airline and the subject was its face in North America for two years. Even though the VP is a notable position, the subject is not listed here because he is a VP. He is listed here because he is covered by several independent sources (especially in the african aviation industry where he belongs), the role he played in the airline industry during the COVID pandemic as MD in Canada (that earned him the NCBN Business person of the year award in 2021) and the significant award he bagged in the U.S IN 2023 as contained in the sources. When you look at the profiles of many CEOs on wikipedia including the current CEO of ethiopian airlines, that of this subject has more weight. You can be an ordinary classroom teacher and do big things. In the african aviation industry, the subject has earned it. Astra Los Angeles (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Astra Los Angeles (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment: For perspective, he is (or was) one in a list of 179 similar people [50], so this is very much not a notable position. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is a yet to be updated website page. This is the current page for Ethiopian Airline corporate executive Team [51] - the apex leadership and management team of the company. The subject is listed there. Astra Los Angeles (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One from a group of 16 isn't really helping your argument; we aren't LinkedIn, where every person gets an article. Being listed on a corporate website does not in any way show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Your first argument was that "it was one out of 179" and the comment provided in response was only to provide evidence/source to show that the claim was no longer true. Glad you have seen that it is no longer 1 out of 179 but 1 out of 16. Now you talk about being listed on a corporate website. If you read the article, there was no where that the link to the corporate website of the organization was used as reference to validate the subject's position. The subject notability is not hinged on whether he is/was 1 out of 179 or 10 out 10 or whatever number. The corporate website I pointed you was just for the purposes of this discussion/to make clarifications that you needed. I agree with you that we aren't LinkedIn where every person gets an article but you should agree with me that a foreign business executive who receives a US Presidential Lifetime award while serving in the US should get an article among other things listed in the article. You should also note that such recognition was recognized by sources like the continent's development bank, a Harvard affiliated group and other industry sources(which were added to the article). It was never about the position being top, mid or bottom as you want it to be narrowed. Remember to assume good faith Astra Los Angeles (talk) 08:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Non-notable businessperson, with shallow, limited coverage. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument. A source assessment would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject's notability stems not just from holding a VP position but from significant, independently verifiable achievements in the African aviation industry. Credible sources, such as the African Development Bank and the African Business Club of Harvard, highlight his receipt of the U.S. Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award and his recognised contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These accomplishments go beyond routine duties, making him a notable figure in his field. The sources cited meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, and the article addresses prior issues raised in earlier AfDs. This case satisfies WP:NBIO through significant independent coverage and impact. <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> — AONDOH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AONDOH (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: MILL. Don't gaslight or sealion us that a VP of an airline is automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to assume good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not because the subject is a VP but a VP that is notable in the African airline industry and for the significant award he received. 105.112.17.178 (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source analysis would be helpful. I was curious about the "Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award" which is apparently given to community volunteers which is odd because I don't believe this subject lives in the U.S. It is also sourced to a bio on a speaker's bureau so very likely written by the subject or their representatives.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: On the question of whether he lived in the US, the article says he served as Regional Director in the USA from 2022 - 2024. I doubt if he still lives in the U.S till this day but he obviously LIVED and WORKED in the U.S at some point as captured in the article. Astra Los Angeles (talk) 07:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the lack of independent, reliable sources. Per nom, the provided sources don't seem to be written from WP:NPOV, and FWIW, I agree with Bearian's "sealion" argument. I really don't see how the subject satisfies WP:NBIO.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:48, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Run of the mill airline executive. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandra Fontaine

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

Out of 11 references provided, YouTube, IMDb (2), Personal website(2) (fontainemedia, as mentioned in the article) (2). Except for ref 10, none of the rest 4 refs mention the subject. Subject fails the basic criteria (WP:BASIC) for all 8 mentioned professional including WP:NACTOR and WP:ENTERTAINER. ANU^writes 04:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Bands and musicians, Women, Journalism, Dance, Theatre, France, and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve (with cuts). There is https://www.lindependant.fr/2024/08/21/des-artistes-en-villegiature-chez-aleksandra-12152552.php https://www.lindependant.fr/2023/11/19/aleksandra-kedzierska-a-la-mediatheque-11590278.php https://dziennikpolski24.pl/z-paryskiego-lido-do-variete-w-krakowie/ar/3939301, https://www.leparisien.fr/culture-loisirs/dans-les-pyrenees-orientales-lebouriffante-galerie-dart-dune-ancienne-danseuse-du-lido-02-08-2021-QFFJSIB55RFHRDFND7JBA6WETY.php https://www.lindependant.fr/2022/12/23/saint-laurent-de-cerdans-aleksandra-kedzierska-signe-son-3e-roman-tombe-lombre-10886548.php https://lepetitjournal.com/varsovie/communaute/aleksandra-fontaine-lido-doublure-margaret-qualley-substance-399242 and https://kultura.onet.pl/wywiady-i-artykuly/aleksandra-kedzierska-fontaine-ciagle-jestem-glodna-nowych-wrazen/p3xmxx5 for example. She does seem to meet the requirements for notability. -Mushy Yank. 07:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mushy Yank I hope you're suggesting the article should be returned to draftspace for improvement, as it can not stand in the mainspace the way it is right now. I still think It should be deleted. ANU^writes 08:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not, I am clearly suggesting it should be kept.AfDs are for deletion not for cleanup and we are only discussing the notability of the subject not the state of the page. Feel free to improve it if you wish. -Mushy Yank. 12:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in view of the multiple reliable sources coverage identified in this discussion which together shows a pass of WP:GNG so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jónína Kristín Berg

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

Article lacks multiple sources with significant coverage (WP:BIO asks for multiple sources). The most substantial source is the first in the article, a short article in a newspaper.[52] Source 2 is a primary source listing higher-ups in a given organization.[53] Source 3 is a very short mention in a newspaper.[54] Source 4 is used to mention her role as an interim administrator, but with no other notable events occurring during the period. Source 5 is another primary source. A google search for more coverage yielded only social media. Wizmut (talk) 03:18, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Women, Paganism, and Iceland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of any notability criterion. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A regional leader and one-time interim leader of a 5k-person neopagan sect is not enough for automatic notability; we need WP:GNG-based in-depth coverage in publications independent of her and of the sect. The first Morgunblaðið source may count towards that but the second has no depth of coverage of her and is in the same publication as the first. So basically I agree with the nominator that we do not have the necessary multiplicity of good enough sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PS the redirects proposed below are also ok. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ásatrúarfélagið#Third and fourth allsherjargoðar (2002–present), for the time being. Pretty sure I saw more sigcov of her in the past, either in Icelandic newspapers or some academic anthology, but I can't find it now. Ffranc (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ásatrúarfélagið#Third and fourth allsherjargoðar (2002–present). The Morgunblaðið article is SIGCOV but we need multiple sources of SIGCOV for it to pass WP:GNG. That said, I think a redirect is a better alternative to deletion. Alvaldi (talk) 20:10, 12 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!} 03:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hadatha

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

The article was tagged for notability by Randykitty in 2021. A detailed review reveals an over-reliance on self-references and directory websites. There is no indication of notability, and no independent, reliable sources are available to support the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Lebanon. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finding third party coverage of academic journals in Arabic is not an easy task and I’m not sure the infrastructure even exists to query it as we could an English language journal. In the absence of a hard policy on notability for academic journals I would give considerable weight to its longevity and links with higher education, alongside the fact that it clearly isn’t pumping out pseudoscience or acting as a vehicle for cranks. In any case its important enough for Lebanon’s national news agency to announce the publication of each new issue (1 and 2) and for the news of each issue to be covered in the national press (3 and 4). Mccapra (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An-Nibras

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

The article has been tagged for notability issues since 2018. A thorough review reveals no evidence to establish its notability, and no independent, reliable sources are available to verify its significance.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail WP:GNG and WP:SNG (WP:BOOKCRIT / WP:OLDBOOK). No WP:RS and WP:IS to WP:V. QEnigma talk 12:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ādab wa-l-Fann (magazine)

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

The article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2018. Upon review, there is no evidence to demonstrate its notability. Furthermore, no independent and reliable sources exist to substantiate its significance.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and United Kingdom. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail WP:GNG and WP:SNG (WP:BOOKCRIT / WP:OLDBOOK). No WP:RS and WP:IS to WP:V. QEnigma talk 12:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Howdy & The Sunset Serenaders

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

Article for a likely non-notable band that appears to have been created by a member of the band. Based off a WP:BEFORE search, there is possibly significant coverage of the band, but only from a run-of-the-mill local news article and a site that exclusively covers local music from the band's hometown. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kansas. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keller Welton, a band member made it.This0k (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No indepth coverage from reliable third party sources... also WP:GARAGEBAND. --GRuban (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GoodMusicRadar doesn't have any author credits or seemingly that much info on the ownership, Earmilk appear to be a more professional operation and there was an article on it until literally a few days ago, the Cultr piece lists an author with no bio and I can find no info on the ownership on site (if anyone knows if its reliable, please tell) Iostn (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dselect

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

Unnecessary, uncited article that could be merged into APT (software), merged into Debian, or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 02:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I think it'd be more logical to merge the content into Dpkg since that's the source package that contains it. Citations could no doubt be found if required e.g. from the changelog. Ewx (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a section in the dpkg article is warranted. It's not impossible that some old books about Debian talk about it, but it's been obsolete far longer than it's been current at this point. --Joy (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RLH Equity Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 02:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 02:12, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a Google news search shows lots of "PR Newswire" and "Consultant" infomercial type things. Appears to be run of the mill. Ping me if you find three reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep (withdrawn by nominator)‎. (non-admin closure) lizthegrey (talk) 22:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justine Tunney

AfDs for this article:

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

no sustained notability outside of Occupy Wall Street, see WP:BLP1E. previous discussion had no consensus because it wasn't clear whether notability would be sustained, but that time has now passed and it hasn't. lizthegrey (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Software. lizthegrey (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the software contributions, would suggest that either they are notable for separate pages on the software itself, rather than being about the author necessarily. lizthegrey (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Judging from the article itself, since the previous nomination, she has led a large team of software engineers to patch a notable public vulnerability, has become featured as a "Builder" on Mozilla, and has been covered in 2 tech articles from reliable sources. A google search reveals some more tech/programming articles like this (a more knowledgeable editor in this area should incorporate that into the article), and a National Review article that mentioned her political views. She's also apparently a globally top 300 Github contributor (probably the most notable thing on this list)

I'm not sure how nominator is evaluating whether notability was "sustained" -- did it hinge on OWS becoming more politically relevant? It was basically defunct by 2014. Getting repeated coverage in an entirely different field should make her more notable, not less. Of the three pro-delete comments in the previous nomination, two cited BLP concerns (i.e. that the article is overly negative on her), which no longer seem to be the case; and one cited BLP1E, which is clearly not the case anymore. Ceconhistorian (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If we're going to randomly delete articles about people just because they haven't been up to "enough" recently, it would seem like we would need to delete hundreds of thousands more articles for such a reason. It's just not a sensible reason to delete. Especially since the reasoning given for this second nomination for deletion is even less convincing than the first attempt to delete the article 10 year ago. Fishmech (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vislor Turlough

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a renomination of the character; I had previously nominated this subject for deletion in June of last year, when I was less familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines and overall argumentation and source reliability, and also when I happened to be put in a real world position where I couldn't respond to the discussion effectively. With a broader understanding of Wikipedia's criterions, I'm going to give a significantly more in-depth nomination as to why this subject doesn't meet notability.

-The sources currently used in the article are weak. WhatCulture is unreliable per WP:WHATCULTURE, flickfilosopher, from its About page, appears to be a self-published blog, which is also unreliable. The third statement is dev info unrelated to public reception, which is also uncited.

-A search through News yielded little hits, both under the name "Vislor Turlough" and "Turlough (Doctor Who)". I got only the occasional listicle or unreliable source, and nothing of substance capable of being added to the article.

-Books yielded nothing bar trivial mentions of Turlough being a Companion during the period of the Fifth Doctor, or brief statements regarding Strickston's casting as the character. One hit in "Who is Who?" looked promising, but was ultimately less so about Turlough and primarily about the themes of the episode Enlightenment.

-Scholar yielded nothing bar a pair of Masters Theses, which are unreliable and did not appear to be cited anywhere else that would indicate reliability.

-The sources acknowledged in the last AfD are insufficient. I am unable to find anything on "Companions: Fifty Years of Doctor Who Assistants", which was mentioned in the last nomination, in terms of text contents, meaning the book's contents are unable to be verified, and thus its usability here is unreliable. If anyone can clarify this book's coverage, that would be appreciated, as it something I have been unable to find.

-The other sources are weak. "Doctor Who: The Companions" is a useful dev info source, but not usable for notability due to being written by John Nathan-Turner, the series' producer at the time of Turlough's appearance on the show, which falls under WP:PRIMARY. "Is there life outside the box?" also falls under PRIMARY due to being written by Peter Davison, a co-star on the series who was highly involved with the series' production. "Queers dig Time Lords" falls under the scope of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS due to the character only being brought up as a past example of a queer character, with the bulk of analysis being on more recent characters like Captain Jack Harkness. The Fantasy Empire source is admittedly pretty solid, but that's about the only coverage that can be found that seems to be significant in nature.

One source is not an article make, and Turlough's distinct lack of coverage indicates that he has not received much coverage in any form since his introduction. A viable AtD is to Companion (Doctor Who) where the character is listed for his role. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:55, 19 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, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe the two central sentences on Turlough in Queers dig Time Lords p. 86 is brief but not trivial. More importantly, I think a A Critical History of Doctor Who on Television is another significant source, refering to the character at various places but especially providing commentary on the concept and why it did not work at p. 323-324 and 341. Together with the mentioned Fantasy Empire article I think this fullfills the minimum requirements of WP:GNG. (And again thanks for the detailed source analysis in the nomination, so that I did not need to start an argument based on Doctor Who: The Companions just to learn later that it is not independent.) Daranios (talk) 15:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Barbados

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

This topic as whole fails WP:GNG, the population itself is not significant making only 0.46% of population and no reliable sources treat it as a notable topic. This was initially redirected but then someone opposed the redirect. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Barbados. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary sources. We just deleted a bunch of articles about Jews in X small country, so this is a fair comparison. Bearian (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC) No objection to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hinduism in Belize

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

This topic as whole fails WP:GNG, the population itself is not significant making only 0.2% of population and no reliable sources treat it as a notable topic. This was initially redirected but then someone opposed the redirect. - Ratnahastin (talk) 01:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Religion in Belize. The latter article is short and can easily accommodate a section in Hinduism. While at it, merge other minor religions, like Islam in Belize, redirect Buddhism in Belize). Викидим (talk) 02:03, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Belize. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no secondary sources. We just deleted a bunch of articles about Jews in X small country, so this is a fair comparison. No objection to a redirect. Bearian (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mwijaku

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

After observing the article being too promotional (still is), I moved the it back to draft space hoping for improvement that would follow a regular review at AFC but the original editor moved it back direct to the mainspace also nowhere in the references show subject's (important claims) like date of birth or number of children they have, where did the editor get them? That's WP: PROMOTIONAL, WP:COIEDIT and tries to use wikipedia as WP:SOAPBOX.

No any notable work listed show subject's importance, just a bunch of gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that cannot be trusted on WP:BLP. ANU^writes 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, Internet, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. --John B123 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor of this article, I have made improvements by adding additional information from sources that I believe are credible. Please review it to see if it is satisfactory and help me by correcting any mistakes. 3L3V8D (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Revolution (group)

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct minor Trotskyist group. No demonstration of meeting GNG within the article, with sourcing being from self-published sources (mostly their own) so violates WP:ABOUTSELF. Checks on scholar show no notable academic discussion of the group. No likelihood of improvement and no obvious redirect targets.

Delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Bin Sojib

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

Lacks significant coverage that are not puffy PR pieces. Neither the businessperson nor his company appear to be notable. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bangladesh. Fancy Refrigerator ^(talk) 01:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Music. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His company i will create, he is channel i music award winner, so, i was create his page Susdtr (talk) 03:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He was accused of funding the 2024 Bangladesh quota reform movement killing mission. I think there is a reason to keep this page. If you seniors think it is not relevant then you can delete it Susdtr (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Checked their business article and this article; found sources to be PR, extensively promoting the subject. Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 07:53, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I picked them up from the news, I don't know him personally Susdtr (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few days ago acted in Imran Mahmudul's song, so I thought it was necessary to make this page, so I did i Susdtr (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Yates

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

This character does not appear to be notable. Every source in the article is a primary citation, and a source search yields little else. While Yates is covered in brief in many articles, he is predominantly only mentioned due to his role in Invasion of the Dinosaurs. He is only mentioned in brief manners in every source discussing him, and is only talked about as an aspect of the episode. Some obituaries for his actor also exist, but these are predominantly mentioning Yates as a large role the actor played more than they are discussing Yates himself. The book "James Bond and Popular Culture" has a good short paragraph on his role, but that's about it. A viable AtD for this character is to UNIT, the organization Yates is apart of and associated with, and where Yates receives some mention. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:14, 19 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, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sergeant Benton

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

Despite being a frequently recurring character, actual notability of the character is minimal. All sources cited in the article are only verifying information and show no indication of notability. A source search through News, Books, and Scholar turned up little bar trivial mentions and plot recaps. There's a good short paragraph in "James Bond and Popular Culture" describing his role in the series, but that's all I found. One source is not enough for an article. A possible AtD is to UNIT, the organization of which Benton is apart of and where Benton receives some mention. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:11, 19 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, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robynne Tweedale

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:02, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not meeting notability, lack of coverage. [55] is about the best, which is a brief mention. Oaktree b (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG (WP:NSPORT / WP:NSKATE) criteria. No WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma talk 11:49, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Green Arrow enemies

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from the Green Arrow article. Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. The target article is also missing sources but at least provides a valid redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Green Arrow characters (if anyone creates it) or the the main article. It is reasonable for larger show to have a split off list of characters, but one is enough for most; no need for splits of 'enemies' or whatever else a particular fan can think of (WP:FANCRUFT...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Green Arrow supporting characters. The target article likely needs a serious clean-up to remove the WP:OR, and maybe a rename. There's a potential basis in reliable sources for one character list, but not multiple forks filled with unsourced content. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to List of Green Arrow supporting characters per Shooterwalker. I do feel some sourcing could prove this article's existence, especially considering there are ScreenRant articles ([56] and [57]) as well as an Entertainment Weekly article [58] that touches base on the at least the TV adaptation characters. Though there is not much on the other characters, especially those covered in the comics. Conyo14 (talk) 22:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astrid Mangi

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Austria. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:27, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Super Friends villains

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from the Super Friends article. Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. The target article is also missing sources but at least provides a valid redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Friends#Characters - Not only is this current list lacking in any reliable, secondary sources, many of the listed characters are minor antagonists that appeared in a single episode or comic book issue. The current article already lists the villains, with appropriate blue links to those that are notable. It should also be noted that the Legion of Doom also has its own article that covers a lot of the same information on many of the reoccurring villains in the series. So, between the information there and on the main Super Friends article, this is a needless spinout mostly being used to include excessive plot details on minor one-shot character appearances. Rorshacma (talk) 02:00, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Friends#Characters agree that there is no reason for this to be a separate article when the information is already included on the main Super Friends page. Rhino131 (talk) 14:57, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super Friends#Characters. There is definitely no need for this extensive list. It does not fit WP:NLIST, plus it already feels forked from the characters list. Conyo14 (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The North American Discworld Convention

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

WP:BEFORE only showed unreliable sources such as blogs and fan sites, or other passing mentions. This does not have reliable secondary sources to achieve WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in Gnews, nothing in RS that I can find. Sounds interesting, but no RS we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Events, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there coverage of the Discworld fandom as a whole? If so, then we might be able to justify creating a section or subsection (like under reception?) in the main Discworld article that could briefly cover the fandom and the various conventions like this one. I admittedly am not seeing a huge ton of sources, but perhaps someone else could have better luck? (I'm also not delving super deep as far as searching goes). I did find this one about the UK convention and this one about general convention appearances though, though. And this one that's paywalled but mentions a Pratchett superfan. They're all by The Guardian so it's not a huge depth of coverage, but it's a start. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]