Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 13	December 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sudheer Dara

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

I tried to fixed the page, but i failed to fix the notability. He is an ulelected politician, fails WP:NPOL. Looking at WP:GNG, some articles including ABP News [1] looks like advertisement as it is published in Brand Wire section. Other article and citations also needs to be checked. Taabii (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Medicine, India, and Andhra Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 14:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taabi,

I edited and updated content and media sources; please check and remove that tag.

If there are any issues, please inform me.

Thank you. Narasingprasad (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Taabii,

i am waiting for your reply. Narasingprasad (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Narasingprasad Kindly let others comment, for a better understanding. Also, I'm not going to remove it from the Deletion Discussion, let the Admin decide. Thank You. Taabii (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India Book of Records is not a notable organisation like Limca or Guiness. Adding this can never prove Notability of any individual. Taabii (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Baqi:) (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - has multiple made up in one day awards for a run of the mill doctor. Fails WP:POLOUTCOMES as an unelected candidate. Also, we are not LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is no bolded Keep but the article creator is arguing for it so I don't think this can close as a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 7 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!} 23:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Runner-up in an Indian state legislative election. Fails WP:NPOL. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:55, 14 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Or, rather, "no consensus between keep and merge". No prejudice against opening a merge discussion, but it's clear we're not deleting this. asilvering (talk) 06:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nanticoke City, Delaware

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

Likely insignificant formerly unincorporated residential subdivision that is now a part of Seaford, Delaware. I am unable to locate the article's cited sources anywhere to verify whether it fails WP:SIGCOV or falls under WP:ROUTINE, but based on Google or Newspapers.com yielding no relevant results and the only relevant newspaper coverage that I am able to find being passing mentions, I am almost certain that this place is not notable. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Delaware. Waddles 🗩 🖉 23:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly was a real "village" – the Delaware General Assembly once appointed commissioners to survey the "village known as Nanticoke City, Seaford Hundred," to consider the construction of a public road there. Passing book mentions here and here. Newspapers.com has ~170 mentions of the community in Delaware papers, e.g. [2] [3]. It seems like it was considered separate from Seaford until it was "annexed" in 1910 ([4]). BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with merge to Seaford, Delaware#History. The latter is terrible anyway, and given that this area is now part of the town, it makes sense to talk about it as part of Seaford's history. Mangoe (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If every unpopulated but named crossroads or housing development in the county deserves its own article just because it is noted in the GNIS, then certainly an unincorporated town that existed as a separate entity for more than 50 years and was home to a railroad stop, a natural gas plant, river docks, and hundreds of residents before being annexed into another town is notable. Deeds for these properties in Seaford still have them listed on the Sussex County Recorder of Deeds site as Nanticoke City. For example, the property at 120 N Bradford Street in Seaford is listed on the Sussex County Recorder of Deeds as #54 Nanticoke City on both the mortgage and deed in the legal description of the property. I would also add that this article already includes more information than other so called notable communities listed for the county such as Adams Crossroads, Delaware, Blanchard, Delaware, Indian Beach, Delaware, and dozens more from the county and state. Superman7515 (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Superman7515: Per WP:GEOLAND, "Populated places without legal recognition are considered on a case-by-case basis in accordance with the GNG. Examples may include subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods, etc. – any of which could be considered notable on a case-by-case basis, given non-trivial coverage by their name in multiple, independent reliable sources. If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." Unless Nanticoke City was an incorporated entity, Census-designated place, or had its own ZIP code, it most likely isn't notable on its own as an unincorporated subdivision. I'm not really convinced that local newspapers coverage of a storm that occurred there and deeds are anything beyond routine coverage and sufficient coverage to verify its notability.

It is more than likely that a lot of these mass-created stubs for 'unincorporated communities' should not exist, too. After having been opposed to deleting these sort of articles (I don't doubt I had created some myself some years ago), I have in the past listed some of these sort of articles for deletion, most recently here, here, and here. It is definitely possible that some if not all of those examples of communities you linked should also have their articles deleted, too. Waddles 🗩 🖉 22:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a reasonable way out. Bearian (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this was clearly once a populated place from my WP:BEFORE search separate from Seaford - even referred to specifically by the state legislature in 1893. It's eligible for its own page. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a reasonable solution Andre🚐 03:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments divided between Keep and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:13, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Seaford, Delaware. While it may be eligible for its own page, as SportingFlyer points out, we still have to consider WP:PAGEDECIDE ((at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context). And I think it is better to merge our coverage of this community into the page on the community that swallowed it; we would still provide coverage as part of the broader topic, and we would have more context of what happened to the area after the merger. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 22:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- How exactly would this merger be performed? Having just the history of Nanticoke City in Seaford when surely there's other unincorporated communities that are in Seaford (and little text on Seaford's history in the Seaford article) seems undue. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At the moment, merging is undue. Per SportingFlyer, this is eligible for its own page, as a verified populated place that even had recognition from the Delaware General Assembly. As to the PAGEDECIDE argument, merging is not currently an appropriate option. Our article on Seaford gives us ~175 words on Seaford's history, while this article on Nanticoke City gives us ~125 words on said community's history. Having close to as much content on Nanticoke City as there is on Seaford's history in the article would be clearly undue – as this former community is a very minor part of Seaford's history. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:47, 21 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Nazim

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

Non notable actor/ assistant director. His claim to fame is as the brother of popular actress Nazriya Nazim and brother in law of Fahadh Faasil. Does not seem to meet the requirements of WP:NACTOR. Jupitus Smart 21:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Jupitus Smart 21:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. While there are several sources discussing his engagement and marriage, these mainly highlight his connection as a sibling of a notable actor rather than establishing his own significance. The remaining sources are primarily interview coverages. His notability is not yet independently established.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 10:03, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one film is almost never enough to pass NACTOR standards. If every run of the mill assistant director had an article, then my best buddy from college would have an article here (hint: he's not notable). Bearian (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources. Fails WP:NACTOR who has no significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or made any unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. RangersRus (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NACTOR. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 06:05, 21 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin Max

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find anything for him bar a minor mention.Canary757 (talk) 16:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced and doesn't appear to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 10:24, 18 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.

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!} 22:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Thomas (darts player)

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no SIGCOV found, couple of interviews on blogspot/wordpress was all that I found so failing WP:Sportbasic.Canary757 (talk) 18:08, 18 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rohit David

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Norway. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing in Google news. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Significant coverage found.Canary757 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am unable to find anything approaching SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree as per above MaskedSinger (talk) 16:41, 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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Owen× ☎ 00:23, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bukit Mewah National Secondary School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 13:59, 22 November 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 November 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:29, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - Tbh I would usually be starting at delete on this one and trying to disprove my assumption, but this is one of multiple nominations all nominated within minutes of each other without any evidence of a deletion rationale or a WP:BEFORE. Looking at the others, many seem fairly obvious keeps with minimal searching. Searching takes a lot of time, and I don't see the case is made that this time be spent. I think we should procedurally keep this one, without prejudice against a renomination by anyone (without the usual six month stand off) who has spent sufficient time looking at the issue to write a fuller deletion rationale. Or just close it as no consensus. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This does not qualify for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:06, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are only three sources that mention this school and all of them are simply made in passing[5][6][7]. There's no WP:SIGCOV that would justify this article's existence. - Ratnahastin (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no references and fails to meet WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. 1keyhole (talk) 22:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Issues of notability, among others, has been tagging for years with unimprovement. This school may have the largest count of students in its state by a 2022 data. A search of "bukit mewah" AND "school OR sekolah OR smk" on Google did not provide any relevant news. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ong Kai Jin, boolean search doesn't work on google, and I'm pretty sure it doesn't work on google news, either. -- asilvering (talk) 04:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And if it did, "school OR sekolah OR smk" is searching for that exact string and not boolean operators. Not surprising that showed nothing. Also to note, this !vote is by the nominator. Nominators vote is assumed and need not be stated. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It worked and for both. What I meant was that the results of news were unrelatable. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - News: [8], [9], [10], [11]. Arguably WP:MILL but if you are not finding this stuff you are not searching properly. It gets two full pages in the book Improving Schools (2014).[12] However that appears to be self published. Despite being self published, the two pages refer to a published newspaper letter in the Star and as we haven't yet found that, searches are clearly not gathering all the information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I helped you, that turned out to be a self-submitted article. [13] I then assume it is a book of compilation of own submission. For your information, The Star often excluded from Google's news tab search results because they usually locks old articles. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not just WP:MILL, individual achievements are not inclusive of article per WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#OS. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 15:53, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A search of "bukit mewah" school OR sekolah OR smk site:thestar.com.my OR site:nst.com.my on Google should work the best or a search of "smk bukit mewah" OR "bukit mewah secondary" site:thestar.com.my OR site:nst.com.my on Google should be more precise. Still, individual interviews, individual achievements and that person's own submission. I do not think a news on a debate national-champion is enough. Ong Kai Jin (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any thoughts on the new sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for a source eval.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a fair amount of sources to argue GNG is met, just over the line, met which for schools, is enough per WP:NSCHOOL. And as Sirfurboy pointed out, this was part of a "barrage" of nominations with no rationale outside of "Fails WP:NSCHOOL." 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 and non exhaustively many m o r e. DarmaniLink (talk) 22:39, 14 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.

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

The result was merge‎ to Download manager as a sensible, unopposed ATD. Owen× ☎ 16:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DownloadStudio

AfDs for this article:

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

"awarded by PC Magazine as the best download manager in its Utility Guide 2004". Is this enough for WP:NSOFT? I have my doubts. No other indications of notability in the article or in my BEFORE _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Download manager: The full review of the software in PC Mag can be found here, and a report from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory gives a very brief description of its features (link). This level of sourcing is insufficient, but only by a hair. I could be persuaded to change my vote to Keep if someone else finds better sourcing, which I think is a real possibility. I will also note that the previous AfD contains a bunch of Keep votes that are prime examples of arguments to avoid, but one vote does suggest a decent merge target. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:28, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:05, 14 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Contact-electro-catalysis

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

Article which was previously Draft:Contact-electro-catalysis and rejected from AfD as contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia by Pygos after being previously declined by Ldm1954, DMacks, CSMention269, Liance and Iwaqarhashmi. Editor created this new version directly to mainspace, circumventing prior history. Current version is a recent proposed catalysis approach from a single group which as yet has no other significant coverage or secondary sources, so WP:TOOSOON. As previously pointed out by Pygos there is probably also a COI. Going to AfD as it apparently does not qualify for a speedy delete. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON from COI. Not overtly promotional wording, but self-cited to hell and back, with general lack of independent references to demonstrate notability. To emphasize, it was rejected at AFC, and the same editor who now created in mainspace is the same as the one involved at AFC. That editor is possibly a role account and by various evidence undoubtedly involved in the research. This one is nearly the same lede, does not appear to make any new claims with substantially newer independent references to meet WP:GNG, and has even less body content than the rejected one. DMacks (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of notability and lack of comprehensibility, quite apart from the COI issues — GhostInTheMachine ^{talk to me} 20:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for your advice! Indeed, contact-electro-catalysis has only been proposed for 2 years, which is still an emerging and young field compared to other mature catalytic strategies. Up to now, there are over 50 research groups from 15 countries have particpated in the research of CEC according to the data in Web of Science. A promient example concerns Prof. Richard N. Zare from Stanford Unviersity. His research group has employed CEC to realzie contiuous production of ammonia, and this progress is also highlight by the Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences. (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2322425121) 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt - borders on WP:MADEUP. It's only a concept? So, this is essentially one or more persons saying, "I have an idea ..." There has been only 11 page views within the last month. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC) — Maile (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your advice! Some representative applications of contact electro-catalysis include the degradation of organic pollutants (such as methyl orange in aqueous solution), the synthesis of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and the continuous production of ammonia. These three applications have been published in various high-profile scientific journals, with each study conducted by independent research groups. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As far as I can see this is just an idea, with, at present, no working examples. Athel cb (talk) 12:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your advice! Some representative applications of contact electro-catalysis include the degradation of organic pollutants (such as methyl orange in aqueous solution), the synthesis of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and the continuous production of ammonia. These three applications have been published in various high-profile scientific journals, with each study conducted by independent research groups. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TOOSOON to keep this article. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your support! 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you're getting much support here... ~Liance^talk 17:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least all these suggestions are very valuable for us to improve the quality of the draft. And we really appreciate your time and effort in reviewing this draft, no matter these comments are positive or negatvie. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 03:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your suggestion! The contact-electro-catalysis is indeed an emerging and yound field, as it was proposed in 2022. While Prof. Zhong Lin Wang’s group has been a pioneer in this area and has published a lot on CEC, an increasing number of researchers are now engaging in this research. Notable independent research groups, such as those led by Prof. Feng-Ru Fan at Xiamen University, Prof. Richard N. Zare at Stanford University, and Prof. Qing-Xia Chen at the University of Alberta in Canada, are also making valuable contributions to the field. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 05:46, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - draft was rejected from AfC for a reason. If it wasn't already apparent from the IP editor's comments here, there's clear COI concerns at the very least, and the sourcing does not at all demonstrate notability as it appears to be non-independent. ~Liance^talk 17:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for your advice! Regarding the potential COI issues, this revised manuscript has described the concept of CEC and the current research progress from a third-party perspective using objective language. For the reference, in addition to some pioneering article by Prof. Zhong Lin Wang's group, this revised manuscript also cites a number of independent research progress from research groups unrelated to Prof. Zhong Lin Wang. We hope this can relive your concerns. Best wishes! 65.75.221.161 (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was more of a recent research-based text, that has no substantive references to prove it's existence. And the IP seriously not have any idea about COI, i.e. conflict of ~~issues~~ interest policy. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 05:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your suggestion! I apologize for not checking Wikipedia’s definition of COI, as I am neither the author nor a participant in the editing process. My involvement in CEC research began after attending a presentation by Prof. Zhong Lin Wang, and I am currently writing a review article on the topic. Prof. Wang is a pioneer in this field, and it is inevitable to cite some of his original articles in both academic papers and entries, but such citations are usually seen as a respect for the original literature.

Although I am now working on this research area, I have no personal interest in the success of creating this entry. I spot this Wikipedia page while searching for literatures about CEC, and I am indeed shocked by the difficulties and controversies encountered when trying to create an entry on Wikipedia about a new field that has received widespread attention in academia (with 223 academic papers published in the past two years, according to Google Scholar).

I appreciate the discussions over the past few days, which has refreshed my understanding of Wikipedia. I noticed that the author has not responded to comments or updated the text. I will leave it to the author and hope them all the best. 65.75.221.161 (talk) 02:26, 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Nominator CU-blocked as a troll. Drmies (talk) 01:57, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sabean colonization of Africa

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

This Article has numerous inconsistencies, provides no historical backing or basis with historical events e.g, wars, vassal rulers, kings, inscriptions, etc there is no information of such an event occurring at all. In addition it provides no historical context or historical affirmation that this happened and is mainly based on 21st century consensuses and useless arguments provided in citations which talks for a totally different reason not a "colonization" at the very least a migration but this page doesn't make any favours for that. Hence this page can be seen as a probative of Pro-Yemeni nationalist propaganda or anti-Ethiopian sentiment. Once again its historical section is uses nothing actually historical and its nothing more than conflating opinions from scholars in the 21st century which have been used as fictitious references and has been deleted by me, in addition, opinions are usually on a separate section on an article and its not appropriate them in the historical subsection without any historical context. There's nothing on this page linking back to something that can indicate it happened and there's not a single shred of evidence hence why the article only uses opinions (which differentiate). Hence is a clear use of Imposter content, Wikipedia:Fictitious references a violation of Wikipedias policy. Sections of the page have already been removed due to this.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Apprentix (talk • contribs) 10:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not be disingenuous here; by "Sections of the page have already been removed due to this" you mean that YOU removed those sections based on your own notions. Ravenswing 20:52, 14 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 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Yemen. Shellwood (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. With 27 edits during 13-14 December (maybe more since I counted) this is as clear an example of edit warring as I have seen. Probably an administrator should step in. (I don't have the expertise to have an opinion about who is correct.) Athel cb (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep – being mainly based on 21st-century consensus is not only fine by us, it is obligatory: we care about present scholarly consensus, and moreover are not qualified to dispute or downplay it. Remsense ‥ 论 20:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: Based on some of the nom's statements here and at the associated ANI complaint, I'm comfortable with deeming this a bad faith nomination. Looking over the sources presented, they are themselves well-attested, and there's enough of them to disprove the notion that it's a fringe viewpoint. His readiness to sling around accusations of nationalism -- often the first recourse of rabid nationalists themselves -- is troubling, as is his obsession with the premise that history somehow doesn't count without attested monarchs or battles. That the nom doesn't like the conclusions of the numerous contemporary scholars who've held these positions so distasteful to him is evident, but his own nationalist animus doesn't equate to discrediting them. Ravenswing 20:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion: The sources cited by the author of this article do not reflect the modern academic consensus that they are trying to claim. The claims made in this article are an extrapolation of the idle conjecture of 19th and 20th century archaeologists and anthropologists (particularly Carlo Conti Rossini), as is noted when actually going through the citations themselves. Even a topical investigation of citations 1, 6, 18, and 19 by an amateur reader should demonstrate that the author is essentially grasping at straws, and making connections that don't substantively exist. How the author cited literature that supports the notion of close cultural contact between two historic people-groups along with the presence of Sabean script/temples, to then using this as a substantiation of ancient colonization is a mystery to me. Just as well, the final section using citation number 20 seems to quote a complete fabrication that cannot be found in the source text. I think this is grounds enough to believe the author did not write this article in good-faith, and that the claims given in the article cannot be substantiated either by any modern historical consensus that the author sufficiently demonstrated nor by the given citations/source texts. Ax Gagce (talk) 22:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

— Ax Gagce (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Diannaa (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "The results are consistent with the hypothesis, supported by historical and linguistic evidence, for a common origin of these groups from a Cushitic-speaking group living in eastern Africa." Hell's bells, you didn't even read the whole of the abstract, let alone the source, did you? Talk about "grasping at straws" or "making connections ... that don't exist." Ravenswing 02:02, 15 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Ajmer

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

Yet another MILHIST article that spun more around event's background and aftermath rather than describing the event itself. Fails WP:MILNG and WP:SIGCOV as sources measly refer this particular event as a capture of Ajmer alongwith Nagaur, could not find ~~Seige~~ Siege of Ajmer in the sources. Garuda ^Talk! 16:26, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with your observations. The article has been in contention for deletion before too. Xoocit (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — (soft) — per nominator and above. That said, there do seem to be a number of sources listed in the “the battle” section… if someone could spin-out more information regarding the actual siege from these (or any other) I might be inclined to re-consider my position or at least rescind my “delete” position. But as-written, it’s a delete, for me. There is enough contention via multiple issues that I am rescinding my “delete” opinion (and altering it to Comment). MWFwiki (talk) 01:21, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the initial contributor has a history of WP:CITEBOMB and just citing irrelevant and unreliable sources [14][15][16]; From the analysis of the sources, it is evident that they contain barely a few lines of passing mention, often limited to a single line:
- [17]: This barely has one line of passing mention.
- [18]: Page needed; however, upon searching through snippets, nothing relevant could be found.
- [19]: Irrelevant to this conflict; nothing about the event was found. The initial contributor has a history of citing random sources without thoroughly reviewing them.
- [20]: Same case here, a one liner "Mahmud Khalji of Malwa defeats Gajadhar".
- [21]: Lastly, here as well, a line of passing mention. Garuda ^Talk! 16:44, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, and Rajasthan.
Delete: Per nomination. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:11, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article was moved from Conquest of Ajmer to Seige of Ajmer at Special:Diff/1261104784, which I would have thought the nominator would have been aware of, so the argument that the sources refer to "capture of Ajmer" and not "Seige of Ajmer" and therefore it fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILNG on that basis is not a good argument. If anything they make an argument for moving the page back to the old name or similar. Pinging @Xoocit, @MWFwiki and Ratnahastin as you may not have been aware of the page move. TarnishedPath^talk 11:00, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Titles containing non-neutral terms like "Conquest" should be used with caution, as per MOS:MILNAME. Additionally, this event has only a few passing mentions and lacks sufficient independent, significant coverage to justify a standalone article. Garuda ^Talk! 16:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article seems to place more emphasis on the event's context and aftermath with very limited information about the actual 'Conquest of Ajmer', maintaining the title given instead, it describes the aftermath, particularly the construction of a mosque and a shrine, as well as the role of Khwaja Niamatullah and Makhdum Husain. I see only passing reference to the siege, without any citation, it does not provide the level of depth expected for WP:MILNG to pass.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 10:34, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have moved this page from "Conquest of Ajmer" to "Siege of Ajmer" in the past on the basis of its lead title being misleading. A conquest is usually understood as the absorption of a territory into the state for a static amount of time, if not permanently. However, in this case it was recaptured by Kumbha within a few days. Aside from that, this article has multiple issues as noted by editors above, like WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILNG. Some cherry-picking of sources has also been done with the battle section, which was more of a siege, actually lacking a sufficient amount of source. Rawn3012 (talk) 11:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV RangersRus (talk) 01:00, 17 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.

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. Owen× ☎ 16:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Reuter Literary Archive

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

Unreferenced since 2009. My BEFORE in English and German ("Fritz Reuter Literature Archive") in GS and GB yields nothing. De wiki article has a few refs but they are not easy for me to verify, and the notability of this archive is unclear. I would not be surprised if someone could rescue this, but well, this has been unreferenced for 15 years. Maybe this AfD will motivate someone to help? Otherwise, sorry, WP:V is clearly failed, and WP:GNG is not obvious. For all we know this can be some variant of Zhemao hoaxes. Ping User:Bearian who few days asked for this to be sourced or deleted at WT:GERMANY (nobody replied there so far...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Germany. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. I thought it might be rude, but I made an effort to get feedback first. Bearian (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: subject does exist; apparently it was a private collection of Fritz Reuter related stuff by Hans-Joachim Griephan, and was merged into the Fritz Reuter Literaturmuseum in 2024. Some coverage about the merger in Nordkurier. I can't say how in-depth the offline sources at the German-language wiki article go, but with online sources gng wouldn't be passed. Nyamo Kurosawa (talk) 21:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with Nyamo Kurosawa's observations. Additionally while the Fritz Reuter Literary Archive should be removed for lack of sources, it appears the Fritz Reuter Literature Museum does not lack sources and would be a good candidate for a Wikipedia article. Myotus (talk) 22:36, 14 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.

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

The result was keep‎. No consensus to delete. Owen× ☎ 16:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jozef Pavlík

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

Pavlík never played much at professional level as far as I can tell. He later become manager of several clubs before disappearing from the football world in 2021. The best sources I found are TA3 and SME, both of which are passing mentions. Please note that this is a common birth name in Slovakia, so it's possible to find coverage of namesakes, such as a referee (he died in May 2021 at just 47; it's highly possible the referee was not the same person as AfD target). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article confirms that the manager and referee are two different people. Significant coverage about his exploits as a manager in three different countries exist [22] [23] [24] [25] (later also a fourth). He has not "disappeared from the football world in 2021"; here is an organized celebration of his 50th birthday before a football match. Claim about not playing professionally is baseless as well (cf. 5 years in Greece) Geschichte (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:08, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which show notability. Giant Snowman 14:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per above. Svartner (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think the SME sources listed above reach the threshold of SIGCOV - most are about manager Jozef Vukušič, with some coverage of his long-time assistant, Pavlík. His playing career in Greece was entirely in the second level (and well before the implementation of Super League 2). I found zero coverage of his Greek playing career aside from RSSSF (which only confirms that he appeared in 12 league matches for Ethnikos Asteras during the 2002–03 season), even trying to use what is likely to be his name in Cyrillic script. The 50-year birthday celebration was hosted by FK Slovan Levice, a non-notable semi-pro club, and was only noted by a local web portal in Levice - something that seems hardly notable. Maybe someone more proficient in Greek or Slovak can find better coverage, but I think what's been found so far is well short of our guideline. Jogurney (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree that the pieces I brought up [1][2][3][4] are not about Pavlik. Whose name is in the title and lead, and whose portrait adorn the articles? The 2023 piece was not supposed to show notability, only to counter the claim that he has "disappeared". Geschichte (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Player and manager with comprehensive pro playing and manager career with sources and sdefiitly also has offline sources. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:06, 21 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of tallest buildings in Lörrach

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

A small city in Germany with zero skyscrapers (defined as a building taller than 100m) and none planned. Similar case to List of tallest buildings in Gwalior, List of tallest buildings in Bradenton, Florida and List of tallest buildings in Macon, Georgia and many, many other AfDs that we have had over the last few years on similarly non-notable lists of buildings in cities where none of the buildings are actually that tall. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional points for consideration:

Firstly, the list has no navigational purpose as all of the buildings featured are not notable enough for their own Wikipedia article. For that matter, I don't think it meets any of the 3 purposes at WP:LISTPURP.
Secondly, this topic does not have WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Individual news articles about a handful of the individual buildings in this city do not automatically make an article about the heights of all of the buildings in that city a notable topic.
I see no evidence that the topic 'List of tallest buildings in Lörrach' is covered as a group by reliable secondary sources but I am happy to be proved wrong here.
No significant high-rise buildings under construction or even planned currently so little chance of future notability; no point in sending to draft.
The city is not the largest in Germany nor is it the capital.
I really do not believe that a building simply being more than 40m tall makes it notable. It's an incredibly low bar. Can you imagine the reaction if we set the bar so low on a similar list for Tokyo or Chicago? There would be literally thousands of towers in those lists.
The topic is already covered more than adequately at List of tallest buildings in Germany and List of tallest buildings by German federal state, so this list is redundant. Yes, I am aware that none of the buildings in Lörrach are actually tall enough to be in either of those lists but that, if anything, speaks for just how non-notable this topic is! Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Lists, and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just no notability whatsoever. Procyon117 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - more recently we have deleted Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Barrie, Ontario, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Daegu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tallest buildings in Lucknow (2nd nomination) with clear consensus. In my view, Lucknow and Daegu are much more prominent cities than Lörrach on a global scale so I don't see any precedence for having one on Lörrach. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per ample precedent. What with the disappearance of the Emporis lists it's not even clear that these are the tallest buildings in the city, but even so these are on the short side even compared to the many other places whose lists have been deleted in the past. Mangoe (talk) 04:53, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear failure of WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Geschichte (talk) 10:46, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this list fails WP:NLIST. The skyline is so small that this list includes every single building above 40 meters. Incidentally, that is a very, very low bar to clear (in NYC, where I'm from, a 40-meter building wouldn't make the top 1,000 tallest buildings). – Epicgenius (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The most important German cities are already represented. I would also have created a list for Eschborn, which has slightly larger buildings but is a similarly small city to Lörrach. I'd better leave it. Klausk2 (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. I would agree that the German cities worth writing these lists about all seem to be covered already. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 20 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Association for Materials Protection and Performance without prejudice against a selective merge. Owen× ☎ 13:41, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Society for Protective Coatings

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

Unreferenced for 19 years. A search for sources only yielded industry related press. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. LibStar (talk) 13:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Redirect to Association for Materials Protection and Performance, which has absorbed this organization and whose page has actual sources. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Association for Materials Protection and Performance; it appears that all relevant information is there already. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:20, 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.

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

The result was delete‎. The claim of WP:OR has not been refuted. Owen× ☎ 13:40, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian civil disobedience in the United States

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

Article about an unnotale/unneccesary topic. I don't think there is a need for a Wikipedia article on Libertarian civil disobedience, since there are no similar articles about Conservative or Liberal civil disobidience. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Please see Category:Civil disobedience in the United States. This is but one of many. — Maile (talk) 13:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libertarianism and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete as WP:OR considering the many anachronisms. We need a secondary source discussion of this, not lists of examples. Mangoe (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only source that I can find that addresses this topic overall (as opposed to the handful of incidents the page creator has strung together) is this article on LewRockwell.com (by a fellow Wikipedian!), but consensus in RS:N discussions appears to be that LewRockwell is an unreliable source. The rest of the article does indeed to be WP:OR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:13, 21 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Péter Lelkes

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

I've updated the link to HLSZ to prevent a BLP PROD deletion but, upon more thorough searches, there don't appear to be any good sources out there about Lelkes. I found this transfer announcement on Fehérvár's website, which would not be an independent source. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC and his professional career only lasted 14 minutes. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:58, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, makes no credible claim to notability or significance. Geschichte (talk) 10:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not eligible for speedy! Giant Snowman 14:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:07, 15 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 13:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fábio Moura

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

Player's entire career was seven minutes over two second-division games in Portugal, plus 66 minutes over three League Cup games. [26] His entire career was less than what tens of thousands of professionals clock up every weekend. Wider sources do not point to any notability, such as this one: "In these friendly games, the use of various lesser-used players such as Rafa, Fábio Moura, Ricardo and Paulo Renato is noted". [27] Unknown Temptation (talk) 10:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fail to meet WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT and WP:SPORTBASIC criteria. No references – [28]. Only a basic description – [29] and [30]. QEnigma (talk) 15:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:07, 15 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:48, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frontier Economics

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

This article is mostly unsourced other than the company's website, and Vault.com which does not meet WP:RS, reads like promotional material, and no one has improved it since it has been tagged as requiring reliable sources in December 2022.--Almaty🦢^✉✎ 10:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Economics, England, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:03, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's a bunch of reporting with mentions of them and reports by them, however from what I saw none of the secondary reliable sources addressed Frontier Economics directly and in-depth, therefore it appears that this article does not meet the very high bar of WP:NCORP TarnishedPath^talk 11:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A lot of recent press but it is all quotes about their research or reports. Nothing I can find that talks about the organization in-depth which is a requirement of WP:ORGCRIT.--CNMall41 (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - I see one good article with material about Frontier's analysis, but not much else. Not sure if that's enough for significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 22:37, 16 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 10:49, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shitpyit (15°35′N 98°6′E)

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

Duplicate article of Sinpyay, location in the title is incorrect, not a plausible search term and no reliably-sourced content to merge. Not eligible for PROD. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 10:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not suitable for redirection since no one is going to type those coordinates into the search bar. Procyon117 (talk) 13:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Wikipedia:Redirects are cheap; redirects from former names are plausible, and sometimes they have to be disambiguated. It's a duplicate of an existing redirect Shitpyit (15°36′N 98°6′E), but is linked from other sites. The location points to the same area and is not misleading. Peter James (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"linked from other sites" - We definitely should not be maintaining information that is wrong just because "other sites" (for which read: "trash websites that scrape EN WP content, errors and all") link to it. That is in fact a reason to delete. FOARP (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete because first of all it's a bad title and thus a bad redirect, but also because an old US military map isn't a good enough source. Mangoe (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a duplicate of the original Shitpyit (15°36'0"N 98°6'0"E) article- which redirects to and correctly just refers to Sinpyay. There is only one village in that area. Then Shitpyit can just redirect to Sinpyay if necessarily. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 17:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how anyone creates a disambiguation page for two places with the same name separated by exactly one minute of arc (that is, one nautical mile, or just under 2km) in one axis without saying to themselves "hold on a minute, something ain't right here...". FOARP (talk) 08:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicates and forks with coordinates should be deleted, not redirected. Bearian (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect clearly a duplicate article, clearly renamed, a redirect would help people who may stumble on to this old page help find what they are looking for - in fact there's more reason to redirect under WP:R#KEEP (2 and 6) than there is to delete (none really apply). SportingFlyer T·C 21:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would anyone recreate a page created with a random, wrong location? In what way is this name, 2/3rd of which consists of a set of co-ordinates that is the wrong location, closely related to Sinpyay? Why would anyone stumble on an article-name that is a set of incorrect co-ordinates?

This kind of knee-jerk redirection just creates more workload for WP:RFD where this stuff gets deleted PDQ. FOARP (talk) 21:35, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really understand the opposition, and the coordinates aren't really in the wrong position - both this and Sinpyay have very generic coordinates. SportingFlyer T·C 22:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As FOARP correctly pointed out, no one remotely competent is going to be creating a new page with this atrocious style of disambiguation, and no non-scummy website will have been linking to this page. Redirect space is not a permanent memorial for mass-creation errors. Choess (talk) 22:32, 18 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.

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!} 09:54, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iyad Boustany

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

WP:BEFORE done, and I can see that there is a living person of this name according to [this https://today.lorientlejour.com/article/1266103/federalism-in-lebanon-a-cure-all-or-a-sham.html] 2021 piece in L'Orient-Le Jour. Similarly this in L'Orient-Le Jour indicates he may be a writer with arguable significance, that preamble to Wikipedia:Notability. As always, happy to be proven wrong about this, or anything else en.wp wide. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 09:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Lebanon. CptViraj (talk) 10:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Politicians. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an Arabic search turns up nothing, Mccapra (talk) 12:28, 14 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.

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article but I will say that I have misgivings of Keeping a totally unsourced article. I hope editors who came here and argued to Keep this article spend some time bringing the sources and images you found and add them to our article on this subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:53, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kochu Hassan Kunju Bahadoor

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnotable guy from india. There is 0 information about him on the Internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 09:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable as a member of the Travancore state assembly. It’s not surprising that the internet isn’t bulging with sources about an Indian politician who died in 1926. My search brings up a number of Google books, but unfortunately either snippets or without preview, but a thorough search of contemporary offline sources would be appropriate before we come to a consensus to delete. Mccapra (talk) 22:44, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For people who lived in the 20th century, like me, always check Google Books. Bearian (talk) 00:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:POLITICIAN#1. An image uploaded of the subject, connected to his Malayalam Wiki article, seems to be sourced from a historical book. Additionally, a mention of the subject has been found in articles from the Digital archives of Kerala Legislative Assembly: archive 1 (pg 11), archive 2 (pg-10, Quilon Division, n.23). A brief overview of the subject's biography is also included here.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - evidence shows that he was an active participant in a state legislature. That's enough. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 20 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.

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 Withdrawn by nominator‎. Giant Snowman 14:12, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luis Ahumada

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

~~Poorly sourced BLP with no real assertion of notability. I found Los Kamas Deportes but this isn't enough for WP:SPORTBASIC on its own. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:14, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 15:23, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I was able to find sufficient coverage of the subject to meet WP:GNG. @GiantSnowman: JTtheOG (talk) 07:30, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Responds to WP:GNG thanks to the added sources. Thank you JTtheOG SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 16:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, User:Spiderone, why did you strike your nomination, are you withdrawing it?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm happy to withdraw based on the new sources added. Of course, this can't be fully withdrawn with some participants still in favour of deletion. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per new sources added passes WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. New sources meet WP:GNG. Procyon117 (talk) 13:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The new sources provided by JTtheOG seem to have enough significant coverage, specifically from sources 1-4. I believe this is the first AfD by Spiderone about a football player to have a big chance of being kept. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, there are many over the years. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lisa Renlund is probably my worst AfD of all time but Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sara Mérida was particularly bad too. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:08, 14 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.

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

The result was delete‎. It appears that the consensus of participants is that this article should be Deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sisir Radar

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

This company page is 100% WP:PROMO. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spaceflight-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Contrary to the nom's claim about WP:PROMO, tone of this article appears informative and professional, language is factual and neutral as well. Sources within the article are itself strong except for the official websites. Additionally, Economic Times, NDTV provides SigCov of subjects technological innovations and achievements, passes WP:NCORP. Also, DSIJ, Business Standard, Pune News are supplementary support to notability.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 10:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a promo of newly formed company. It is a list of Advisors more than an article. LKBT (talk) 05:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is a classic case of WP:COAT - name an article about one thing, but most of the bytes of information are about something else. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly WP:PROMO page. RangersRus (talk) 01:15, 17 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.

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep but editors should consider renaming the article to focus on the Death of Mir Mugdho to avoid the problems that can exist with a biography. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:36, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mir Mugdho

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

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Farhan Faiyaaz, and a Merge into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. Even international responses were only because of his death. GrabUp - Talk 09:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bangladesh. GrabUp - Talk 09:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Merge per nom and other similar articles. Procyon117 (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Death of Mir Mugdho. Deleting is not solution. And to be honest, its content is not actually so similar to Farhan Faiyaaz. Mir Mugdho's death had more and significant impact on Student-People's uprising. As his death is significant and notable, renaming it would be better idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehedi Abedin (talk • contribs)
Keep : This appears to have enough significant coverage in reliable sources to keep it. 🇧🇩 Zayan^{Mr Bangladesh71} (Talk)

@User:Mr Bangladesh71: Please cite any significant coverage about this person besides their death in the protests. No matter how much significant coverage a person received for one event, the subject cannot have a stand-alone article because it fails WP:BIO1E. A separate article about the death event, as suggested by Mehedi Abedin, could be created. GrabUp - Talk 05:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Mugdho was literally one of the most prominent figures in the uprising. His video handing out water bottles went viral and got enough attention to solidify his notability. His slogan, "Pani lagbe, Pani," became iconic—it was painted on walls from Chittagong source to Rangpursource source. On top of that, his significance in the movement and the impact of his death directly led to his brother becoming the Organising CEO of the July Shaheed Smrity Foundation. Also, his death was even notable to the previous regime, that out of everyone that was killed, the then education minister, Mohibul Hasan Chowdhury paid homage to his grave at his hometown.*

If that doesn’t scream notability, here are just a few of the many reliable sources covering his story: CNN BBC Prothom Alo Benar. Bruno 🌹 (talk) 11:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruno pnm ars: You don’t seem to understand WP:BIO1E. When a person receives significant coverage for only one event, such as their death during the protests, BIO1E states that there should not be a standalone article or biography page about them. All the sources you provided cover the person solely because of their death in the protest, and nothing else. This is a clear case of a one-event scenario. Even if there are thousands of articles about their death, that alone does not meet notability requirements. There must be significant coverage about them in relation to other events, which does not exist here. Instead, we can create a separate article about their death, like Death of Mir Mugdho. GrabUp - Talk 07:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His influence in Bangladeshi politics isn't any less than that of Gavrilo Princip in Europe, albeit in a positive way. He has become a legendary figure whose cultural influence is only increasing in time. No it isn't just about his death, hundreds of other people has died in the revolution. But the kind of person he was has left a deep impact on collective Bangladeshi psyche.

There is a coordinated effort from some neighboring countries to downplay the significance of the July revolution. Trying to delete this article on a (false) technicality seems to be a part of that effort. Wikipedia should keep the article on a person of such historical importance. 116.68.203.3 (talk) 12:21, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mugdho is a prominent, or we can say a key figure, in the development of the movement as we observed the build up in the final days. His "Pani lagbe pani" became an icon during and after the movement. From news anchor crying for Mugdho on live television before AL minister went viral.[31] After Sheikh Hasina's resignation, Mugdho was also the key figure with his quote on graffitis all over Bangladesh.[32] These clearly shows the case. Even the subsequent protests against BD President over his controversial remarks on Sheikh Hasina's resignation as BD PM or against Indian "aggression", protesters used the slogan “Abu Sayed-Mugdho, shesh hoyni juddho" (Abu Sayed to Mugdho, the fight isn't over).[33][34] I can also see a short documentary report on Mugdho from CNN here. I am not quite sure about Farhan, but Mugdho certainly passes the GNG, and obviously not 1E. — Meghmollar2017 (U T C) — 20:07, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meghmollar2017: All the sources you cited are related to or because of his death in the protests. Please provide even a single source that gives significant coverage before his death, specifically before 18 July 2024, which is the date of his death, or any significant coverage that is not about or related to his death in the protest. This is a clear case of WP:BIO1E. GrabUp - Talk 07:15, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GrabUp, In this case, we do have other articles on WP, where they are notable not only because they died on a specific event but also for the impact after their demise. For instance Trayvon Martin or Abdul Jabbar (activist) from 1952 language movement, and so on. WP:1E itself defines, ... if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. — Meghmollar2017 (U T C) — 18:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Meghmollar2017: Please avoid WP:WHATABOUT arguments here, as they don’t work in this. I also don’t see anything particularly notable about the subject beyond his death during the protests. Additionally, WP:1E states, If the event and the individual’s role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. Currently, there is no article about the death event itself. If such an article existed, this argument might hold merit. Therefore, I believe it would be better to create a separate article about the death event, as a biography article is not warranted at this time. GrabUp - Talk 09:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The proponent is making two statements. First said, merge this article, Then it says to change the title. The proponent should say one statement. Then he says, the article is made for a single incident. If a person gets Hughes coverage for a single incident, it is not tied to the WP:BIO1E policy. Rather it becomes significant according to GNG. ~ Deloar Akram (Talk • Contribute) 12:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is also a controversy about Mugho after the Student–People's uprising. He also have a reputation.RealStranger43286 (talk) 14:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He was notable Codonified (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Death of Mir Mugdho. Don't delete, he is worth notable & prominent. Ahammed Saad (talk) 07:41, 20 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:07, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Pavlov (swimmer)

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

Does not meet WP:SPORTCRIT as there is not significant coverage in reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Russia. Adabow (talk) 09:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 07:43, 10 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!} 07:55, 14 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:02, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joy (Inside Out)

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

I tried to do BEFORE, but I don't see any SIGCOV but movie reviews and about actors. Her current reception was mostly about the actress, who voiced Joy; not the character itself. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's already sufficient coverage in the article to meet GNG. Nom suggests that coverage of the voice actress is irrelevant. I disagree. The reception section is appropriate already, although likely improvable. Jclemens (talk) 07:18, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well-written article about one of the main characters in a major Pixar movie franchise. I think enough coverage is given to the Joy character within the included sources. --Alan Islas (talk) 14:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inside Out (franchise)#Cast and characters per nom. Not seeing any SIGCOV in the article and no search on the part of any of the participants seems to have turned up anything either. Willing to change my vote if anything's discovered but from what I'm seeing there's not much here that indicates standalone notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep My impulse was to suggest a merge, but the text and sources in the criticism/reception section are good enough. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Inside Out (franchise)#Cast and characters per nom. Not independently notable; the mentions of her are pulled from sources about the film itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, arguments are divided between Keep and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There are enough sources in the article to show GNG. More sources can be found online too (e.g. - [35] talks about the character in depth. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 06:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Inside Out (franchise)#Cast and characters per nom. and ZXCVBNM. Not independently notable. Lazy, but I don't plan on restating previous points.

Sparkle and Fade ^talk_edits 06:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Added a bit of content from three more sources. This one in particular focuses more on the Joy character: [36] - Alan Islas (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This source falls under Wikipedia:VALNET and is not helpful in demonstrating notability Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 22:27, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep worse case scenario merge. WP:SIGCOV says that "significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material", so a paragraph or two of content in movie reviews may be enough. There may be enough reception in the article for GNG to be met if it is expanded sufficiently, though the appearances section will need to be cleaned up. At the least there is production info to merge. ミラP@Miraclepine 04:28, 21 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving South Korea

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

Propose redirecting List of wars involving South Korea to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea, just like List of wars involving Korea#North Korea. Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving North Korea (nominated by Cortador), which resulted in the same solution on 3 November 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Lists, Korea, North Korea, and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 15:47, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging other participants of previous discussion for follow-up: @Mikrobølgeovn, MolecularPilot, and My very best wishes:. NLeeuw (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This outcome (the merger) was most unfortunate. Although Korea has been a divided country since the 1940s, editors seem adamant to treat it as a single country. We don't we give Sudan and South Sudan the same treatment, for good measure? Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF Cortador (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mikrobølgeovn has a point, but I think the comparison of Korea with Sudan and South Sudan does not work well. Below I've presented some thoughts on comparing Yemen and Korea, curious what editors think of that. NLeeuw (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One of the arguments used by nom of previous AfD was This also has precedent e.g. East and West Germany don't have separate pages for their wars, and neither do North and South Vietnam or North and South Yemen. The first half is true, but not the second: We've got List of wars involving North Yemen, List of wars involving South Yemen, as well as List of wars involving Yemen. However, given the significant amount of WP:OVERLAP between the three, we might consider the North and South lists WP:REDUNDANTFORKs, to be merged into List of wars involving Yemen. (The obvious difference being that North and South Yemen no longer exist, only a united Yemen, at least officially; by contrast, a united Korea no longer exists, but a North and South Korea do, despite claiming the whole peninsula for themselves.) But that would be a good idea for a follow-up if this AfD has been closed as nominated. NLeeuw (talk) 15:57, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As with the list of wars involving North Korea, declaring historical states on the territory of modern South Korea (like Goryeo) to be predecessors to South Korea specifically is questionable. There's currently no need for a separate article. Cortador (talk) 16:00, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a main one for Korea, with links to separate lists for North Korea and South Korea. Mikrobølgeovn (talk) 18:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to this alternative proposal of three separate lists:

Korea until 1948
North Korea since 1948
South Korea since 1948

@Shazback below seems to be suggesting the same thing.

If we do choose for this alternative, I would recommend including the words until 1948 and since 1948 in the article titles just to make clear to both readers and editors what the scope of each list is, and to prevent creating WP:REDUNDANTFORKs again. Cortador was right that we shouldn't duplicate content, but merging all three lists into one might not be the best solution. Also for readability, navigability, and categorisation purposes, three separate lists would solve several practical problems, including the untenable idea that there is still a unified Korean state as of 2024. NLeeuw (talk) 20:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Very surprised by the outcome of the previous AfD, which I did not see/participate in. I would be surprised to be directed to a page covering wars of multiple states if I was looking for either one.
My suggestion would for "List of wars involving Korea" to be a disambiguation page with 3 pages listed: "List of wars involving states of the Korean peninsula (pre-1948)"; "List of wars involving North Korea"; "List of wars involving South Korea". Both the latter pages only include post-1948 conflicts, and can have a section at the beginning stating that the state claim succession to pre-1948 states if necessary.
This follows the most common way people view and analyse the world when considering wars (by state), avoids duplication by clearly separating historical lists where states did not match current territories (e.g., whatever criteria are most relevant for inclusion can be decided, for instance to consider the Ungjin Commandery without needing to worry if either South or North Korea claim it as a predecessor state), while remaining clear link targets that can be found easily. Shazback (talk) 19:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of these articles list every war that happened at a location, instead of the current nation. List of wars involving the United States doesn't list the wars that happened there between native Americans or others before the nation was officially founded. Dream Focus 18:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because the United States does not claim succession of those states? Plenty of other articles list them by geography / include predecessor states to the current country (e.g., List of wars involving Poland, List of wars involving Vietnam). Shazback (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, we do not create lists or categories based on the geographic location where a war or battle took place, as this is usually WP:NONDEFINING. See WP:MILMOS#BATTLESIN. These lists are about belligerents involved in a conflict, not countries etc. where the conflict took place. Therefore, there are no battles "involving the United States" prior to the American Revolutionary War. NLeeuw (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow / understand fully your comment. Both pages I shared include plenty of elements that occured prior to the current constitution / establishment of the Third Polish Republic or the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. Many of these are lineage / predecessor states that had claim over the general area of the current state (not identical borders). Furthermore, a cursory / quick look at both these lists as well as the list of wars involving the United States shows they include cases were the state is not a belligerent per se: Bleeding Kansas in the USA list, the Later Trần rebellion (1407–1414) in the Vietnam list, and the Januszajtis putsch in the Poland list. I'd also note that World War I is listed as a conflict involving Poland, despite Poland not existing at any point during the war as a clear indication geography is considered when compiling these lists. These lists are not pages I like / find very useful exactly because of the points made in the WP: pages you linked. When looking at wars of Country A, my personal expectation is to see only the wars of what is commonly understood to be Country A in current geopolitics (i.e., for North Korea, 1948+, for the USA 1775/6+, for Poland 1918+, for Vietnam 1976+). But that's not how many other people like it, as they expect to see predecessor states' wars included in these lists. Shazback (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was a reply to both Dream Focus and you. I'm not necessarily disagreeing, just adding some thoughts and pointing to some relevant policies and guidelines. NLeeuw (talk) 11:20, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I see it the current list can't stand as it is but not for notability reasons. South Korea did not exist until 1948, so if we are going to have a list with this title, the earliest war should begin in 1948. However, if we are going to include wars extending back in time in that geographic area than that topic is better covered at List of wars involving Korea. So I would support a Keep if the list does not include content before 1948 or a redirect to List of wars involving Korea#South Korea. Best.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the List of wars involving South Korea and Reestablish the List of wars involving North Korea. Those two are the modern countries and disserve their own articles. The List of wars involving Korea article should have the wars that occurred before the 1945 division of Korea. Dash9Z (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 02:16, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Several participants of the previous AfD, as well as new participants, have indicated that they are surprised by the previous AfD's outcome, and do not think it serves as a good precedent for this one. That undermines my rationale.

As nom, moreover, I am open to the alternative proposal of three separate lists:

involving Korea until 1948
involving North Korea since 1948
involving South Korea since 1948

This alt proposal appears to enjoy a majority right now. The inclusion of the year 1948 in the title of all three separate lists also appears to enjoy some support, in order to prevent duplication (WP:REDUNDANTFORKs) and WP:OR by implying that North Korea and South Korea have already existed for hundreds of years. Even though the ROK and DPRK do not diplomatically recognise each other, the de facto reality is that Korea ceased to be a unified state in or around 1948, and has split in two, a situation which has been consolidated since the 1953 ceasefire. It is probably best if our lists of wars involving Fooland reflect that, and the year 1948 will serve as the turning point in which the Korea list splits into North Korea and South Korea. NLeeuw (talk) 06:51, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion is all over the place. This AFD is considering what, among the limited options, should happen with this article, List of wars involving South Korea. Right now, it seems like arguments are divided between Keep and Redirection. It doesn't help a closer to go off on tangents about what should happen with other articles, please present your argument on whether this specific article should be Kept, Merged, Redirected or Deleted. Larger discussions on this subject could perhaps occur on a related WikiProject talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, Keep this article, as a first step towards the three separate lists proposal. NLeeuw (talk) 19:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a WP:SPINOFF of List of wars involving Korea#South Korea. This list should only reflect the political entity of south korea (est 1948) and not the geographic location. I agree with the nom's proposal to have three different lists, with the north/south korea lists inside List of wars involving Korea (the subsections) being limited to at minimum extremely notable wars with articles, and with the "full" list/main article being linked to at the top of the section. DarmaniLink (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to page List of wars involving Korea. Seems to be an unnecessary duplication. My very best wishes (talk) 18:11, 17 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.

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. Consensus is clearly to remove this article. The draftify !votes do not make a clear case for doing so. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:59, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Azzam

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

Significant coverage in reliable sources is lacking. Does not meet WP:NSPORT or WP:NBASIC. Frost 05:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Russia, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No coverage found aside from player profile sites. There wouldn't be anyway from someone who only made their professional debut seven days ago. Procyon117 (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify – Per above, the player just made his professional debut. Svartner (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Drafify - not currently notable, but might be in future. Giant Snowman 14:07, 15 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 1722

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

Clearly fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. Just is basically a WP:COOKIE accident. Routine and unnotable. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 04:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't the Miracle on the Hudson. Wake me up when the pilot appears on Letterman and movies are made about this. schetm (talk) 04:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:39, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. No lasting coverage, and similarity to a well-known accident isn't notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. Falling GNG. ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 13:22, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Routine. Procyon117 (talk) 13:28, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Minor incident. SignorPignolini (talk) 18:20, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A nothingburger. Aircraft hit birds and make precautionary landings all the time. WP:NOTNEWS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Delete per Wikipedia:NOTNEWS no notable damage to the aircraft nor injuries to its occupants, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Lolzer3k 02:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and others. WP:NOTNEWS. Sal2100 (talk) 22:54, 18 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:22, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justo Lamas

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

I cannot find evidence of Lamas' notability as a singer nor for his company which is a worthwhile educational initiative but doesn't appear notable. Coverage appears to be churnalism that is otherwise non independent. There are a lot of hits noting one of the company's artists is performing and some related to someone else of this name, but I cannot find anything of depth. Star Mississippi 04:07, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Organizations, Companies, Education, and Argentina. Star Mississippi 04:07, 14 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 04:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Taleb

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

WP:BLP of a political figure, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL. The attempted notability claims here are that he was a regional vice-president, a campaign director and a regional election candidate, none of which are free passes over NPOL without WP:GNG-worthy sourcing for them, but the only footnote here is a blog entry rather than a reliable source. It also warrants note that there isn't an article about him on the French Wikipedia, where articles about genuinely notable French politicians would obviously be quite expected. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and France. Bearcat (talk) 03:49, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NPOL and the lack of a French language article does not bode well for his notability. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we have frequently deleted the articles of mud-level party functionaries. That's that this person is. Bearian (talk) 01:02, 17 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to I Love New York (TV series). ✗plicit 04:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mauricio Sanchez

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

Declined PROD; apparently, it was PRODded years before. Old article. Fails a WP:BEFORE search. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Venezuela. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Couldn't find any decent secondary sources with significant coverage at all to support WP:NACTOR. As an alternative to deletion, consider redirect to I Love New York (TV series) as this was pretty much his only role of any significance. SunloungerFrog (talk) 06:21, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this fails WP:NACTOR and all other guidelines, so a "delete" would be appropriate, but no objection to a redirect as an AtD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:05, 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.

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

The result was speedy delete‎. G7 actioned by BusterD, procedural close. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ratio (company)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability. The VentureBeat article is written by the CEO of the company itself, the remaining coverage is of routine fundraising events (WP:ORGTRIV). Brandon (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Software, and California. Brandon (talk) 02:40, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 14 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association of Residential Cleaning Services International

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing inclusion criteria for organizations. As always, organizations are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show WP:GNG-worthy coverage about their work in reliable sources to establish their significance -- but this is referenced entirely to primary sourcing that is not support for notability, mostly the organization's own self-published content about itself but also some content self-published by other directly affiliated entities, with not even one GNG-worthy source shown at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 02:31, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sources demonstrate this fails WP:NCORP. Plus it fails WP:NOT as advertising. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:03, 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elyssa East

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

This subject appears to fail WP:GNG for lack of WP:SIGCOV by unrelated parties. Interviews, WP:BLPSPS websites and the like don't help here. This subject also fails WP:NAUTHOR because contributions appear not to be very significant. And PEN New England Awards do not confer automatic notability. JFHJr (㊟) 01:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and United States of America. JFHJr (㊟) 01:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or rename. Her book, Dogtown, is notable, having won a PEN award and been reviewed by, e.g., The New York Times. We should have an article about the book or its author. pburka (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: apart from one sentence, this page is about Dogtown, her notable book. The content should be kept. We can rename the page or leave it alone. In my opinion, it's often preferable to have pages about authors rather than books, since she may write more books in the future. pburka (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With little to no WP:SIGCOV about the person, I'd find moving the article to the book's namespace more supportable than leaving this BLP alone. Especially since no other noteworthy publication has emerged at this time. "Maybe" isn't a valid reason to keep a BLP with little to no foundational biographical material about the author, at least which is published by unrelated reliable sources in a non-interview format. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 17:50, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Georgia (U.S. state), Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:AUTHOR#3, Such a person is notable if... The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Dogtown has received reviews in the NY Times (as noted above), as well as Kirkus, Publishers' Weekly, and Brevity. Thus, she passes AUTHOR and should be kept, regardless of whether a page exists for Dogtown or not. (Dogtown would independently qualify for a page, through, per WP:NBOOK.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move as suggested by pburka. The subject is notable, but notability is no guarantee of a stand-alone article, and in this case it makes sense to use our editorial discretion to have one article about the book rather than two pages that more-or-less duplicate one another. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm willing to accept that consensus. Because the book's name space is currently a redirect to this BLP name space, it'll take an admin action that I could not do by simply WP:NACing myself. I agree if there's anywhere for this content, it's not in the name space of a person whose biographical information is so scantly supported. Thanks for your consideration, Extraordinary Writ. JFHJr (㊟) 02:14, 21 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:24, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Champaben

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

I'm trying to clean up articles in projects Jainism and Hinduism. I came across this supposedly biographical article of a personality with poor notability. While I acknowledge that notable religious figures should have a separate article, I also see that this one simply only advertises the personality's religious beliefs and makes unsupported arguments without any credible secondary sources. The article may be deleted as there have been no sources as per WP:RS since January 2018. Tagging User:RJShashwat, User:Goyama and User:Expectopatronum30 for their views as they have been active in the project Jainism and have responded in an earlier AfD I nominated. Note that the creator of the article was blocked indefinitely in March 2018 for a lengthy history vandalising other articles and sockpuppetry. I also noticed that the creator of this article had created another one before this one with the name "Sister Champa" that I assume would refer to the same person. However that article was speedily deleted for not having enough reliable sources and poor notability of the subject of the article. ParvatPrakash (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, and Gujarat. ParvatPrakash (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability at all. Content about the subject can be added to Kanji swami as a section, but secondary reliable sources don't confirm whatever the article says. Goyama (talk) 07:10, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with the nominator. Besides, the only source mentioned in the article is inaccessible. RJShashwat (talk) 20:37, 15 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Hernandez (soccer, born 1993)

(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 former soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, California, and Nevada. JTtheOG (talk) 00:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Played practically only at the university level, fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:56, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:07, 15 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.

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and while some sources have been challenged, I don't see support for Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:35, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret D. Nadauld

AfDs for this article:

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

Margaret D. Nadauld was a former president of the Young Women organization. This article was deleted on october 17, 2018 for being unnotable. It was recreated today, the author added 25 new sources but all of them seem to be just brief mentions of her. I still think that this article does not satisfy notability guidelines. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Latter Day Saints, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Women in Religion has also been notified. Oronsay (talk) 18:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The first AfD had no discussion on it which is disappointing and I don't know how to see what the article looked like at that time. My comments are that there seems to be reporting on her actions as president of the organization from non-related sources and that women, especially in more socially conservative areas like religious groups, are mentioned less than equivalent men. Having said that I am not certain this article either meets or doesn't meet requirements I just want to help start a conversation that should be had. The primary author of the article posted on the talk page their reasoning for keeping, not sure why it isn't here.

Moritoriko (talk) 07:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This article was nominated for deletion by a new WP user (account created Nov. 5), who nominated 25+ articles for deletion in one day using Twinkle, with the explanation, "Its relaxing, I love cleaning Wikipedia from bad articles!" on his talk page. When I kindly (I hope) pointed out that this creates significant work for others, within hours this user nominated this new article of mine for deletion. Because I think the deletion proposal was not made on the merits or in good faith I believe this meets the requirements for WP:SK per reason 2a.

Regarding the merits of the case for deletion, the proposer reports to have perused the 29 attached sources and only found "just brief mentions of her". Hmmm. Six articles are entirely about Nadauld. All of the rest that are news articles have at least full paragraphs about her, and are in the context of her activities and accomplishments. As with the other 20+ proposed deletions, he does not report having followed the required WP:BEFORE process, and I believe has not done so. This despite being told by at least three people about WP:BEFORE before he proposed deletion of this article. I've counted over 200 articles mentioning Nadauld in my WP:BEFORE search, one of which is a lengthy, independent secondary source newspaper article entirely about her. Somehow he missed that.

This new article establishes notability by using over 25 different sources. None are trivial mentions per WP:SIGCOV. They are a mix of primary and secondary.

Several sources are clearly, irrefutably independent, including the retrospective of Nadauld's presidency in The Daily Spectrum, the Provo Daily Herald article, and the several Salt Lake Tribune articles. The Tribune was founded specifically for the purpose of being a counterpoint to the Church's viewpoint, as detailed in its WP article. And three secondary sources are academic historical research papers, assessing impact of various initiatives during Nadauld's tenure. As a whole, this all establishes the notability of the article's subject.

Other factors regarding Nadauld's notability:

She was global president of a one million-plus member notable organization.
The organization has had sixteen presidents in its 144-year history, and Nadauld was the only one who does not have a WP article, despite serving a full term of five years. I tend to believe the deletion of Nadauld's article would be an error (if it were sourced properly), rather than the creation of the other fifteen articles being errors.
Seven other WP articles reference Margaret D. Nadauld. This is specified as a measure of notability.
WP:SUSTAINED is established by several sources:
- the 2005 masters thesis,
- the 2008 Spectrum retrospective article,
- the news report of the luncheon honoring her nine years after leaving office,
- the peer reviewed research from 2015 assessing her impact,
- the television interview with Nadauld in 2015 analyzing organization changes made by the church,
- multiple invitations to speak at university graduations in the decades since her service, and
- the fact that several quotes from her speeches and books regularly appear on social media and quote collections, such as on Goodreads, twenty-plus years after her tenure. This google image search shows several hundred examples: [37]. Do I need to link some of these as sources? Davemc0 (talk) 22:11, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the sources of this version of the page, they are (organized by supporting notability):

3. The Spectrum article is actually good.

21. OK, but also just the school newspaper that her husband was the president at

28. OK

2. A short biography (and a speech she wrote), I think a lot hinges on if this biography was provided by her or written independently. If it's the former then it doesn't support notability at all.

6. a mention

7. a mention

8. a mention

9. a mention

15. a mention

16. a mention

23. a mention

10. trivial

12. trivial

13. trivial

14. trivial

18. trivial

19. trivial

20. trivial

22. trivial

24. trivial

25. trivial

26. trivial

4. primary, no notability

5. primary, no notability

27. primary, no notability

29. entirely consists of quotes from her, no notability

1. no mention

11. no mention

17. no mention

I think you are overstating your case here when you might not need to. As far as the other factors go:

500,000 people at the time she was president according to the best article about her but potato potato.

I've looked through the other presidents, many of them are also notable for things besides being president and at least one of the others I think doesn't have enough sources on her page for her to be notable either.

Good point

The masters thesis barely mentions her, I didn't find the 2015 peer reviewed research about her impact, which source is that? Again the spectrum article is the best article for her notability.

@SolxrgashiUnited can you have a look through the Spectrum article and let me know what you think? Moritoriko (talk) 00:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, im unable to access it. For some reason the site does not open. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. What behavior do you get when you try? We're talking about these two links, right? [38] and [39]. It works for me on two computers and two browsers. Weird. I can make a copy for you somewhere if you need me to. Davemc0 (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cloudflare blocked me. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pain! I put copies of the two halves of the article on my Google Drive here: https: //photos.app.goo .gl/DyDaHMCEB2iaFrkG8 (you have to copy and paste the link without spaces). If Cloudflare blocks that for you I could put them on my talk page for a short time and then delete them. Cheers. Davemc0 (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding sources:

2. Agree that the bio doesn't indicate notability if she wrote it. Typically, the university leadership will put together a bio from a few sources. But ignoring the bio, this source is a college graduation address, which is a strong indicator of notability, especially since she was invited 20 years after her presidency term ended.

6. Five paragraphs are about her and what she said. The other 6 paragraphs are about Faust, who also spoke. So this is much more than a mention.

7. The article is about six speeches given. Three paragraphs were about hers. That's more than a mention, in my opinion.

Er, the histories were 2011, not 2015. They are refs 16 and 18. 16 is a history of the whole organization, and has three paragraphs about Nadauld and her tenure. That's NOT trivial, and places her leadership in the context of the broader history. The later paragraph about camps is also regarding the 8400 acre camp that Nadauld started.

18. The other history. One long paragraph places Nadauld's 2002 changes in context. I'd promote this one from "trivial" to "a mention".

29. Correct that it's not a news story about her. The fact that a network affiliate news organization chose her to interview about the actions of a 16 million member church is how this indicates notability. And the fact that the station did so 13 years after Nadauld ended her leadership in the church's organization is the indication of WP:SUSTAINED.

The size of the organization (1 million vs. 500,000) came from the Encyclopedia of Mormonism article. It's a 1991 figure. I know the church grew between 1991 and 2002, so I was surprised to see the 500,000 figure. Similarly, that article says she visited 25 countries as president, while the Ensign College bio says 55. I don't know which is more accurate.

Anyone have thoughts about the couple hundred post of quotes of hers that are currently floating around social media? Recall that sources in articles and actual notability are completely separate concepts.

I can't track what you're replying to with your other comments. Which was a good point? Which was overstating my case? If you don't think I need to state the case more strongly I'd sure appreciate if you would render a "Keep" or "Speedy Keep" opinion to help us all move on.

Davemc0 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Davemc0 You should remove the bolding from your later comments, as editors are allowed only one bolded !vote in any discussion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:38, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. "I don't think" isn't really the standard for deletion. Clearly, the individual is notable. (Capricious AfD noms really do diminish WP.) DesignatedGrammarian (talk) 11:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. . Seems to satify satisfy quite well the requirements of WP:GNG. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 05:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/procedural keep per Davemc0. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC) Striking per the below. I'll do a proper source review. In fact, no. Off my expertise. I'll unwatch this one. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for closer: I am not going to weigh in on the merits of this debate, but one participant, Davemc0, sought to canvass several editors (see ([40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]) to manipulate the outcome by !voting "keep." At least one editor, BoyTheKingCanDance, !voted "keep" after receiving the inappropriate canvassing message. (Furthermore, "speedy keep" does not apply since, whether or not the sources are as participants say, asserting a lack of notability is an appropriate rationale.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know about the canvassing rule. Someone pointed it out right afterward, and I apologized and haven't done it since. While I was not neutral in phrasing my request for help, I think the people who I asked to take a look mostly meet the description of "concerned editors" under "appropriate people". The only canvassed person who responded is a very expert reviewer of new pages, so I believe the discussion is not very tainted. Anyway, sorry. Davemc0 (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I really think "Speedy Keep" DOES apply here. The fact that the nominator chose a rationale does not negate the fact that it was a vexatious nomination. If otherwise, any vexatious nomination could circumvent "Speedy Keep" by simply randomly mentioning a rationale. But the rule appears to be designed to prevent that:

"The nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption and, since questionable motivations on the part of the nominator do not have a direct bearing on the validity of the nomination, no uninvolved editor has recommended deletion or redirection as an outcome of the discussion. For example:

obviously frivolous or vexatious nominations (such as recently featured content or April Fools jokes) (WP:SK 2.a.)

Davemc0 (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per today's revelations regarding canvassing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources 6 and 7 confirm this person was the chair of the organization. Source 21 is also confirmation, albeit brief. If the role itself is notable, we at least have basic confirmation of this person holding that role. The rest is more than enough to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 00:42, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Much of the discussion of the subject is of the I don't like it sort. My personal opinion is irrelevant. The organization that she lead appears to be the LDS equivalent of the Girl scouts or Girl

Guides. The "coverage problem" with all LDS leaders has been that they didn't get much media coverage until the late 1960s and early 1970s. Bearian (talk) 01:13, 17 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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:06, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Lassiter

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

I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this American former soccer player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. The best I found was routine coverage of his draft selection and contract signing. JTtheOG (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, New York, and North Carolina. JTtheOG (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:18, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Player monitoring sites indicate mostly non-top tier football ([49] and [50]). Fail to meet WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT and WP:SPORTCRIT. QEnigma (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 14:07, 15 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.