Jump to content

User:Sun Creator/AFD

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


User:SunCreator User_Talk:SunCreator User:SunCreator/To_Do User:SunCreator/Info User:SunCreator/AFD User:SunCreator/ControlPanel User:SunCreator/More
User page Talk Page To Do List INFO AFD Control Panel More
Wikipedia guidelines
Behavioral
Discussions
Content
Editing
Categorization
Style
Deletion
Project content
Other
Search
Conduct policies
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also
Policies and guidelines (list)
Principles
Content policies
Conduct policies
Other policy categories
Directories
Checkuser pages
Requests: Unlisted • IP check • On hold
Archives: Main • Older • IP checks • Unsorted
Clerk pages
Clerk Overview • Noticeboard • Procedures
Shortcut
This page can be quickly accessed through:
WP:RFCU/C/P
Common decisions
and arguments
Deletion (XfD)
Arbitration (Arbcom)
Proposals and policy
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Google books Wikipedia article traffic statistics Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL WP:NWP:CLSWP:LISTWP:RS

< November 16 November 18 >

Purge server cache

Ralph Lysyshyn

[edit]
Ralph Lysyshyn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Marked for notability concerns since 2013. A search for sources found only 1 google news hit, and 1 line mentions in google news. Ambassadors are not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

2025 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki

[edit]
2025 in Konfrontacja Sztuk Walki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draftification. Not very well sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search returns little. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 22:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

8 Clearwater Bay Road

[edit]
8 Clearwater Bay Road (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I proposed this for deletion with the reason "None of the sources are reliable, independent sources giving significant attention to this building. Databases, sources from companies related to the building, an apartment for sale... are not the sources needed to create an article on the apparently 3033rd highest building in the world. Are there indepth, non-routine, independent sources about this building? Its architecture, controversies, archaeological finds during construction, anything?"

Since then, the poorest sources have been removed, but nothing was done about the fundamental issues. If there is only routine coverage, unreliable sources, and database entries for this building, then it shouldn't have an article. Fram (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  • My vote is Keep as of now. I'm seeing that you're probably concerned about the WP:TOOSOON criteria in this case. However, the article proposed for deletion can be expanded by other users in time. There is no need to tag it with a deletion notice yet. Other Hong Kong building articles such as Sino Plaza and The Westpoint can freely function as stubs when they are based on the same type of primarily database references until additional citations are found. Maybe the
type of tag is more fit in this situation. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
No idea why you think TOOSOON would apply to an article about a building from 2005. And WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is never a reason to keep an article. Fram (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Artificial features says:

    Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. "清水灣道8號 擬賣地後登場" [8 Clearwater Bay Road Set to Launch After Proposed Sale]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-10-02.

      The article contains 1,000 Chinese characters. The article notes: "發展商睇好賣地成績而加快推盤步伐，其中由俊和集團發展的彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命為清水灣道8號，示範單位即將開放予公眾參觀，可望在賣地後隨即開售。由俊和集團於2001年投得彩虹地鐵站上蓋項目，已正式訂命「清水灣道8號」，物業興建進度理想，已建至逾15樓 ..."

      From Google Translate: "Developers are accelerating the pace of launching new properties in light of the good land sales results. Among them, the Choi Hung MTR Station project developed by Chun Wo Group has been officially named as 8 Clear Water Bay Road. The show flat will be open to the public for viewing soon and is expected to be launched for sale immediately after the land sale. The Choi Hung MTR Station project won by Chun Wo Group in 2001 has been officially named as "8 Clear Water Bay Road". The construction progress of the property is ideal and has been built to more than 15 floors."

      The article notes: "以單幢式設計的清水灣道8號，樓高逾50樓，每層6至8夥設計，單位總數共316個。物業基座設有多層停車場及購物商場，住宅由12樓起至頂層57樓連天台單位。分層單位面積由622至982平方呎，分2房、3房及3房連套房間隔，所有單位均設有38呎環保露台，同區罕有。"

      From Google Translate: "8 Clearwater Bay Road is a single-building building with over 50 floors, 6 to 8 units per floor, and a total of 316 units. The property base has a multi-storey car park and a shopping mall, and the residential units range from the 12th floor to the top floor 57th floor with rooftop units. The area of ​​the stratified units ranges from 622 to 982 square feet, with 2 bedrooms, 3 bedrooms and 3 bedrooms with suites. All units have 38-foot environmentally friendly terraces, which are rare in the area."

    2. Chan, Yuen-su 陳阮素 (2012-12-28). "清水灣道8號 高層平租靚景" [8 Clearwater Bay Road: High-rise flat rental with beautiful views]. Sharp Daily (in Chinese).

      The article contains 493 Chinese characters. The article notes: "牛池灣年輕屋苑選擇不多，單幢式物業清水灣道8號，樓齡不足10年，加上位處港鐵彩虹站上蓋，基座商場特設出入口，交通方便就腳，租務承接力特強，但由於盤源不多，因此形成僧多粥少情況。"

      From Google Translate: "There are not many choices for young housing estates in Ngau Chi Wan. The stand-alone property at 8 Clear Water Bay Road is less than 10 years old. In addition, it is located above the MTR Choi Hung Station. The base shopping mall has a special entrance and exit. The transportation is convenient and the rental is very convenient. The undertaking capacity is very strong, but because there are not many disk sources, there is a situation where there are too many monks and too little food."

    3. "清水灣道8號高層貼息兩年" [Two-year interest rate discount for high-rise buildings at 8 Clear Water Bay Road]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2005-09-23.

      The article notes: "配合牛池灣地皮拍賣，俊和集團（711）重推同區清水灣道8號高層海景單位，每呎7000元起，發展商夥渣打銀行，提供2年利息津貼。城市理工大學管理碩士課程主任兼財經界專欄作家曾淵滄，最近斥資700萬元，購入該廈50樓E、F相連單位，約1300方尺，每呎約5385元。"

      From Google Translate: "In conjunction with the Ngau Chi Wan land auction, Chun Wo Group (711) re-launched the high-rise sea view unit at 8 Clear Water Bay Road in the same district, starting from HK$7,000 per square foot. The developer partnered with Standard Chartered Bank to provide a two-year interest subsidy. Zeng Yuancang, director of the Master of Management Program at City Polytechnic University and a columnist in the financial industry, recently spent HK$7 million to purchase the connecting unit E and F on the 50th floor of the building, which is approximately 1,300 square feet, at approximately HK$5,385 per square foot."

    4. "清8原價加推兩高層" [Clear 8 original price plus two high-rise buildings]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2005-03-05.

      The article notes: "俊和旗下彩虹站上蓋清水灣道8 號重新推出後取得不俗銷情，發展商趁近日樓市升溫，趁勢於本週末加推十六個高層單位應市，平均尺價維持六千八百元，售價未有進一步調升，但較早前所提供的現金回贈優惠，則有所削減，但發展商仍維持會贈送厘印費。"

      From Google Translate: "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch. The developer has taken advantage of the recent heating up of the property market and launched 16 more high-rise units on the market this weekend. The average price per square foot remains at HK$6,800, the selling price has not been further increased, but the cash rebate offer earlier provided has been reduced, but the developer will still maintain the free printing fee."

    5. "彩虹站新貴 清水灣道8號快推" [The new upstart in Choi Hung Station, 8 Clear Water Bay Road, quick promotion]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-09-30.

      The article notes: "清水灣道8號是俊和由承建商踏足發展商界的第1個項目，相信發展商在設計及用料均會花上不少心思。而從開發商發給地產代理的新圖則中看到，新圖則全部加入環保露台及加入特色單位，以提升物業價值。該項目提供約330個622至977呎的單位，少量特色單位則由1,163至1,840呎，極高層單位可望舊機場一帶海景。"

      From Google Translate: "No. 8 Clear Water Bay Road is Chun Wo's first project as a contractor in the development industry. I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used. From the new plans sent to real estate agents by developers, all new plans include environmentally friendly terraces and special units to increase property value. The project provides approximately 330 units ranging from 622 to 977 feet, with a small number of specialty units ranging from 1,163 to 1,840 feet. The very high-rise units have sea views around the old airport."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow 8 Clearwater Bay Road (simplified Chinese: 清水湾道8号; traditional Chinese: 清水灣道8號) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:19, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For assessment of Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

JeyReydar97 (talk) 19:22, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
That's not what salting means. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep the article, it looks like well written. The user already create many new wiki articles with reliable sources. Dasomm (talk) 00:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I just spend Election Day working in the Knickerbocker Plaza, a building almost exactly the same size as this: 40 stories, 400 apartments. In a large city like New York or Hong Kong, there are literally hundreds of such buildings. There is always going to be excited local coverage about a new development, often egged on by developers themselves. We are not a directory of the 156 tallest buildings in every city in the world. Bearian (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    There are "hundreds of such buildings" with proper identity and distinctive. However, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS shouldn't be brought up as an argument of deletion in this case. The sources cited in the article sustain WP:NEXIST with a neutral point of view. And I doubt Hong Kong Economic Times is "egged" by developers. JeyReydar97 (talk) 21:15, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    An article which states e.g. "I believe the developer will put a lot of thought into the design and materials used." hardly comes across as neutral, factual reporting... Fram (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
    Publications often paraphrase information received from sources of interest (WP:LOCAL in this case). Some of them might indeed be written on a tone inadequate for mainspace articles. However, Cunard has only selected factual information denoting technical details, parties directly implied into the construction process and economic indicators. JeyReydar97 (talk) 14:23, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. We're not seriously calling this significant, independent coverage, are we? This is WP:ROUTINE stuff, sales announcements, and a database page. -- asilvering (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    Routine coverage is not a disqualification for notability JeyReydar97 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: i still don't see a clear consensus to keep or delete (non-admin comment)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JuniperChill (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete About as an average of a condo tower as you can get. This gets deleted 9/10 times in any other town as we've done many other times before, and some of the keeps are also forgetting outright that some of the residents don't want a Wikipedia article about their building no matter how many times the local real estate media hype it up. Nate • (chatter) 00:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Whilst the coverage found by Cunard looks a lot, it's rather WP:ROUTINE, e.g. "8 Clear Water Bay Road, above Choi Hung Station owned by Chun Wo, has achieved good sales after its relaunch". For this reason, I don't think this is notable. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak delete I'm honestly waffling between weak keep and weak delete here, as the building has been discussed in at least one English-language Hong Kong architectural book (Xue 2016), in part because it's built on top of a transit station and for being a "pencil tower." I don't really mind if this is deleted, as the articles that have been found appear to be transactional real estate articles, and I'm not sure notability is guaranteed here just because it's been in one architectural book. I think my position is that we haven't entirely demonstrated notability, but we might be a source away. SportingFlyer T·C 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    The book added by Underwaterbuffalo is the one I found, but the scholarly article is just two listing in two tables. It is helpful, but it doesn't push this into a clear keep. SportingFlyer T·C 08:25, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep The building has been described and used as an example in at least one book and one scholarly article. I have added the references in the article. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Along with the news coverage found by Cunard, a journal article, and now a book I think we have safely arrived at WP:SIGCOV. Diversity of sources is a good indication of notability, and for me this is what has pushed it passed the line into the keep side.4meter4 (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Comment. My final vote is keep. WP:SIGCOV was proven and supported. No need for deletion. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    You may only !vote once. Please strike one of yours or turn it into a comment. Star Mississippi 15:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting for evaluation of the new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 22:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store

[edit]
The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a highly WP:PROMO article about a local pot shop. While the paid editor is to be commended for using AfC for this article, it still fails WP:NCORP for failure to meet WP:ORGCRIT with multiple instances of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. I've included an assessment table below. There's a single source (a design blog) that probably qualifies; nothing else meets all the required criteria.

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
No The only people quoted in the article are employees of the subject. Yes Yes
Yes Yes No Routine coverage of financial results is WP:ORGTRIV. Yes
No Appears to be 100% AI-generated promotion No
No Promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
No Cannabis Business Times is a WP:TRADES publication. Yes No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
Yes Yes No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
No Green Market Report is a WP:TRADES publication. Yes No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes Yes No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
Yes Yes No Coverage of new location openings is considered WP:ORGTRIV Yes
Dead link, not archived.
No Highly promotional content that solely quotes employees of the subject No Content is not bylined; author is "Honeysuckle Team." Yes
No Dead link No A list of awards at the award sponsor page is a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE.
Yes Yes No WP:TRIVIALMENTION in context of coverage of other topic. Yes

Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: Thank you for your review. I’d like to address the concerns raised about notability and sourcing and provide additional context to support the article’s inclusion.
    I understand that some sources may be viewed as routine or promotional. However, publications like *Cannabis Business Times* and *The Villager* provide relevant and independent coverage. Since legal cannabis is a new and heavily regulated field, mainstream media coverage is understandably limited, but these industry-specific sources highlight the subject’s importance within its niche.
    The article also highlights milestones that go beyond routine business activities, such as being one of the first dispensaries to open after legalization, positioning the company as an early contributor to New York’s cannabis market. Its rebranding reflects growth and commitment to expansion, while its partnership with The Doe Fund, including hiring program graduates, addresses equity issues tied to past drug policies. These achievements illustrate the company’s broader impact on the industry and community.
    If the consensus is that the article needs further work, I’d request it be moved to Draft Space for improvement as additional independent coverage becomes available. I appreciate your time and welcome any feedback on strengthening the article. Stephvrona (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Without giving an opinion on anything else, I think the source assessment table is wrong on the first source. The Village Sun is a daily newspaper in NYC and the article has a by-lined author by a on-staff independent journalist. That source is both clearly reliable, and independent, even if the journalist interviewed some of the people working at The Travel Agency: A Cannabis Store. Journalists do fact checking and the paper has an editorial staff. That should clearly be in the WP:SIGCOV column as an accepted source under WP:ORGCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Darius J. Pearce

[edit]
Darius J. Pearce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to meet WP:BASIC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Blind Pew (disambiguation)

[edit]
Blind Pew (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic redirect points to an article with a hatnote to the only other use. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment I have found a poem and a song called Blind Pew, and added them to the dab page. I'm leaning keep, because I think it'll be hard to get three very distinct topics into a reasonable hatnote. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Greatest Hits Radio Yorkshire

[edit]
Greatest Hits Radio Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This "radio station regional sub-network" does not produce or originate any of its own programming. All programming is supplied by the national Greatest Hits Radio network. The article itself states that "it is not possible [...] to listen to a station branded Greatest Hits Radio Yorkshire". There are existing articles, linked here, for the former radio stations which were merged into this network and another article for Greatest Hits Radio itself - this article seems surplus to requirements, particularly as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for "Greatest Hits Radio Yorkshire" as a network. WP:ISNOT a directory of radio frequencies. Flip Format (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Haruki Umemura

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Haruki Umemura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Deleted before. No trace of notability, played 1 cup game and not in any of the J Leagues, creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ramón Costa (footballer, born 1992)

[edit]
Ramón Costa (footballer, born 1992) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage found during a WP:BEFORE. He played between 2–8 games for a number of clubs, in Brazilian's fourth, Mexico's second and Malaysia's league among others. The indication of notability is therefore very thin to start with. Geschichte (talk) 21:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

China-Myanmar community with a shared future

[edit]
China-Myanmar community with a shared future (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to have WP:SUSTAINED notability warranting an artcle. Amigao (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

PreliZ

[edit]
PreliZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of WP:GNG from the sources given: the only independent source (not co-written by PreliZ authors) is this arXiv preprint, which doesn't even mention PreliZ explicitly but only cites the original paper once for a wider claim. A quick WP:BEFORE didn't show anything else, and, as the package is still very new, it isn't surprising that significant coverage hasn't accumulated yet. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Douglas Kuria

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Douglas Kuria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable Kenyan businessman fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO None of the coverage is WP:SIGCOV of him, it's all focused on the companies he works for or on his father, from whom notability cannot be WP:INHERITED. The last AfD resulted in draftification at the request of the page creator, but the article was returned by its creator to mainspace with no improvements, so I would not support that alternative again. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Kenya. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. It would be helpful if the nominator gave us a source analysis and discussed why each specific source does not meet the criteria at WP:SIGCOV. It's asking a lot of your audience to go through all that material without knowing your thinking up front.4meter4 (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    There’s no requirement for a nominator to offer a source-by-source analysis (I only do so proactively when sources are debatable). In this case there’s no SIGCOV of the subject, as I noted in my nomination. Participants are welcome to evaluate them to see if they agree, as I do when I participate in AfDs. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 20:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Khon Kaen Silk Festival

[edit]
Khon Kaen Silk Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced two sentence orphaned article that's been tagged for improvement for 4 years. I'm struggling to find any sources that show it meets WP:GNG, as everything either seems to be a simple "here is when the festival is" or Wikipedia mirror content. CoconutOctopus talk 19:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

94.3 The Fish

[edit]
94.3 The Fish (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:SIGCOV Alexeyevitch(talk) 19:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Social radicalism

[edit]
Social radicalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unless I see sources distinguishing the two—the article presently cites none (!) whatsoever—this seems to overlap entirely with Radical politics. Remsense ‥ 论 18:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep -- these are clearly different. The first is "the intent to transform or replace the fundamental principles of a society or political system," formerly used to describe Radicalism (historical) and now fully general, across the political spectrum. The second is "is a political philosophy and variety of radicalism that endorses social justice, social services, a mixed economy, and the expansion of civil and political rights, as opposed to classical radicalism which favors limited government and an overall more laissez-faire style of governance." So, the first is just "being radical" and the second is "a specific radical and usually centre to centre-left political philosophy".
While I'm not sure these refer to the same thing, here are a few sources that mention the term "social radicalism", one of which is an entire book about it (found by googling "social radicalism" in quotes):
See https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22social+radicalism%22 for some more. Mrfoogles (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Overlap entirely was a misnomer on my part. I am immensely skeptical given the lack of reification of this term that it should be given its own article. Remsense ‥ 论 22:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Principality of Pataliputra

[edit]
Principality of Pataliputra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"Principality of Pataliputra" is an unsourced term and the content of this article is about the city for which we already have an excellent article Pataliputra. This article appears to be a POV fork of that article, primarily designed to push the idea of a continuity between mythology (the Magadha kingdoms described in Hindu mythological texts) and history (the Mauryas) RegentsPark (comment) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep, all your argumetns are wrong
    • The article is not about the city
    • The article is not about any mythological kingdom
    • The article is not a POV fork, as i took nothing from city article and it is not related to it.

JingJongPascal (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw: His Plays

[edit]
George Bernard Shaw: His Plays (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unreferenced. Of minimal interest: the only links to this page are via the Shaw and Mencken templates at the end of the article. Tim riley talk 16:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Without checking anything else, many reviews on Newspapers.com. Passes NBOOK on that front. Will check more later PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
fwiw this is a Keep vote PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Reviewed in The San Francisco Call and Post (here), The Courier-Journal (here) and The Nation (here). This is sufficient for WP:NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 19:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Meets NBOOK per reviews listed above. Toughpigs (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not only are there no sources and lots of WP:OR, Mencken's biographies hardly mention it. WP:NBOOK states that coverage (such as reviews when the book came out) creates only a presumption of notability, but it is our task to decide whether the book is encyclopedically notable. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    That can go for literally any topic. We can decide to delete an article for any reason, but there's no compelling extra reason to delete this article here when it passes NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    But it is entirely unreferenced and has much personal opinion in it. Tim riley talk 20:26, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    It was offensively opinionated so I removed that and now it's a sourced stub. It could be much longer if someone wanted to go and find more sources (and mine the existing ones, or read the book). But as is it is an ok stub. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, that's better, but if the purpose of AfD is to separate the wheat from the chaff, at least in Menken's WP wheat field, this stub is definitely chaff. -- Ssilvers (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Dihydroxyphenylalanine ammonia-lyase

[edit]
Dihydroxyphenylalanine ammonia-lyase (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Quoth the KEGG database entry: Deleted entry: dihydroxyphenylalanine ammonia-lyase. The entry had been drafted on the basis of a single abstract that did not provide experimental evidence of the enzyme-catalysed reaction Translated in Wikipedia terms, this doesn't meet WP:GNG. Looking at Google Scholar for entries on this enzyme likewise doesn't show any substantial results. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. An enzyme removed from the IUBMB list might be worth retaining if there had been plenty of discussion of it before it was removed. However, that is not the case here. It was deleted from the enzyme list as long ago as 2007. Athel cb (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete and burn the leftover electrons. "Dihydroxyphenylalanine ammonia-lyase...is a non-existent enzyme that catalyzes the reaction..." So the article is self-refuting; if the enzyme doesn't exist, it can't very well do anything. The one cited reference doesn't mention this hypothetical enzyme. Nonexistent or hypothetical substances can be notable if they're the subject of serious study (e.g. Room-temperature superconductor) or a significant part of a work of fiction (e.g. Mithril) but elf-armor this ain't. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Its certainly not impossible that such an enzyme could exist. Its just that we can't currently prove that it does with WP:RS. If we covered theoretical enzymes, there could theoretically be an enzyme that catalyzed almost any reaction in the universe, but it doesn't mean that such an enzyme exists on Earth or ever will. There could theoretically be an enzyme that does my taxes for me, but that seems pretty far fetched now doesn't it, and absent sufficient RS on point, not something we would cover. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 22:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri

[edit]
Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't establish notability. Fails GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 15:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep per WP:HEY, I've added plenty of reliable news sources and reviews in article such as BBC News, Independent Urdu, 24 News, India Times, DAWN etc. Siginificant coverage found on google. It sometimes spells as Mohabbat Gumshuda Meri in google sources. Siasat Daily of India and The News International of Pakistan called it one of the trending show in India [1] and Pakistan [2].Libraa2019 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - The significant coverage being claimed is not reliable. Non-bylined pieces falling under WP:NEWSORGINDIA, mentions, and churnalism do not count towards notability. If the show was worthy of notice, the press would have written more in-depth than a brief mention, mention in a reference about an actress, etc. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Shradha Sharma

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Shradha Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NBIO, most of the references are extremely poor or straight up paid articles about her company. [3][4] - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ahmed bin Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa

[edit]
Ahmed bin Khalifa bin Salman Al Khalifa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO - political appointment with no notable history. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bahrain. UtherSRG (talk) 14:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. Without a convincing source analysis from the nominator, I am not seeing a valid reason to assume WP:SIGCOV isn’t met.4meter4 (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Both references are essentially the subject's CV. Not WP:IS, not WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been previously deleted here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health. I feel the problem of no WP:SIGCOV and failure to meet WP:GNG still exists. Adamantine123 (talk) 01:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep - Adding a study of sexual health professionals. They included SASH, the Society for Sex Therapy and Research (SSTAR), the Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association (HBIGDA), now known as the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), and the Society for the Scientific Study of Sexuality (SSSS). Authors chose these organizations because they were notable and represented a range of professionals in sex research, education, and therapy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Sex_Therapy_and_Research
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Professional_Association_for_Transgender_Health
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_the_Scientific_Study_of_Sexuality TheoJarek (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just noting that the previous AFD closed as Delete but that is not the situation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep - looks pretty clear based on the scholarly references/citations from Google Scholar at over 300 alone. Also over 1650 references in Books is pretty significant. Noting that the old AfD from 2015 had scant participation and one of those was a banned sock puppeteer means that that AfD should have no relevance on the situation now. Raladic (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For further input please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

List of largest photographs

[edit]
List of largest photographs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTPROMO. Absolutiva (talk) 03:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep, the page is very well sourced and meets WP:GNG, the topic is established and valid (see its External links), and the page is well presented and offers links to some of the most extraordinary photographs. It fails nothing. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator. A lot of this article comes across as original research. Most of the individual photographs are not notable on their own either. Ajf773 (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: The article is sourced, well-structured and I wouldn’t call this ’cruft’, given the sources provided. Meets the requirements for notability of lists. Large photographs are a very notable topic as a set: https://resources.culturalheritage.org/pmgtopics/2009-volume-thirteen/13_12_Freeman.html Also see Taylor, L. (2020). The Materiality of Exhibition Photography in the Modernist Era: Form, Content, Consequence. Taylor & Francis. Mushy Yank (talk) 20:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    In what way does a practical guide for the exhibition of large physical photographs count toward notability of the article in question? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:28, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Because it's one element that shows the topic of this list is notable as a set. And that is the requirement for the notability of lists. Mushy Yank (talk) 15:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    It most definitely is not. This is a practical guide for the exhibition of large physical photographs. It does not discuss the set of such things, or attempt to classify them in any way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. While there might be something to say about the topic of large photographs generally, that doesn't extend to the wanton listing of the minutiae of random large photographs. Most of this material is clearly promotional (complete with inline external links), and there's no way to verify any sort of ranking of these, other than that they're "large", generally measured only in pixels (except for the one actual large pinhole camera-generated one). The claims above of good sourcing already in the article are simply not right. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 00:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    How is this promotional? The EL? Feel free to remove them. As for the rest, the list is far from being indiscriminate (nom's rationale; which is echoed in your !vote by "random"/"wanton") or not verifiable. What sources do you consider unreliable and which entries seem to lack sources, according to you? Mushy Yank (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note that the essay 'cruft' has nothing to do with policy or guidelines nor is a valid reason to delete. As to nomination language, articles do not 'fail' an essay. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:38, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note that a topic being "established" also has nothing to do with policy or guidelines and is not a valid reason to keep something. Nor is having a lot of links to pretty pictures. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, the fact that a topic is established (as notable) has a lot to do with notability guidelines. Did anyone mention pretty pictures but you? (And on top of that, in an article about photographs access to quality images might even be considered a valid argument in favour of the existence of a list (as opposed to a category)). ("Well presented" is more about structure, content and prose than image, imv). Mushy Yank (talk) 15:54, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    In case it wasn't clear, my "note" above was a direct retort to Randy Kryn's utterly bafflingly nonsensical "note" immediately preceding it, in which he seems to try to argue against a poor rationale in the nomination (ignoring other parts of it). My retort was to call him out for making an even worse "keep" statement. And no, being "an established topic" doesn't even mean anything. You stealthily added "(as notable)" parenthetically, but it could just as well be established (as non-notable). And it's also not established as notable; that's what we're here to argue about. And nowhere has anyone (including you) presented even a whiff of evidence that this meets NLIST. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    You're not exactly what I would call friendly in your mention of other users' opinions, you're aware of that, aren't you? So, you're not satisfied with the sources presented nor with those on the page, nor with the book reference above. OK. One last try. You obviously have coverage for this in the Guinness Book (just check please); please also see Panoramic and Immersive Media Studies Yearbook (2024), De Gruyter (pp 299-300); or see lists like this https://www.pcmag.com/news/10-jaw-dropping-gigapixel-photos A lead section with context and more history of the records and milestones would not hurt, though. (PS- "stealthily", really? when I'm just making the obvious, explicit; but I'll assume good faith and consider you're not playing with words.) Mushy Yank (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    From WP:RSP: "There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage.". I have no access to the book you mention, so can't assess that one. And the PCmag article is just a listicle. Listicles are low-quality churn meant to drive clicks for ad revenue and do nothing to establish notability of a topic. The simple fact is that stuff surrounding this is inherently promotional. The most common site used (Gigapan) is a commercial site for selling merchandise and thus not independent of its subject. We also have no way of knowing if these things are truly the largest, if any comparably large ones are not listed here, etc etc. This stuff falls squarely within WP:NOT territory. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    The Guinness was more for verification that the topic (not the entries) was notable (I always understood the mention of Guinness at RSP as regarding individual entities but let’s simply discard it). There are quite a number of independent sources for each item I verified (I’ve added a couple) and the numbers are verifiable. Various EL can be removed. Yes, lists are sometimes not great journalism but again they seem to be an easy way to show a given topic has attracted attention as a set. Thanks, anyway. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
    Other languages. Examples (I deliberately avoided Gigapan-related results; articles including approach of the topic as a set). French: https://gate.first-id.fr/?redirectHost=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.lesnumeriques.com%2Ffirst-id&redirectUri=%2Fappareil-photo-numerique%2F365-gigapixels-taille-nouvelle-plus-grande-photo-terrestre-n42425.html (2015) https://www.yonder.fr/news/culture/la-plus-grande-photo-du-monde-365-gigapixels-represente-le-mont-blanc#:~:text=70%20000%20%3A%20le%20nombre%20de,%3A%20l'altitude%20du%20shooting. (2015) https://www.20minutes.fr/insolite/1615771-20150526-plus-grande-photo-monde-panorama-mont-blanc (2015) Spanish https://www.xatakafoto.com/actualidad/el-top10-de-las-fotografias-mas-grandes (a list; 2019) Sources for (recent or less recent) individual items are easy to find. Mushy Yank (talk) 01:45, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm a bit at loss regarding what is meant to be captured in this article... Looking through sources provided in the article and this discussion, most of them seem to discuss digital photography, in particular mosaic or composite images, and very rarely as a set (outside of some "top 10" lists). At best, some articles discuss technical challenges of large-scale photography as a whole (i.e. physical constraints to capture, display and preserve non-digital artwork; processing, 'stitching', storage and other technical constraints related to the production and display of digital artwork), but I don't see much depth in discussion of "largest photographs" as a whole, in particular high-quality, authoritative sources regarding the evolution of "largest photographs" by type, nature or category. Are there articles that argue or at least consider if satellite-captured digital images (over several months or years) should be compared to digital images of artwork? Are building wraps or edited photographs included alongside non-edited images, and if so what is the limit between compositing and editing?... What sources or definitions should be used as a basis for this article? Shazback (talk) 23:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I think there is something valuable and encyclopedic in listing photographs that have pushed the bounds of size and scale in photography. I'm with Shazback and the nominator on the fact that term "largest" is somewhat poorly defined and therefore indiscriminate. However, I think that might be solved by better defining the list in the lead and curating the list appropriately. That isn't something we can or should do at AFD. This is an issue best solved on the article's talk page through the WP:CONSENSUS process and through normal editing.4meter4 (talk) 05:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium

[edit]
Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creator claims such small stadiums are inherently notable; I don't think that's true at all. Article was moved back into draft space by User:Mccapra, and creator moved it back to main space twice. Their argument? "The subject is encyclopedic, the article is well-sourced, and there is nothing in it beyond what is present in the Polish-language article." But the first thing is untrue and certainly questionable, the second is ridiculous (the link is to a user-generated database of stadiums), and the first is irrelevant on the English wiki. Drmies (talk) 14:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I am in favor of keeping the article. Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium may not stand out significantly from other stadiums, but it represents a typical example of local sports infrastructure, much like other stadiums already included in the encyclopedia. To provide context, I reviewed two randomly selected stadiums—Stjörnuvöllur and Akranesvöllur—and found them similarly modest in scale. Deleting Tarnobrzeg Municipal Stadium based on the argument presented here could set a precedent for removing numerous comparable entries, which doesn’t align with our established approach to such topics. While I understand the concerns raised, I believe the article is well-sourced and falls within the scope of what we consider encyclopedic. Paradygmaty (talk) 15:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Poland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep stadiums are generally notable. The article only has one source, though, that doesn't help with GNG, so we have to do a source search, not a blanket AfD. And what we see is that the stadium has been covered in secondary sources: [5] [6] (looks like the same story) [7] [8] (about hooligans who vandalized it.) Now those may not be a clear GNG pass, but they are all from the past month. It should be relatively easy to write a decent little article about this. SportingFlyer T·C 16:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete all sports stadiums are not notable, and small local stadiums generally aren’t. There is nothing architecturally, historically or culturally distinctive about this one as far as I can see. Most towns have a stadium like this, just like they have a police station and a post office. Mccapra (talk) 16:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    The test isn't about whether they are "architecturally, historically or culturally distinctive." The test is whether they've been covered in secondary sources, and this one clearly has. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    I agree with SportingFlyer – notability is based on coverage in reliable secondary sources, not just architectural or cultural significance. I’ve also expanded the article to provide more context, which supports its notability. Paradygmaty (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Andrzej Gajec

[edit]
Andrzej Gajec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previous PROD by User:Mccapra was deleted. Subject is simply not notable--being mayor of a small city does not confer notability, no secondary sourcing proving notability is provided, and the two short web articles linked, one of which is simply an obit, don't give any indication that the man lived a life that made him notable. Drmies (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Engineering, and Poland. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 15:06, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Keep. I understand the concerns raised about Andrzej Gajec's notability, but I believe the article should be kept. Serving as the mayor of Stalowa Wola for several years gives him a certain local prominence, which is relevant within the context of Polish municipal politics. Although his political career may not have garnered significant national attention, his role in a city of this size is still noteworthy and reflects a level of civic responsibility. Paradygmaty (talk) 15:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per my PROD nomination. Does not pass WP:NPOL and not otherwise notable. Mccapra (talk) 16:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Small town mayor for 3 yrs in the late 20th Century doesn't give you notability. Sources simply confirm this person held the post and I don't find anything about them otherwise. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Saint Benedict School of Novaliches

[edit]
Saint Benedict School of Novaliches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources since 2010. Only references online are primary or social media about the school. Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Gold Jam Records

[edit]
Gold Jam Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NCORP. C F A 💬 14:44, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Angersbach

[edit]
Angersbach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails GNG; no people with the surname on Wikipedia. C F A 💬 14:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

List of presidents of Italy by time in office

[edit]
List of presidents of Italy by time in office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced, and has no information that isn't present in List of presidents of Italy, apart from 'cause of end of term' (which could easily be added). Sgubaldo (talk) 13:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

MIST (satellite)

[edit]
MIST (satellite) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Single cubesat project of which i could find only a single news article and a few blog posts outside of the project itself Firestar587 (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Robbie Widdows

[edit]
Robbie Widdows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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) 05:56, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Other than the types of sources like the one cited in the article, nothing comes up to establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Luc Peters

[edit]
Luc Peters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(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) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment unlike the many other darts players that came here because of mass-rejected prods, this person actually has news articles about him and not just a place in stats databases like the others. [13] [14]. I'll comment back with a !vote once I finish my WP:BEFORE. MolecularPilot 06:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
    It's just routine reporting of him getting a tour card. 20-30 players do this annually. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. A search in google news found 2 relevant sources but they are from darts related media. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yugoslav September Offensive

[edit]
Yugoslav September Offensive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article does not meet the criteria for a wikipedia page , as it has no information on the offensive itself , and the sources used only speak about the aftermath. The sources are also hard to verify , one of them is a blog post which is not a reliable source according to wikipedia's guidelines. The other source comes from a deleted website so it is hard to verify. The article is WP:NOT Peja mapping (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: I agree with you. The page, in a literal sense, doesn't even contain a single sentence about an actual offensive or what happened. It seems the creator of the page made it simply because a source mentioned an offensive in September. Based.shqiptar.frompirok (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Yorke Sherwood

[edit]
Yorke Sherwood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NACTOR. The great majority of his roles are uncredited. He barely gets passing mentions here and there, e.g. in Mack Sennett's Fun Factory. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Rebuttal. Most of his films are talkies, and all but two of his 15 silents are shorts. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    How would this contradict what I said in any way or render insignificant the changes I’ve made? What does it matter if the films are short or not or silent or not? (To be clear, I did not check the numbers and they may be correct but what does this change to the fact that he had a prolific career in the film industry as actor? It would rather confirm it, indicating longevity and a career spanning over silent and talking film eras, if anything, so all the more notable imv.)
    PS- unless your comment is about my reply to Mekomo. In which case, i maintain it because I suppose he was best known for his early films but feel free to amend it and add early/pre-internet/old to my comment, which you are free to disagree with, if you wish; anyway, a Google search is not sufficient. -Mushy Yank. 22:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Juan Alberto Ramírez

[edit]
Juan Alberto Ramírez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Even when searching in conjunction with his former clubs, I was unable to obtain any significant coverage towards WP:SPORTBASIC. His career took place largely in the second tier of Mexico and was painfully brief. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 12:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Luis Cámara

[edit]
Luis Cámara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cámara has/had a very brief career but my own searches failed to yield any significant coverage, so potentially fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

José de Jesús López

[edit]
José de Jesús López (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite a brief career in the second tier of Mexico, I can't find any evidence of significant coverage, even when searching in conjunction with the club that he played for. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 11:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Magadhan Empire

[edit]
Magadhan Empire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redundant POV fork created after merging content from Magadha, without any discussion or consensus, this article stayed as a redirect for over 18 years before too. Nxcrypto Message 11:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: The topic certainly has notability and large coverage in scholarly sources to have a separate article on it (see Scholar or Books). Scholars describe the entity that existed from Bimbisara till the Kanvas as the Magadhan Empire. The article was not forked per se; it is a new article mostly, as the content about later dynasties and the lead are new, while the content about the Haryankas were moved from Magadha to this article. Historians make a distinction between the Magadha and the Magadhan Empire as seperate polities, with the latter being founded by Bimbisara and the former being a Mahajanapada of the Vedic era, as well as region based in it. PadFoot (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete - No scholar describes or conflates two different polities which existed in the same region with a break of at least 300 years between them as the "Magadhan Empire" . This article appears to be a pseudohistorical narrative created solely to promote nationalist POV. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Ratnahastin, I, the creator, had not included the Guptas in this article, it was included without consensus by the nominator, it is clearly the nominator who is POV pushing. He has been edit warring for the inclusion of the Guptas into this article and created a GIF showing the two together. See revision history of the article itself. PadFoot (talk) 12:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Ratnahastin, the Gupta mentions have been removed. PadFoot (talk) 12:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep The article clearly has sources supporting it's legitimacy and is not a POV fork in anyway.
"Mahajanapada" clearly means a kingdom during the Vedic and post Vedic period, Magadhan Empire exceeds this period and hence should not BE merged within "Magadha" article. The article's header clearly has sources mentioning the dynasties which ruled the empire and hence justifying it's legitimacy. JingJongPascal (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@JingJongPascal Read WP:POVFORK, It says "In contrast POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view." There was no consensus for creating this separate article. Creating it only for pushing a POV is not allowed. Nxcrypto Message 15:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
There is no 'POV' here. The article is about the Imperial entity of Magadha.
But the 'Magadha' is the article about the Mahajanapada.
A Mahajanapada is a kingdom which existed in india during vedic period, and hence should/ does not extent much.
Other than that PadFoot has provivded source the 'empire' in the first Paragraph of the article only. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
POV Fork would be when he makes two articles about same things with minor differences on his POV.
This ISNT POV fork. JingJongPascal (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

James Grehan (rugby league)

[edit]
James Grehan (rugby league) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable RL player. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT as there doesn't seem to be any coverage other than routine announcements and match reports. J Mo 101 (talk) 10:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Kingdom of Shukuup

[edit]
Kingdom of Shukuup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Potential hoax. No web search hits and all sources are translated from ru Wikipedia article. Adabow (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:47, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Honduras-related deletion discussions. Adabow (talk) 07:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note - I converted most of the sources to use our {{cite}} templates. I did a search as well, and the only reference I'm able to find is Triplook which Copan is the city of the Maya located in the western part of the country near Guatemala. It is the largest monument of ancient civilizations on the territory of Honduras. Copan was founded in the I century A.D. In the 7th and 8th centuries, it was the center of the ancient Mayan Kingdom Shukuup - I'm not convinced by this source, as Copán is a Good Article and doesn't mention the kingdom at all. Also, none of the English Language links in the footer mention the kingdom. ~ Matthewrb Let's connect · Here to help 08:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Sweet. The #1 search result for "Kingdom of Shukuup" is this AfD. Which I think is sort of 'nuff said, really... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Doesn't seem to be a hoax, but IMO not salvageable either. I think the correct Latin-script title would be "Xukuup". Here is an article that intermittently discusses the "Xukuup dynasty" at Copán, while expressing some uncertainty about whether that is the correct character reading. The use of this as the name of the state of which Copán was the capital seems to be found in some seemingly valid Russian-language scholarly sources but not to be otherwise widespread. I don't think this is especially salvageable in its current state, although in theory it would be optimal to have separate articles about the ancient polity and the modern archeological site, as the RU and UK wikis do. As an alternative to deletion I would suggest possibly a move to Xukuup + redirect to Copán -- but that redirect could also be set up regardless of whether this is deleted. -- Visviva (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake

[edit]
2018 Southern Appalachian earthquake (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No damage, injuries, or deaths, and no lasting impact, so may fail WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 02:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Didn't cause any damage or injuries. Doesn't seem notable. Hardly any coverage other than on the day of the quake. Seems to fail WP:EVENT to me. Procyon117 (talk) 04:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to the "seismic events" section of Eastern Tennessee seismic zone where the earthquake is already mentioned. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 22:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:45, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Elio García-Austt

[edit]
Elio García-Austt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO - no independent, reliable source I could find in my WP:BEFORE talks about him in detail. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 03:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. There are plenty of independent reliable sources in GS, but I doubt of there are enough of them. Is GNG or POLITICIAN passed? Xxanthippe (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC).
    He's a scientist/doctor, so I'm not sure what you are asking about WP:POLITICIAN, did you comment on the wrong AfD by mistake? In case you didn't, what do mean by "GS" - the only things that come up on Google are his own papers, not other people talking about him which is required per WP:BIO (and a lack of the special circumstances outlined at WP:ACADEMIC)? Thank you! MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 07:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
    Oh, I just saw that it's mentioned in the (entirely unsourced) article that he was a member of the Parliament of Uruguay - but I can't find any RS to back this up so I don't think WP:POLITICIAN is met, unless someone else can find an RS to back this (which would meet WP:POLITICIAN. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 07:56, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The entire page in wiki is based on this - https://www.bionity.com/en/encyclopedia/Elio_Garc%C3%ADa-Austt.html Mike, the regular nose job (talk) 06:38, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Hey Mike! The bottom of that page says "This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "Elio_García-Austt". A list of authors is available in Wikipedia.", so actually that page is just a mirror site for the (completed unsourced) Wikipedia article. MolecularPilot 🧪️✈️ 07:47, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Try looking at GS where you will find a little. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:39, 10 November 2024 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

David Steinberg (journalist and photographer)

[edit]
David Steinberg (journalist and photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NAUTHOR and WP:BIO, sources not appropriate for a biography. Writing and speaking about sex and sexuality does not in and of itself confer notability, 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Photography, and Sexuality and gender. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 08:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and also fails WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST possible conflict of interest too, with editor saying they "do advocacy work for indie authors and creative commons artists" Theroadislong (talk) 09:13, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    I have addressed COI in my comment below. Merely because I do advocacy work for authors on my monthly blogposts about indie authors has nothing to do with the issue. Also, would you prefer wikipedia articles about authors be written by editors without opinions about authors? Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete Agree totally on fail of WP:NWRITER and WP:NARTIST (self published content and all) and also on potential of COI. Also now have Kneecap's 'Fine Art' back in my head. Sigh. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    I have addressed COI issues in my longer comment below. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:31, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    I have addressed the self-published content issue already here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: This is about the only kind of coverage I could find [15], I don't think we have enough to show notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 16:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. This is an interesting article I didn't see before. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I am the one who drafted the article. There is absolutely no COI here -- though I did email Steinberg about a few things and did encourage him to submit one of his photos to wikicommons. Also Steinberg informed me that a few years ago he had drafted a wikipedia article for himself – and he forwarded that draft to me. But I mostly ignored that. It was almost entirely unusable.
I consider myself somewhat of an expert in the field of writing about sexuality. Also, I have a background in indie publishing and have written a few author profiles for Wikipedia over the decades.
Here is my personal opinion about why this living person meet the criteria for notability.
1. He made an invaluable contribution to the pro-feminist men's movement in the 1980s and possibly 1990s. In the 1980s pornography was a hot political topic in the USA. Conservatives were arguing about it. Feminists were arguing for it and against it. In the meantime some pro-feminist men were having conferences, publishing books and anthologies. Steinberg was one of the pioneers of this movement.
2. Steinberg's photography book/anthology Erotic by Nature was groundbreaking in the 1980s -- and it is still in print today. It received widespread distribution through Bookpeople and the book itself sold the concept of erotic photography as a legitimate form of fine arts photography. The book was an attempt to put into practice the ideas and aesthetic of the men's movement who were confronting the issue of pornography -- offering this as an alternative.
3. He has been writing about sexuality, sexual politics and new forms of sexual expression for decades. Most of his articles were for (now defunct) weeklies, but some appeared in national magazines like Playboy. Many of these articles were open to new kinds of sexuality. He has also written a lot about hot-button topics like sex trafficking, transgender rights, mostly from the perspective of a "liberated male."
4. He has devoted the latter part of his life taking erotic photographs and showing them at various exhibits and erotic festivals. Unlike many fine arts photographers, Steinberg has taken photographs of nontraditional subjects, like older people, gays, disabled people, transgender. I have listed some critics who have reviewed/interpreted his aesthetic sensibility.
Now, let me put on my wiki hat for a bit.
That first point (pro-feminist men’s movement) is extremely hard to document and source. (Believe me, I tried). The only thing I could find was several anthologies on the subject which he contributed to and/or edited. https://www.nearbycafe.com/loveandlust/steinberg/erotic/about/index.html Ultimately I ended up not mentioning this part for the article. Steinberg mentions a few of the conferences he participated in some of his writings, but I can find next to nothing from secondary sources.
One problem is that unlike feminists (who often were academics and organized many events through their universities) many of these men's conferences were looser and definitely not-academic. They didn't think too much about recording these things for the historical record. Wiki has some articles about men's movements, Men's Rights Movement and Men in Feminism, but really very little about men's response to porn or how to reconcile porn with feminism from a man's point of view. (See the article on sex-positive feminism; it mentions a lot of female names but almost no one who is male!)Ironically, Steinberg is probably a leading figure for the men's pro-feminist movement and sex-positivity. How do I know this? On that page alone, I count at least 15 names of thinkers/activists/intellectuals (all of which have received wikipedia articles) who have explicitly praised Steinberg's writings! (Joanie Blank, mentioned in the article, was in fact the person who financed Erotic by Nature. One of the writers pictured in the article, Tristan Taormino, even invited Steinberg on a recent podcast).
I should ask: is there a double standard here? Why does Wikipedia have so many articles on feminist response to porn and female authors who have written about sex-positive feminism but almost no males?
Finally, longevity counts for something in publishing. Publications come and go; that is especially true for alternative newspapers and especially true for sex-oriented publications. Should wikipedia discount publications from the pre-digital era simply because they are unavailable? Steinberg is one of the few writers/columnists on sexual issues who has digitized many of his writings on sexuality from the 1980s and 1990s and put them online. Wikipedia readers should have the ability to know that people like this actually existed -- and that his archive of writings from that time period exist and remain accessible.
By refusing to acknowledge the importance of contributions of people like David Steinberg, Wikipedia editors are removing bits of history from the public. I have done my best to draft an article on a somewhat sensitive subject in accordance with Wiki's policies. Frankly, I fail to understand why notability would even be a problem here. Robert J Nagle (talk) 19:25, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to step back for now. But I wanted to reiterate about COI that I have NEVER done paid editing for any wiki article subject and never received remuneration for anything I have done at Wikipedia. I expect to receive no sort of benefit (financial or otherwise) from Steinberg as a result of writing this article, and none was promised to me. My ebook publishing company (Personville Press) doesn't have any interest in publishing any of Steinberg's works although I admit I am extremely fond of his writings. My contact with the subject, as stated in my above statement, was minimal and mainly to check up on dates and verify some things. Robert J Nagle (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I just thought of one more thing -- that maybe is self-evident. The article itself mentions that Steinberg was designated as " Erotic Photographer of the Year" in 2010 by Leydig Trust (which sponsors the Sexual Freedom Awards). The Sexual Freedom Awards has its own wikipedia page; I guess that means wikipedia has already rated these awards as notable. In the article I mentioned that the Seattle Erotic Art Festival has given Steinberg the honorary title, "Master of Erotic Art" for "impactful photography (which) focuses on capturing the diversity of our human sexuality by showcasing a broad range of people. From the SEAF website itself, it says, "The Masters of Erotic Art program showcases artists who have made meaningful contributions to the history and development of erotic art." These are two separate well-known organizations in the field of the erotic arts which have recognized Steinberg's contribution to the field. [16]
These properly sourced details were mentioned in paragraph 2 of the article, so I assume that the other editors saw this already. I have provided other justifications about notability in the previous longer comment. But frankly, I don't know just those two award designations don't confer notability. Robert J Nagle (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
You need sourcing to back up these claims, "because, trust me" isn't quite the level of sourcing we need. That's the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
You are making a general statement which does not apply to this article. I think everything in the article is properly sourced. Robert J Nagle (talk) 23:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is enough here to close as Delete but I wanted to allow some time to respond to the argument of the article creator. They claim the sources are sufficient so a source review would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

*Ref 1 Salon.com. is an interview, not independent
  • Ref 2 Sexual Freedom Awards is a primary source
  • Ref 3 Seattle Erotic Art Festival. is a primary source
  • Ref 4 Eros During Times of Social Change is an interview not independent
  • Ref 5 is a primary source written by Steinberg

Ref 6 is a commercial link to purchase his book

  • Ref7 can’t access this but a foreword is unlikely to be significant coverage
  • Ref 8 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source
  • Ref 9 ditto
  • Ref 10 ditto
  • Ref 11 ditto
  • Ref 12 ditto
  • Ref 13 ditto
  • Ref 14 interview
  • Ref 15 interview
  • Ref 16 Nearbycafe.com. his own words, primary source

Theroadislong (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Two things regarding primary sources.
Ref 6 links to public statements made by several other notable people about Steinberg and specifically his book which appeared on the promotional material related to the book (which are copied on the author's own website).You can easily view it in these same quotes in the opening pages for the Kindle ebook. Based on my experience as a publisher, it is very rare that people are misquoted in blurbs and other promotional material. Publishers take these things very seriously; they can get sued! Whether these statements are sufficient to establish notability -- I'll let others decide. What's significant is that a lot of people -- several of which are already on wikipedia -- have made statements about this person's writings.
With regard to interviews, it's a pretty standard way for a journalist to write about any author. Often the preface by the interviewer will try to contextualize a writer's contributions (that was particularly true in the Salon article). (Ref 1) Wiki specifically allows the use the self-published sources as long as 5 conditions are met See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves and as I mentioned before, some well-vetted articles on authors on Wikipedia make use of actual quotes by the author often. One time I counted the number of times author John Updike was quoted in the wiki article about him, I think the number was 18. Robert J Nagle (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ryan Latham

[edit]
Ryan Latham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

His soccer career was not notable at all, having only played 172 minutes in Revolution, as well as a friendly goal that can't be the basis of a Wikipedia article. I don't think the local news source cuts it GNG-wise, as it is an everyday piece of coverage with the majority being a Q&A interview. It would take much more making this meet WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 07:50, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. All-time New England Revolution roster would not be an appropriate target article as it has been PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Ben Kitt

[edit]
Ben Kitt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He was involved in a minor controversy in 2024 with David Coote (referee) but I don't think he is notable on his own and definitely not of sustained notability FMSky (talk) 08:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I do think we can add more info about his time playing cricket, but I've never really learned cricket rules or terms, so we could try reaching out to a Wikipedian who likes cricket. That Northern Irish Historian (talk) 15:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@That Northern Irish Historian I've added a cricket career section with what I could find but he never played for the Nottinghamshire first XI so there isn't much. Just an article featuring his debut for Cornwall, then another that details his signing for Nottinghamshire and two about his subsequent release from the club. I'm not going to vote but if this was a cricket based biography there's no way he'd warrant inclusion in Wikipedia in my opinion. Shrug02 (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Cantaloupe Hotels

[edit]
Cantaloupe Hotels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small Sri Lankan hotel chain. Aside from the primary source citations in this article, the rest are mostly a mixture of routine press coverage about new property openings and awards, therefore I don’t believe this crosses the threshold of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject to pass WP:CORP. Uhooep (talk) 08:53, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Miss Universe 2025

[edit]
Miss Universe 2025 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested draft. WP:BEFORE search reveals a lot about a couple of 2024 pageants (mostly Miss Universe 2024), but little to nothing about Miss Universe 2025. Might be a ”not now” situation. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: WP:TOOSOON it is. This year’s edition concluded recently on November 16. As one of the Big Four beauty pageants, it is anticipated that reliable sources will soon surface as countries finalize their representatives for the 2025 edition (four of which I see are already confirmed, with sources available but not yet included in the article). Furthermore, preparations and hosting bids for the upcoming edition are already in progress, with related updates expected to emerge shortly. I recommend adding tags, a citation or notability warning, to the article, rather than opting for its complete deletion. 'Draftify' is also a recommended approach.--— MimsMENTOR talk 17:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Shirsendu

[edit]
Shirsendu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are SPONSORED, which don’t count towards notability. The other sources do not provide WP:SIGCOV, and the subject fails to meet WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 06:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Hey, I just noticed your comment on the created article. I do have more sources but I didn't add them as it conflicts with the unambiguous advertising. But I do wanna show you:.
Google Knowledge Panel: https://g.co/kgs/C3mq8zy (It is generated by google only from trusted sources)
This person seems to an artist as well. I did happen to find his Spotify artist profile: https://open.spotify.com/artist/0OSjTTuzVglE32S8qUi0rw
This person also has an official artist channel on Youtube (Channel with music note) which is only possible if he is a genuine artist: https://www.youtube.com/@shirshaw64p
This person also has a verified facebook page back from 2021 when paid verification wasn't even an option. Link: https://www.facebook.com/Shirshaw64p
This things I haven't added as it would be promotional. But from what I listed, that is why I feel like this person is notable. Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 06:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@Nathanbyrd25: These things do not establish notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NOTABILITY, which requires in-depth coverage from multiple independent, reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 06:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Some related conversation from when this was still a draft on my talk page. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 06:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Hey! I also found his linkedin profile and found he is a Subject Matter Expert of HackTheBox, which is a reputed cybersecurity learning platform. Can that be added? Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 20:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: All links are PROMO. This is even a PR item [17] on a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    removed the PR item you pointed. Thank you for guiding me. Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 20:47, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    I also happened to find apple music link, will it be a promo to add it? Thanks. Nathanbyrd25 (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
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 Draftified by original author‎. (non-admin closure) Procyon117 (talk) 18:50, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Battle for Grbavica (Lašva Valley)

[edit]
Battle for Grbavica (Lašva Valley) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced right now; used to be unreliably sourced. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 06:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature

[edit]
List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Feature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The topic for this list is unencyclopedic. While it is possible to find a list of submitted films by year, this is trivial information – there is a major difference between being nominated (or even shortlisted) and merely being eligible. (As a comparison, would we allow a list of every Best Picture–eligible film? I suspect not even though sources exist.) See WP:INDISCRIMINATE. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Film, and Comics and animation. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 06:00, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: it's not indiscriminate; the inclusion criterion is clear. It's not trivial; it's rather an important topic and the lead section is clear about what it is. It's not unsourced. Saying it's unencyclopaedic seems to be a personal view. I say it's encyclopaedic because it's part of the detailed history of animation and animated film awards and it's manageable. -Mushy Yank. 10:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    To clarify at least the first point, WP:INDISCRIMINATE states that merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While there is a clear selection criteria, that criteria is broad and conveys minimal significance. That's why I find the list indiscriminate and not suitable for inclusion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete also per WP:MILL and WP:NOTNEWS. There's essentially no bar for submitting eligible films, and studios generally will just submit stuff even if they have no realistic chance of winning (or even being nominated) whatsoever. While lists of eventual nominees are almost surely of sufficient notability (and noteworthiness), lists of submissions are not. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. Looking at Category:Academy Awards lists, I'd recommend nominating other such submission lists for the same reasons. Of particular note are those two not-so-little subcats at the top of foreign-language film submissions, which break down even further by type. There are about an extra 200 lists in those that could stand to be mass nominated for deletion. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Why did you twice remove the AfD template from the page? And saying it is not nominated when you just voted here is not evidently consistent..... -Mushy Yank. 20:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC); edited 21:14, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    The template was removed from List of submissions for the Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film, which has not been mentioned anywhere in this deletion discussion up to this point. It would be out of procedure to add that article to this nomination after the discussion opened. I will remove the template from that page shortly. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! My bad! My apologies, 35.139.154.158! You were right and I blindly trusted the link. sorry. But who added it to the page in the first place and why??-Mushy Yank. 21:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Espngeek, why did you add it there?? -Mushy Yank. 21:10, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Well, if the Animated Feature is about to be deleted, why not the Animated Short Film? Espngeek (talk) 21:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
OK, feel free to nominate it (it might look as if you were trying to make a point, given your !vote below, but it’s your call). Still, you had added the link formatted by RunningTiger123 for this discussion to a page that was not nominated for deletion and that was quite confusing (even disruptive, I must be honest with you)! You cannot do that, I’m afraid and ”merge submissions” (bundle nominations) as you suggest below would have been possible if the nominator had wished to do so but it is not the case and in tems of procedure and good practices, your copy-paste of the template was a very bad idea. Not possible anymore with this page then. Thank you! -Mushy Yank. 21:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep What Oscar-related list do you consider important? Espngeek (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Not this one, clearly, since it's up for nomination. Do you have an actual rationale behind your keep !vote, preferably addressing the concerns that have been raised by the nomimator and by me? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Well, if you're asking me, I would consider lists such as the nominees at Academy Award for Best Animated Feature or the submissions in Category:Best Foreign Language Film Academy Award submissions by country suitable for inclusion. Those films have been specifically selected for further recognition, which gives them more significance than merely checking the boxes to be eligible does. RunningTiger123 (talk) 16:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Should I merge the submissions onto Best Animated Feature article? Espngeek (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    To me, the issue is not whether or not this has standalone notability; the issue is that the information is so trivial that it's not worth mentioning anywhere as a matter of editorial discretion, whether that's in a standalone list or in another article/list. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    What makes this one so trivial? Espngeek (talk) 22:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    @Espngeek in short, no (see above). You would have to initiate another AfD but can I suggest you wait for this one to be closed so that we know what others think? Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 21:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Professor Farnsworth

[edit]
Professor Farnsworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is not an AfD i want to do. I absolutely love Futurama and it was one of my favorite comedy cartoons, but unfortunately, this character does not pass WP:GNG. Of the eight sources, none are independent and are only passing mentions, some don't even discuss him, at all. I tried doing a WP:BEFORE and i can't find anything that talks about him.

Again, i didn't want to do this, but i have to, there is no turning back from what i am doing, so i am doing the right thing to nominate this for AfD. Toby2023 (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS commentators

[edit]
List of Thoroughbred Racing on CBS commentators (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not finding the needed coverage of these commentators as a grouping to meet the WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, Sports, Horse racing, and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. The title is badly written but I do think sports commentators who specialize in covering horse races is an appropriate list topic under WP:NLIST. There appears to be enough of them on this one network for it to be a substantial list.4meter4 (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep - this needs a large reformatting to bring it in line with standards (and maybe a re-titling), but the information contained within it seems like it adds value to the encyclopedia. Certainly offers more useful information than many of the other Category:Lists of horse racing commentators. RachelTensions (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Merge to Thoroughbred Racing on CBS. I could not find any sources either. The only reasonble keep would be due to the length of the parent but I don't see a reason this information couldn't just be included there. Esolo5002 (talk) 21:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Clare McCann

[edit]
Clare McCann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written as a PR piece with lack of proper sourcing. References used mention very little about the subject neither are they the focus of the person. May not meet WP:GNG. AnonUser1 (talk) 04:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • 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 17. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 04:48, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. A lot of the sources appear to be offline. It's hard to assess newspaper coverage when there are no url links. Did the nominator access these sources, and if so where so we can all view them? If the nominator did not view the cited materials, then in good faith we should accept them as containing WP:SIGCOV of the subject.4meter4 (talk) 05:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Comment: I was unable to locate online any of the newspaper sources mentioned so could not verify. Some of the sources listed appear to have associated websites that publish online versions of their newspaper articles, yet none of the articles referenced seem to exist. AnonUser1 (talk) 05:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately the Blacktown Advocate is now defunct and it’s difficult to access those newspaper archives. Part of WP:AGF is that we accept off-line sources, and based on the citations it looks like that newspaper had the most in-depth coverage. I don’t think I would be comfortable supporting a deletion vote when the best materials have not been viewed.4meter4 (talk) 11:05, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Given that the off-line sources have not been viewed by the nominator, I think we should accept in good faith that those sources meet WP:SIGCOV until proven otherwise.4meter4 (talk) 11:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: No sources that i can find, and what's given in the article appears to be purely local coverage, mostly all sourced to the same media outlet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Red Cord Records

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Red Cord Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am also nominating
Righteous Vendetta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), because it also appears to be a re-creation by the same UPE user of an AfD deleted non-notable article in very similar category and seems appropriate after reading previous AfD for both articles.

Falls short of WP:NCORP. Previously deleted with unanimous delete consensus in 2012. I'm not seeing happenings resulting in coverages in the 12 years since then that puts this company above the NCORP threshold. After it was deleted, it was re-created by a long-term undisclosed paid editor with promotional PR activity involvment. The additional sources with newer dates than the previous AfD are basically "did this..." "released this..." WP:ROUTINE events. Graywalls (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Justin Woolverton

[edit]
Justin Woolverton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Run-of-the-mill CEO who is not notable beyond his company, Halo Top Creamery. Most sources cited in the article are focused on the "healthy" quality of the ice cream and the strategy of the brand's viral marketing. I also have concerns about the depth and content of some of the cited articles from business news publications (e.g., Business Insider, Fast Company, and Entrepreneur) per WP:CORPDEPTH and whether they can be considered significant coverage (SIGCOV) of the company. Best, Bridget (talk) 02:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:36, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Warren Hue

[edit]
Warren Hue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Relying on self-promotional press releases without significant coverage from independent, reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG Pridemanty (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Blood quota

[edit]
Blood quota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Several claims in the article are inadequately supported by reliable and verifiable sources. Assertions about the centrality of the "Blood Quota" to the Shining Path’s ideology are not backed by academic or historical works explicitly addressing this term as a concept. This undermines the credibility of the article.

The tone of the article is biased and excessively negative. For instance, phrases such as "communist militants willfully promoted hatred and violence to attract adherents" reflect an unbalanced perspective. The article fails to present counterpoints or explore broader historical contexts, such as the societal conditions or political dynamics of Peru during the Shining Path’s rise. Much of the article appears to rely on synthesis or interpretation not directly supported by the cited sources. For example, connecting the "Blood Quota" to Gonzalo Thought as a strategic doctrine is speculative and lacks corroborating evidence from established analyses of the Shining Path’s ideology. Volantor (talk) 03:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep per WP:WRONGFORUM and procedural close. It sounds like these are WP:CONTENTDISPUTE and WP:POV issues but not WP:Notability issues. This could easily be solved by editing the article to fix content issues through WP:BOLD and/or by dialoguing on the article's talk page using the WP:CONSENSUS process. Failing that, take this to the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Either way, no notability or WP:Deletion policy based rationale for deletion has been made by the nominator and this should be closed immediately for procedural reasons. AFD is not the place to work out content disputes.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep A very cursory search shows there is ample academic writing on the topic. To quote Jima-González and Paradela-López (Latin American Perspectives 48:6, 194-209, 2021) "The [ 1983 Lucanamarca massacre ] was “justified” by Pensamiento Gonzalo’s idea that “the blood quota” was necessary for the triumph of the revolution" Finding the concept unpalatable is another issue but one should not try to hide or sanewash the darker parts of history just because they make no rational sense. Superboilles (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. There are ample sources that demonstrate the notability of the concept from scholarly papers not just routine news coverage. The nomination statement itself did not present strong case against the notability of the concept but focused more on the tone of the content and its perceived biased nature. This is better resolved by presenting a neutral view of events described in the article not through constructive editing. Deletion is not an option. Mekomo (talk) 13:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I have added WP:Notability issues to the original post with AI, but personally I support a NEUTRALization of the article to meet NPOV.
JD John M. Turner (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
You may make a notability opinion here. But you may not modify the text of a signed comment by another editor or the nominator's text. Your contribution was reverted because this is a form of WP:Disruptive editing. I understand you meant it out of a good motivation, but we rely on people not editing other users signed comments or it makes dialoguing reliably no longer possible on any page.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Deadair Records

[edit]
Deadair Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage or anything more than trivial mentions. Frost 02:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

John Clark (American actor)

[edit]
John Clark (American actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

None of the sources in this article say even close to 100 words about Clark. These are all just passing mentions, i.e. "role name (John Clark)", in works about various films. This is not just a notability issue, but even more fundamentally a verifiability issue, as we have nothing to confirm that this John Clark is the John Clark mentioned in these sources, as opposed to John Clark (English actor) or any number of other people with that very common name. I've tried to find any sources covering this John Clark in depth, and found nothing. This is admittedly hampered by the common-ness of his name, but even including "Western" or "St. Augustine" (his place of death according to this non-RS obituary) is no help. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 02:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. That's not exactly an accurate assessment. While IMDb is not usable here for notability purposes, the filmography on the wiki page does match the IMDb listing for this John Clark, and the English actor has lots of coverage which all verifies his appearance in films. The English actor clearly was not performing in Spaghetti Westerns in the United States based on the sources on the English actor. I really don't think there are mistakes in the filmography on this page. That said, we do need some kind of significant coverage on this person with a career broad scope. I would look for an obituary because that is likely the place to find a career overview. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • (ec) Delete. IMDb is, in my experience, pretty reliable as far as credits are concerned (so no confusion with the Brit), and this guy had just minor roles (e.g. "Livery Store Owner") and not too many of even those, so a very clear failure of WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete: Character actor with not many/no extensive sourcing about the individual. I don't see notability and I can't find anything about him. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Fibras Industriales S.A.

[edit]
Fibras Industriales S.A. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find anything approaching significant coverage for this company, whose article was unsourced since its creation in 2006 until a a dubious source was added a few days ago. PROD was contested. JTtheOG (talk) 02:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Possibly selective merge/redirect to fishing net? As a major manufacturer of fishing nets a brief one sentence mention there might be appropriate as an WP:ATD. Otherwise fails WP:ORGCRIT and should be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Joel Reyes Zobel

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Joel Reyes Zobel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not meet WP:BIO fails in WP:GNG. Royiswariii Talk! 01:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment his bio at GMA lists a bunch of awards he has won, including a Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (aka Golden Dove Award). That is a significant media award in the Philippines and would meet criteria 4 of WP:JOURNALIST. If we can find an independent source for that fact, the article should probably be kept.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    Haven't found a source for the KBP awards yet, but he was inducted into the Eastwood City Walk of Fame this year. I've added that to the article and some other info with sources. Hope that helps. D-Flo27 (talk) 16:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office

[edit]
List of prime ministers of Italy by time in office (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced, and there is no information here that isn't already present in List of prime ministers of Italy. Sgubaldo (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Don't think a merge is appropriate as there isn't any new information to merge. Procyon117 (talk) 18:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
The thing to be merged (unusually) is the sortable table formatting. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:17, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Deathstroke (Marvel Comics)

[edit]
Deathstroke (Marvel Comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The DC Comics version is way more notable than this one. He isn't notable at all, the article has no publication history and only has one section, in which it says he fought and was defeated by Spider-Woman. He only has two sources, one is a list of supervillains, and another a dead link of the comic issue itself. His article is a complete mess. Toby2023 (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete There is quite literally no information that is mergeable here beyond a mention of the character existing, and the character is so obscure (A search yields only two actual appearances in the several decades of Marvel history, with one of them being incredibly minor) that he doesn't even warrant a mention. Not every one-off needs to be accounted for on the character list. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China

[edit]
List of serving generals of the People's Republic of China (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list purports to include all "serving generals of the PRC", but in fact only lists 7 generals occupying some key posts. It's not at all clear that a list of all active generals in an army of 2,000,000+ personnel could ever be kept up to date. I'm not even sure that China publishes the names of all top officers.

Renaming could be an option, but it's not clear what the name would be.

Additionally, it's not really Wikipedia's core mission to provide lists of current anythings (WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTTEMPORARY). I could imagine a more appropriate list which included all historic commanders, and gave readers a timeline of command, but that's not what this is.

FWIW, the list has been unreferenced since its inception, although I imagine this deficiency could be remedied easily enough. pburka (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep at present. Passes WP:NLIST as a clearly defined set. Also top military personnel in a major world power would be easily sourced. Making arguments about WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTTEMPORARY would be more convincing if there weren't many other lists of this kind. We have a Category:Lists of active duty military personnel and the arguments being made here seem to be pertinent to all the lists currently in that category. It would be better to make this a bundled nomination if we are going to generally attack the idea of pages listing active duty military personnel. I suspect that when looked at as a group, there might be support for keeping such lists as encyclopedic. Lastly, the other argument that this is incomplete is spurious as we have policies on dynamic and incomplete lists as well as stub pages which support their inclusion and instruct editors to improve/expand coverage rather than delete them. Being incomplete is not a valid reason for deletion.4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. I shouldn't argue that the list is incomplete, but that it's ill-defined. It's not a list of all current generals, but a list of generals in selected important posts. There's no explanation of why these posts were included, and I don't see any reliable sources discussing this group of officers. However, if the content were changed to match the title, I still think it could be problematic. It's difficult to even find an estimate of how many PLA generals there are. Regarding the WP:OTHERSTUFF, we have more complete lists of the general staffs of America, Bangladesh, Britain, India, and Pakistan. I also question the encyclopedic value of these, but only brought the Chinese list to AfD because of its other deficiencies. pburka (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Sven (Voltron)

[edit]
Sven (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unfortunately, as i am a Voltron fan myself, this character fails WP:GNG. My WP:BEFORE found nothing, it only talks about the shows he is from. This is something i didn't want to do, but i have to nominate it. I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same issues as him.:

Princess Allura (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keith (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lance (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Hunk (Voltron) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prince Lotor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Emperor Zarkon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Rise of Voltron (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Toby2023 (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Procedural keep for The Rise of Voltron as it is an episode and not a character and does not belong in this bundled nomination. It should be nominated separately. Merge all others to List of Voltron characters per WP:ATD.4meter4 (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

I know it is an episode, but i still included this because it is Voltron after all. It doesn't pass WP:GNG. Toby2023 (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
I understand, but it's best to bundle nominations where the outcomes have a shared ending. In general, the bundling process is best avoided when articles are not very close in design. A charcter page is very different then a television episode page.4meter4 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Procedural close WP:NPASR, but make sure that WP:BUNDLE is scrupulously followed per the above. If not, this is more likely than not going to end up as a train wreck. Better to restart clean with separate noms for characters and episode(s) rather than hoping it doesn't go off the rails. Jclemens (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sun_Creator/AFD&oldid=689776293"