Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 July 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 02 July 04 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TokenEx[edit]

TokenEx (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)

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP.

References include: - Two local news articles (Tulsa World, The Oklahoman) - Two trade press article (PYMNTS, SatelliteTODAY) - One press release (PRNewswire)

Most coverage is brief and concerns partnerships with other companies. Brandon (talk) 23:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Helped by the participants' comments and the fact that the nominator is a sockpuppet. Liz Read! Talk! 04:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jujaksan[edit]

Jujaksan (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 can only find the book reference to this article pointing to the mountain. Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Normanhunter2 (talk) 23:09, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Korea. Shellwood (talk) 23:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; There's a surprisingly large amount of writing on it in the Korean language. [1] (The Chosun Ilbo), [2] (Yonhap News Agency), [3] (NewsPim), [4] (Seoul Finance),[5] (Encyclopedia of Korean Local Culture). 211.43.120.242 (talk) 10:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources you put there don't meet the significance of Jujaksan being added on article. This does not tell what Jujaksan is about. Something like a history, legacy, or even a sufficient background will achieve its notability here. This also mentions the mountain, but it doesn't state specifically what the mountain is about and it's characteristics, besides people visiting the Korean mountain, which is mainly what the sources are about.
    Let me step aside from the rambling for a second here, according to WP:NMAG, it clearly states that there needs to be reliable, independent sources that can fit into the article. Those are good sources for information, but not specific to this article because it doesn't directly state what the mountain is about. Normanhunter2 (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please mind the tone, bordering on preachy. NMAG is about the notability of periodicals and not places/mountains. Some of the sources I gave discuss the mountain itself, not just tourism for it. If not satisfied yet, I'll provide some more.
    [6] This source discusses the height, characteristics (number of peaks) of the mountain. [7] This discusses the flora on it. [8] This has an overview description of the mountain and its facilities.
    I found these after less than a minute of googling in Korean. I'm assuming you're using machine translation, please give it a few gos in Korean yourself. If there's anything missing I'll do more googling until you're satisfied. I'm very confident, based on the unusual sheer density of the sources on this mountain (Korea has a ton of mountains, many are obscure), that this one is notable. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no history of the mountain, which is what I was concerned about. No photos of the mountain on the article, no history besides characteristics that doesn't give a basic overview of the article itself. It's just baseless sources. I've done a little research on the mountain (I didn't think of googling it in Korean), and I didn't find any history. Have a look at WP:GEONATURAL. One more thing here, those sources you provided again are not precise at all. I read the whole article on the sources you've provided and it only briefly mentions it. Normanhunter2 (talk) 12:55, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (this is 211.43.120.242, posted while on the move) Again, please watch tone. My work is not baseless, you can disagree with it (as I still disagree with you), but I wouldn't describe your opinions that way.
    "Baseless" is not a precise word in the context of notability. Description of history is not a required feature for a page's notability, per the exact policy you linked 211.36.142.217 (talk) 03:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess we'll see what others think. Normanhunter2 (talk) 23:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fleshed out article more with sources. 211.43.120.242 (talk) 23:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:29, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per the Korean sources provided by 211.43.120.242 that clear WP:NGEO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps one challenge has been that there are other English transliterations of the Hangul for Jujaksan ("Chujak-san" and "Shujaku-san" turn up more results in English). I added these to the Wikidata item and linked the Wikipedia entry that exists in Cebuano. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per the sources found by 211.43.120.242 that shows it meets WP:GEONATURAL. I would also state my concern that the nominator refused to do a proper WP:BEFORE, and didn't even attempt to Google the topic of the article in its native language. B7 clearly states that "Check if there are interlanguage links, also in the sidebar, which may lead to more developed and better-sourced articles. Likewise, search for native-language sources if the subject has a name in a non-Latin alphabet (such as Japanese or Greek), which is often in the lead." The nominator also brings up not having a "History" section and the lack of a non-free use photo as reasons for deletion, neither which are reasons to delete nor grounded in any Wikipedia policies. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lottie Tomlinson[edit]

Lottie Tomlinson (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 believe this person fails WP:BIO, only sources I could find are passing mentions related to her more famous brother Louis Tomlinson or promotional tabloid stuff. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to 1966 FIFA World Cup squads#North Korea. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Ryong-woon[edit]

Kang Ryong-woon (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Meets WP:FOOTYN but not WP:SIGCOV. It seems that EchetusXe (the author) decided to create separate articles about all the players of the 1966 North Korean national team, which debuted at the World Cup. The articles of the other players look the same and, perhaps, should also be redirected. Tau Corvi (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Myong-sam[edit]

Kang Myong-sam (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:41, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 1988 AFC Asian Cup qualification#Group 3. I haven't found anything other than statistics that basically indicate that such a player existed. WP:SIGCOV I doubt that we can find much information about a North Korean football player on the Internet. Tau Corvi (talk) 13:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jong Su-hyok[edit]

Jong Su-hyok (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jong Kwang-sok[edit]

Jong Kwang-sok (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)

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Climate sensitivity. Owen× ☎ 07:28, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hot model[edit]

Hot model (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 article which can only be understood in terms of a larger inclusive subject, and one which must be covered in larger inclusive articles. It should not be a separate thing. Qwirkle (talk) 22:36, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Merge to an appropriate page as suggested by AE would be a workable solution.Qwirkle (talk) 17:11, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, after merging anything worthwhile into relevant topics (it isn't immediately clear which, since our coverage of climate change modelling seems fragmented as it is) . Merge. There is nothing in any source cited to justify treating the article topic as anything more than a single facet of a broader subject, and doing so is almost certainly detrimental to understanding of the science behind climate modelling. It is liable to give the misleading impression (at least, I hope it is misleading - if it isn't, it doesn't say much for scientific rigour) that specific climate models are being rejected solely because they give results which differ from those previously obtained. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not quite that. A subset models are being rejected because they give results that different from those previously obtained by other methods. Specifically, the models conflict with 'real world' data like satellite observations. This makes it more understandable that, when modelled data and empirical data conflict, most climate scientists prefer the empirical data. Still, you hit on the reason why this is an ongoing subject of debate, see e.g. [9][10] for accessible summaries. That is why I thought we have an article about the phenomenon and why I'm disappointed to see it nominated for deletion. If merged elsewhere, I think readers will struggle to find information on this subject specifically. – Joe (talk) 08:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my !vote to merge, after seeing Alalch E.'s suggestion to add this content to the Climate sensitivity article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not really sure how to respond to this nomination. The subject is clearly notable – the five sources cited in the article are just a small subset of those available. can only be understood in terms of a larger inclusive subject is not an argument for deletion I've encountered before and seems to be flatly contradicted by Wikipedia:Summary style. That it must be covered in larger inclusive articles and should not be a separate thing are just bare assertions, no? I obviously disagree. – Joe (talk) 08:21, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Notability: Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. The context here is obvious. And indeed, your comments above explaining that "models are being rejected because they give results that different from those previously obtained by other methods", and rejected when "data and empirical data conflict" provides it. Climate models in general are (or should be) assessed on the same premise, and may be rejected on the same basis. There is nothing specific to 'hot models' that makes their rejection atypical. It is climate modelling science working as it should: which doesn't require special treatment for a subset of cases being treated the same way as any other. Or separate Wikipedia articles.
As for readers struggling to find information, that is what redirects are for. Though frankly, I have my doubts that many interested in that particular subject would be searching for 'hot models' as a title anyway. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that they're not atypical. They do require special treatment, and that is why they are a distinct subject of significant coverage in both popular and scientific sources: [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24]. And note the use of the phrase 'hot models' specifically in all of those sources.
You and Qwirkle both appear to be arguing here that this subject is notable but doesn't merit a standalone article, but you haven't said why the context that is apparently missing can't just be added to the article, summary style; you haven't identified what that larger article should be; and you've !voted delete instead of merge. That doesn't make sense to me. – Joe (talk) 13:47, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote above, I haven't named any specific article to merge to because Wikipedia coverage of climate modelling is fragmented, and it is not at all clear where the material should be merged to. This fragmentation is not, in my opinion, in the best interests of a Wikipedia readership which is, one assumes, composed almost entirely on non-specialists looking for overviews and broad explanations of the science (which doesn't reject 'hot models' because they are 'hot'), rather than searching for two-word phrases that would in any other context would mean something else entirely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the below comment where I've pinged you, as I have identified the article to merge into. —Alalch E. 18:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, seems a sensible suggestion - I've revised my !vote. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:11, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the sourcing I cited above more than justifies a standalone article, though there's no reason it can't be covered in other articles as well. – Joe (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is merged, readers will not, as you said, struggle to find information on this subject specifically, because a reader who enters "hot model" into search will equally be directed to content about hot models, be it content segregated on a standalone page or the same content as part of a suitable broader article (the redirect can link to a section). There are thousands of sources about climate sensitivity, but only around a hundred-ish are cited in our article. There being many sources about something does not necessarily mean that the reader is better served by reading about that on a separate page. If merged, anyone, including you, will then be able to restore the article from the redirect to significantly expand the coverage beyond what is deserved in the climate sensitivity article, and the content merged into there will then be more or less a summary. A 'merge' outcome does not prevent that. Alternatively coverage in the hot models section can be expanded to the point where splitting out may begin to seem needed. The questions are really: what more is there to be said (not how many sources there are, saying the same or similar things or things that do not really belong in a general encyclopedia) and is the reader better served by reading this in the context of a broader topic or in isolation. Per WP:PAGEDECIDE, for the time being, it's better to cover this in context. —Alalch E. 19:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about how many sources there were. I said that the sources treat it as a distinct topic. We should follow them. – Joe (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to climate sensitivity per what Alalch has done. Corrected a couple of errors there. I would delete the run hot redirect, as it seems an implausible redirect. It's a technical topic, that is better covered with more context. The hot model problem is now discussed twice in the article, as it was there before already. It's also in the Climate_sensitivity#Testing,_comparisons,_and_estimates section. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 18:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to climate sensitivity per my longer comment above. This is better covered in context for the time being. WP:PAGEDECIDE applies. WP:MERGEREASON#4 (e: meant to say WP:MERGEREASON#5, see my reply below 20:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC)) also applies, but #2 and #3 apply as well. (The content has already been copied into the target article, which is not contentious, and obviously figures as an improvement to that article, so the nominated article as a separate article is redundant for the time being; merging does not prevent future expansion of the content underneath the source-article redirect.)—Alalch E. 19:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:MERGEREASON#4 is lack of notability. Are the 13 sources cited above not sufficient to meet the WP:GNG? #3 is "very short (consisting of perhaps only one or two sentences)". This article is already longer than that, and there is plenty of scope for expansion (it was nominated for deletion just six hours after creation). #2 is overlap with an existing topic. You've merged it to climate sensitivity, but that is just one aspect of the topic. Why not climate modelling or CMIP or impact of climate change? Because it's a distinct topic that doesn't fit wholly into any of them. – Joe (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I meant to write #5 (Context). I went by memory. #4 used to be context until recently, and I was unaware of the change; please see this diff. I retract #3. I meant that in the sense of the article seeming unlikely to expand much. The topic is an element of climate sensitivity estimates. Some estimates are widely considered to be implausible. It's probably where it should be primarily covered as it flows very naturally from preceding text. I had taken a look at two of the three articles you've linked (not the last one), and there was no good place to put this, organizationally, in those articles. If put into the models article that would be "some models have produced estimats that are widely considered to be implausible". And that's the same thing. That doesn't mean we can't use editorial judgement to pick one or the other place to put the content and use that place as the redirect target. The sources cover the hot models not only within the general topics of climate sensitivity and models but also in a particular historical context: the workings of the IPCC in the part that concerns model democracy. And that's not covered in any article as far as I can see. But climate sensitivity talks a lot about the reports so that could be one of the places to cover that aspect, and another place would be the IPCC article. —Alalch E. 20:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    the workings of the IPCC in the part that concerns model democracy seems like the real topic here. Look at this from 2010 referencing an opinion from 2006 about the problem, which only had its recent episode with the "hot models":

    Knutti, Reto (October 2010). "The end of model democracy?: An editorial comment". Climatic Change. pp. 395–404. doi:10.1007/s10584-010-9800-2. Retrieved 4 July 2024. Some recent publications suggest that 'the end of model democracy' (a quote first used by Vladimir Kattsov at an IPCC meeting in 2006) may be near, but the problem is far from trivial. In this issue, Smith and Chandler (2010) propose that for rainfall over the Murray Darling basin in south east Australia, present-day precipitation mean and variability are useful indicators for the evaluation of models, and they find that models performing well today show a more similar trend in the future. At least in their case, eliminating poor models therefore decreases the spread of the ensemble.

    "Hot models" are just a recent manifestation of something broader. The sources you've linked cover this episode in the context of this age old discussion in the field. —Alalch E. 21:08, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To me that sounds like we should have an article on model democracy as well, but I guess we're at different places on the article lumper-splitter spectrum. – Joe (talk) 21:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to climate sensitivity per above. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't think anyone has argued that this subject is not notable. Instead, this seems to be a merge discussion. I am not convinced that any WP:MERGEREASON applies. This seems to be a perfectly decent article that can be understood on its own and that links to other topics that provide further information if the reader wishes. I would argue that WP:NOMERGE criteria 2 and 3 apply. Joe Roe has listed a lot of additional references above, suggesting that the article could be further expanded. Mgp28 (talk) 15:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested, as presenting a more informative environment. Yes, this could in a pinch work as a standalone, but I'm not seeing the only obvious upside (easier expandability) as outweighing the benefit from having it embedded in its direct context. Breaking out stuff for expansion is easy enough; in the meantime, let's enjoy the same-page proximity of all background material (rather than having that hidden behind links). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ammar Kofi[edit]

Ammar Kofi (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)

Crosswiki spam of a singer of very doubtful notability. Long past the time limit for draftification without a consensus here, and I think deletion would be appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AbdolReza Razmjoo[edit]

AfDs for this article:
AbdolReza Razmjoo (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)

A previous article on this person was deleted at AFD in 2020. This one is different enough such that CSD G4 doesn't apply, but I still don't think he has received enough significant coverage in reliable sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. DanCherek (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Association for Business Communication[edit]

Association for Business Communication (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 indication of notability, cannot find sources besides routine press releases. Fails WP:NORG JayJayWhat did I do? 21:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 20:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Fujitsu#Fujitsu General. Liz Read! Talk! 19:05, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

General Airconditioners[edit]

General Airconditioners (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:BLAR was reverted, bringing it to AfD. Does not fulfill WP:NCORP due to lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. Redirect to Fujitsu#Fujitsu General Broc (talk) 20:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Wishbone Ash#Discography. Liz Read! Talk! 19:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raw to the Bone[edit]

Raw to the Bone (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)

Only minimal coverage of this album can be found to fulfill WP:NALBUM: a short review in The Ottawa Citizen and an entry with a star-rating but no additional comment in The encyclopedia of popular music. Not enough for notability, Redirect to Wishbone Ash#Discography Broc (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • There's way more than that out there, and I'll write a fully expanded, referenced article about this album when I have time. I'm working on their previous album at the moment. Until then, it should probably be a redirect. Bretonbanquet (talk) 20:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Lerner[edit]

Howard Lerner (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No indication of wp:notability under SNG or GNG. Basic resume type material. Was a journalist, then started a coffee house, then a coffee flavoring company and now runs a web design company. The closest thing to a GNG references is (circa now) #3 which is an interview. #1 is a bio on his employer's web site, #2 appears to be a self-written bio. Tagged by others for notability since January. North8000 (talk) 18:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

St. Silas Abba[edit]

St. Silas Abba (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)

There are only two sources backing this article: the first one is not to be found, while the second one refers to St. Silas instead. I suspect this person to be fictitious, and the article possibly a prank. Lone-078 (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of programmes broadcast by Zee Telugu#Drama series. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kalyana Vaibhogam (TV series)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kalyana Vaibhogam (TV series) (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)

With the exception of this (which is just a rehash of a social media post, the rest of the references are WP:NEWSORGINDIA all out of the same publication. A WP:BEFORE found no better references (note that this not the same as the film Kalyana Vaibhogam). Attempted a redirect as an WP:ATD but it was restored by an IP. CNMall41 (talk) 18:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 18:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 19:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Assembly Line[edit]

The Assembly Line (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, fails WP:NCORP. A search is tough due to the generic name, but what I could find was only trivial coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kerala Premier League. Liz Read! Talk! 19:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shooters United Padne[edit]

Shooters United Padne (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)

PROD and draftification contested by creator. No WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG (Google search). Teams must meet WP:GNG per WP:NTEAM. Notability is not inherited. C F A 💬 17:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Kanyadaan (2020 TV series)#Adaptations. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanyadan (Marathi TV series)[edit]

Kanyadan (Marathi TV series) (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)

Another WALLEDGARDEN of adaptions of television shows based on Kanyaadaana. Nominating this as opposed to mass deletion nomination in hopes of getting input on the others. This adaption is not notable as there is no significant coverage. The references are mainly about the original show or fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or otherwise unreliable. Redirect would be a good WP:ATD. CNMall41 (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The consensus of most participants is that this article subject is not notable. Liz Read! Talk! 03:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario A. Guerra[edit]

Mario A. Guerra (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:NPOL, WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. No sufficient source to satisfy any application specific or general criteria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Politicians, Cuba, and United States of America. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, mayors are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on significant reliable source coverage that enables us to write a substantial article about their political impact. This, however, features virtually none of the type of content (significant things he did, specific projects he spearheaded, specific effects his mayoralty had on the development of the city, etc.) that we would need to see, and is instead devoted almost entirely to things he did before or after the mayoralty rather than anything he did in the mayoralty — and it's referenced predominantly to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, while the few third-party footnotes come entirely from a weekly community hyperlocal rather than GNG-worthy media of record, and are mainly sourcing things like "former mayor has sports complex named after him" (which is not a notability criterion) and "former mayor pens open letter thanking the community" (which is really just another primary source, since he wrote it himself). This isn't what it takes to get a mayor over the wikibar. Bearcat (talk) 13:29, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG as these three sources have significant coverage and are independent as well, hence reliable:

He is a recipient of Romualdo Pacheco Award as well. [32] Macyramps (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I struggle to see any sourcing that points to the political impact of the subject, as Bearcat describes. The LA Times articles are a bit better, but one one of them is primarily about the subject, and even that article is just that he was selected to lead a regional association. --Enos733 (talk) 16:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "The association is made up of about 50 Southern California cities that run their own police and fire departments, hence the “independent” designation. Combined, they represent more than 7 million people." - it doesn't seem to be a regional association. Macyramps (talk) 08:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Non-notable local official. News coverage seems to be mostly passing mentions and WP:ROTM stories about his mayorship. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Small town mayor who didn't receive coverage for anything other than being a small town mayor. SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Excuse my naivety, but I believe the recent comments from fellow editors are not entirely accurate. The first comment suggests that the coverage is merely passing mention, yet there are several articles that provide significant coverage. The second comment labels him as just a small town mayor, but he holds other notable positions as well, such as President of the Independent Cities Association. He also ran for the state senate, won the Romualdo Pacheco Award, and serves as a Civilian Aide to the Secretary of the Army, a position that carries a three-star general protocol. I believe he meets the notability criteria. Maplelaple (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) — Maplelaple (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    My comment referenced the fact that if he wasn't a mayor, which is usually the notability hook, he wouldn't otherwise be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand, but the comments in this discussion seem contradictory. Some are saying there is no coverage about his mayoralty, while others claim the coverage is only about his mayoralty. Additionally, it is worth noting that he was the first refugee ever to be elected as Mayor of the City of Downey. I'm adding more sources below for further clarification:
Mayorship Coverage: [33], [34], [35] and [36]
Non-Mayorship Coverage:[37], [38], [39],[40],[41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46] and [47] Maplelaple (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a look, and the vast majority of those are simply local news coverage or are related to his political campaigns. I apologize, but I still don't see enough there to keep this. SportingFlyer T·C 16:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. The Keep arguments carry very little weight, but after three weeks, there is still no quorum to delete. Closing without prejudice against immediate renomination. Owen× ☎ 15:57, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erel Segal[edit]

Erel Segal (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:JOURNALIST, WP:GNG. No WP:SIGCOV, just dummy articles! Youknowwhoistheman (talk) 11:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kentucky Rain24, can you share your WP:THREE please? Journalists are among the hardest to research. gidonb (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • this provides an in depth look at Segal's political views and places them in the context of Israeli right wing media, and indicates notability beyond Israeli media
  • this is a lengthy, in-depth interview dedicated to Segal, in Israel's highest circulation mainstream newspaper. This alone satisfies WP:SIGCOV.
  • this provides English language coverage of a notable controversy he was involved with, showing notability beyond Israel (DW is a German broadcaster)
Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
#2 and #3 are not independent. BuzzFeed isn't very good but the journalist who wrote #1 is. gidonb (talk) 16:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Buzzfeed News is rated "green" and reliable on WP:RSNP. Why you'd think that ynet and deutsche welle are not independent of Segal is beyond me. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that these are interviews, quoted content, and shared sexism in a tv-show. Not independent content or SIGCOV. These media are actually good. Buzzfeed is acceptable because of the author. gidonb (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are misreading the defintion of "independent" - ""Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent."- an interview with Segal is not produced by him but by the paper and journalist interviewing him.
Regardless, while the DW article includes a very short quote from Segal, it is neither an interview nor focused on that quote. Instead, it describes the controversy Segal was involved with, with other 3rd parties commenting about Segal. Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll take another look and weigh again how much is independent content about Segal. Not ruling out any conclusion yet. gidonb (talk) 17:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: There's coverage that mentions him, such as the DW article, but these aren't about this person. This [48] also mentions him, but just barely as the article talks about his employer. We don't have enough substantial coverage to keep the article Oaktree b (talk) 03:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that "mentions him, but just barely " is a fair assessment of [49] - the article is about an event in which he is the main subject - his employer suspended him for something he did. He is the subject of both the headline and the sub-headline, he is the main topic of the first and second paragraphs ("The Kan public broadcasting corporation on Thursday suspended one of its anchors because he appeared in a video"; "News presenter Erel Segal was suspended, pending further notice, after the video was uploaded to Netanyahu’s Twitter account earlier Thursday."), he is mentioned in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs and is the subject of the 5th, there's a quote from the PM of Israel about him etc... Kentucky Rain24 (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A very well-known journalist in Israel, and there are many sources for this. In addition, he is also a writer (2 books) and a musician. (Full disclosure: I wrote the article). HaOfa (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Stock exchange. Owen× ☎ 14:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stock exchanges of small economies[edit]

Stock exchanges of small economies (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 page is confusion as small economies are not defined and so would make more sense to create an article for each country instead. I don't see how this article can be kept up to date and what should be included, would countries go in and out over time as their economies change? The current content is out of date, which could be fixed, but it comes back to the purpose of this article. I feel the best solution at this stage is to delete it. Sargdub (talk) 07:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep Article cites 4 research papers and 16 references on the very subject. The article could use some work, but it is obviously an important subject of study in both econ and development. On the criticism that it cannot stay up to date - how is it different than anything on wikipedia? Valuable start to a complex subject. Keep. Spencerk (talk) 12:30, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Stock exchange: This can be discussed topic in a broader article, which should be easier to navigate for users anyway. Only one of the papers focuses specifically on stock markets in smaller countries, and none of them appear to be important enough to have inline citations in the article. Even if sourcing is improved, WP: TNT is relevant, and there would need to be a very compelling reason why this is easier to navigate than putting it in the main Stock exchange article. I also think the Keep vote above grossly exaggerates the quality of sourcing in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Stock exchange My knee-jerk reaction is that I would love to read an article about how the stock exchanges of small economies are different from regular stock exchanges. It sounds educative and super neat. Upon viewing the article itself, however, that's not what it does. Upon a cursory look, almost all the sources cover individual stock exchanges, not small-economy stock exchanges as a concept. This article is arguably WP:OR for that reason. An article on small-economy stock exchanges could benefit the encyclopedia and its readers, but this is not that article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. czar 05:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize[edit]

Qiu Shi Science and Technology Prize (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)

Article from 2012 tagged for speedy deletion 12 years later as unambiguous advertising (criterion G11). The article does contain some promotional language (e.g. "The Qiu Shi Foundation was named after the famous Qiu Shi Academy" and "Cha was best known for his industrial prowess, building a multinational textile conglomerate.") but this is mostly a stub article on a Chinese research prize where there are some examples of the awards being newsworthy, see e.g. [50]. However, while the awards have made it into some news articles, I am unable to determine the independence or reliability of these sources, and none of them are cited in the current article. The sources I have found are also much more about the person receiving the award than the award itself. While the promotional language is not severe enough for it to warrant a speedy deletion, I am bringing it to AFD and recommending delete. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shen, Alice (2018-09-17). "Science prizes put technological innovation at the heart of China's progress. Prestigious Hong Kong science foundation rewards the brightest and the best". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "A chemist from mainland China has won a major Hong Kong science prize for his leading global research in the field of bio-inspired nano-materials, highlighting China’s pledge to become an innovation hub in its own right. Jiang Lei received a grant of one million yuan (US$150,000) as winner of the Qiu Shi outstanding scientist award at a ceremony on Saturday night at the University of Science and Technology of China in Hefei, Anhui province. ... The prestigious Qiu Shi annual awards – qiu shi means “quest for truth” – was established by the late Hong Kong industrialist and philanthropist Cha Chi-ming, father of Payson Cha Mou-sing, in 1994 and features Nobel laureate Yang Zhenning on its judging panel. Previous Qiu Shi Award winners include Tu Youyou, who went on to receive the Nobel Prize in medicine for the discovery of artemisinin, saving millions of lives from malaria; Pan Jianwei, who later led the launch of the world’s first quantum satellite; and Zhang Yitang, who proved a theorem that had eluded mathematicians for more than a century. This year, in addition to the main prize, 12 outstanding young scientists were each awarded a US$90,000 grant, over three years, in recognition of their returning to China, with all their scientific potential, after overseas education or employment. ... This year, the number of recipients of the outstanding young scientist prize grew from 10 to 12, in line with the foundation’s aim of luring more talent back to China."

    2. "People's Daily article". People's Daily. 2005. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "“求是杰出科学家奖”由香港求是科技基金会的设,这一基金会由查济民及其家族于 1994 年捐资 2000 万美元设立表基金会奖项其后每年评选颁发次,致力于奖励科技领域有成就的中国科技人才,努力推动国家科技进步,已累计奖励了包括“两弹元助"和"神舟五号功臣在内的数百位杰出科学家和 35 岁的潘建伟教授在量子信息论和量子基本问题等世界学术前沿领域取得的一系列开创性成果,"

      From Google Translate: "The "Qiushi Outstanding Scientist Award" was established by the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation, which was established by Cha Jimin and his family in 1994 with a donation of US$20 million. Chinese scientific and technological talents who have made achievements in the field of science and technology have worked hard to promote national scientific and technological progress, and have accumulated awards to hundreds of outstanding scientists including the "Two Bomb Yuanzhu" and "Shenzhou 5 Heroes" and 35-year-old Professor Pan Jianwei for his research in quantum information theory and A series of pioneering achievements in the world's academic frontier fields such as fundamental quantum problems, ..."

    3. Li, Lixia 李丽霞 (2019-09-22). Zhang, Yu 张玉 (ed.). "杨振宁获求是终身成就奖 系史上第二位该奖得主" [Yang Zhenning wins Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Award, becoming the second winner in history]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20 – via Sina Corporation.

      The article notes: "据悉，香港求是科技基金会1994年由著名爱国实业家査济民先生创立，秉持“雪中送炭”的宗旨，积极坚持和倡导“科学精神，人文情怀”的核心理念。1994至2019年，共有358位在数学、物理、化学、生物医学及工程信息等科技领域中有杰出成就的中国科学家获得基金会奖励。其中“求是终身成就奖”2位，“杰出科学家奖”31位、“杰出青年学者奖”192位、以及 “杰出科技成就集体奖” 133位（涉及16个重大科研项目，如青蒿素、人工合成牛胰岛素、塔里木盆地沙漠治理、铁基超导、神舟飞船等）。"

      From Google Translate: "It is reported that the Hong Kong Qiushi Science and Technology Foundation was founded in 1994 by Mr. Cha Jimin, a famous patriotic industrialist. Adhering to the purpose of "providing timely assistance", it actively adheres to and advocates the core concept of "scientific spirit and humanistic feelings". From 1994 to 2019, a total of 358 Chinese scientists with outstanding achievements in science and technology fields such as mathematics, physics, chemistry, biomedicine and engineering information received awards from the foundation. Among them, there are 2 "Qiushi Lifetime Achievement Awards", 31 "Outstanding Scientist Awards", 192 "Outstanding Young Scholar Awards", and 133 "Outstanding Scientific and Technological Achievement Group Awards" (involving 16 major scientific research projects, such as artemisinin, synthetic bovine insulin, Tarim Basin desert control, iron-based superconductors, Shenzhou spacecraft, etc.)."

    4. Zhu, Lixin (2015-09-20). "TCM doctor receives 'grand award' from Qiu Shi foundation". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-06-20. Retrieved 2024-06-20.

      The article notes: "An 83-year-old Traditional Chinese Medicine doctor was among recipients of Hong Kong Qiu Shi Science and Technologies Foundation awards on Saturday. ... The Outstanding Scientific Research Team Award went to the Hepatitis E Vaccine team from Xiamen University，which invented the world’s first recombinant Hepatitis E Vaccine and made it available on the market in 2012. Ten other young scientists from seven universities and institutes received the Outstanding Young Scholar Award."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Qiu Shi Awards (simplified Chinese: 求是奖; traditional Chinese: 求是獎) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:21, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aydoh8 (talk | contribs) 08:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep another easy @Cunard sourcing win, truly one of the GOATs of AfD. BrigadierG (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎ under CSD:G11. Owen× ☎ 22:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Khan (theoretical futurist)[edit]

Ian Khan (theoretical futurist) (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 wanted to WP:DRAFTIFY as this is a rather obvious WP:PAID or WP:COI case. However, I see no chance the subject, even after a radical cleanup of the article, could fulfill notability criteria. Absolutely no coverage in reliable sources, only promotional articles. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF Broc (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ishaq Madni[edit]

Muhammad Ishaq Madni (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)

Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. I cannot find any WP:RS about this subject that could help establish GNG. Also, his YouTube channel barely has 210k subscribers, definitely not notable. Leithiani (talk) 13:48, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Malinaccier (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis D'Arcy[edit]

Dennis D'Arcy (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. An newspapers.com search found no SIGCOV. This Dennis D'Arcy isn't to be confused with the one that died in a car accident in 1963 or the non league footballer for Watton. Dougal18 (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Scotland. Shellwood (talk) 13:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Montrose F.C.#Other notable players where he is mentioned as a 'Hall of Fame' inductee. GiantSnowman 19:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dougal18 and GiantSnowman: The British Newspaper Archive seems to bring up some coverage, e.g. [53] [54] [55]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't have access, what do the sources say, is it significant enough in your view? GiantSnowman 20:01, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I forgot to check the BNA. I don't have access so I can't read the sources, just the headlines.Dougal18 (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Source #1 (1980) is about ~400 words on him being hired as a coach. It says, excluding some quotes from D'Arcy and content on the club rather than him (note that spelling may not be perfect):

    FORMER Montrose and Arbroath centre half Dennis D’Arcy last night became the new player-coach Peterhead. The powerful pivot has accepted the club's terms ... Dennis spent 10 seasons with Montrose and had a three-month spell at Qayfield and there has been a rush for his services, with Elgin City and Clach being unsuccessful. D'Arcy takes over from team manager Colin Grant, who has stepped down to become the club's first commercial manager. Dennis should be personality player for the Recreation Park side, though he would not be drawn on where he would play. With big John Slevwright and former schoolboy international James Taylor having held down the central defensive bertha for the past three seasonk, there could be some rearguard reshuffle on the cards, but the new boss has an open mind. Peterhead chairman Robbie Warrender raid last night: "Dennis made a highly favourable Impression on our committee and we feel «fe have fixed up the right type of man get us back among the honoura. “We are meeting Dennis again next week to discuss certain details of how things will be run, but after going through a great many names, we are happy with our choice of player-coach." ... Peterhead will have big Charlie Barbour, signed from Arbroath, leading the attack next season and if new boas D’Arcy can build an attack round Barbour, then Buchan hopes will be high. Dennis will be hoping he Is as successful in North soccer as was his brother, Brian D’Arcy, who won two Highland League championship medals with Inverness Thistle in the early 7ds.

    Source #2 (1983) is about him returning to Montrose. It states:

    Dennis D’Arcy, one of the most popular players ever to wear a Montrose F.C. shirt, last Wednesday took over as manager of the club, thirteen days after the shock resignation of Steve Murray. Dennis was a Montrose player for almost 11 years. He has maintained friendly links with the club and has been a regular visitor since he was given a surprise free transfer in 1980. During his eleven years at the club as a player D'Arcy was involved in Montrose F.C.’s most successful era. They finished third in the old second division in 1974- 75, the last season before reconstruction then the following season finished third in the new Division One. Their cup exploits too, put the club in the limelight. In 1975 they reached the Eeaguc Cup semi-final beating Hibs along the way before losing to Rangers. In the Scottish Cup they came within seconds of beating Hearts before finally losing after two replags. n leaving Montrose D’Arcy played with Arbroath for a short spell, followed this with a period as playermanager at Peterhead, then most recently played with Deveronvale. The new manager takes over at a time when the club’s fortunes are at their lowest for many years. They lie third bottom of the league and suffered a Scottish Cup defeat at the hands of grora Rangers. D’Arcy aims to recapture the spirit of the successful sides of the 1970’s and the directors have promised him their full support. He is under no illusions about the task which lies ahead or the amount of hard work required, but is calling on the players to back him 1n his efforts. A small amount of cash could be made available to the new boss but Montrose will not be embarking on any spending sprees and every member of staff will be given the chance to prove that they have a part to play.

    Source #3 (1973) is about him being 'confident' of victory in the Scottish cup. Content includes:

    The tie will provide one of the brightest Montrose prospects, Aberdonian Dennis D'Arcy, a 21-year-old former schoolboy international centre half, with his toughest test yet for his immediate opponent is John Duncan, clear leader in the Scottish First Division ... D'Arcy, whose brother Brian plays for Inverness Thistle, has made steady improvement this season and he's not losing sleep over his impending clash with Duncan ... A former pupil of Aberdeen Grammar School, D'Arcy attracted the attention of Everyton, Charlton, Leicester and Bristol Rovers during his spell with Walker Road Youth Club. He is still young enough to revive English interest in his future and a good display against Duncan could do the trick.

    @Dougal18 and GiantSnowman: BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    These look OK to me, I'm inclined to keep if the article can be updated accordingly with this info/sourcing? GiantSnowman 16:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Those are just routine match previews and contract signings. Dougal18 (talk) 09:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean towards Keep Over 300 Scottish football league games played, there are some sources about to show basic GNG, article could do with a cleanup for sure, but the negation is not a reason for deletion. Govvy (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The sources provided by BeanieFan11 appear to be enough to meet WP:NBASIC as they go beyond trivial coverage. Let'srun (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If the consensus is against keeping, redirect to Montrose F.C.#Other notable players as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 22:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Montrose F.C.#Other notable players. Doesn't pass WP:FOOTYN since he played for semi-professional teams. By the way, the article says he was "turning professional", although this is not true, apparently. I'm not sure that the archived articles listed above meet WP:SIGCOV. Tau Corvi (talk) 17:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of sentences a decade is not "long term coverage". That source is not sigcov. Dougal18 (talk) 08:55, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Broc (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lithonia (song)[edit]

Lithonia (song) (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)

Redirect to Bando Stone & the New World was undone, hence the AfD. The song does not fulfill (yet?) WP:NSONG, I propose a Redirect to the album Broc (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Oppose. Both the song and album have been receiving a lot of coverage the past two days [(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)], as well as some earlier coverage such as (12). They simply just need to be incorporated into Wikipedia as only three of these sources appear in either article, with both having at max five sources with minimal text. Most record charting groups close their tracking week in a couple days anyways, so it's bound to chart before a full AfD can pass. Koopastar (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the previous voter, there are easily enough sources to indicate that the song is getting reliable coverage in its own right, and not just as a teaser for the upcoming album. Those were available at the time of the AfD and would have been noticed via a WP:BEFORE search. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 12:15, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this song has received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. I agree with the above discussion about it. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to Speedy keep and withdrawing my nomination. Other users have shown sufficient coverage for the topic to fulfill notability requirements. Broc (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 13:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Principal Mutual Fund India[edit]

Principal Mutual Fund India (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 company page fails to meet WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH, as most of its citations focus on trivial coverage according to WP:ORGTRIV. TCBT1CSI (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Pakistani films of 1991. ✗plicit 13:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medan-e-Jang[edit]

Medan-e-Jang (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)

Recreated in mainspace after draftification, so I'm bringing this to AfD. No evidence of notability, very few results pop up in an Internet search. Perhaps editors with knowledge of Pakistani sources can help dig deeper. Broc (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Gunter[edit]

Greg Gunter (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 notability from the sources used, nothing else pops up in a WP:BEFORE. Does not fulfill WP:GNG Broc (talk) 11:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasa Denticity[edit]

Vasa Denticity (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability. The closest GNG appearing source is #1 which appears to be a copy of their self-bio. The others are just financial announcements etc. Creater is indeffed for COI promotional editing. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 04:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zuby Nehty[edit]

Zuby Nehty (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 meet WP:BAND criteria. The article is also poorly sourced. FromCzech (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Ceylan Ertem. Liz Read! Talk! 23:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anima (band)[edit]

Anima (band) (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:BAND — doesn't appear to have "been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself". Popcornfud (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Ceylan Ertem: As stated above, it's a short-lived band with little lasting coverage. I support a redirect to Ceylan Ertem but no prejudice to deletion in case the other members turn out to be individually notable, and their bios are created, redirecting to one of the members may be problematic. As this is not the case at this time, redirecting to the lead singer appears to be the most constructive. Aintabli (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ceylan Ertem: I support the redirecting though without any prejudice whatsoever to deletion. Ertem was just the founder and sang only one song/album in the group, but that doesn't mean their is any credible thing to note about this band. The band doesn't meet WP:NBAND but I am quite certain why this shouldn't be straight delete since there was no SIGCOV during the existence and even, the disbanding. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 17:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alientrap[edit]

Alientrap (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)

Appears to fail WP:NCORP, a search for sources only turned up primary ones in the form of interviews, and mentions in unreliable outlets. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hyperbeard Games[edit]

Hyperbeard Games (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 heavily with a lack of significant coverage about the company itself. They only seem known for the fine they paid to the FTC. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:47, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment mobilegamer.biz, yayomg.com IgelRM (talk) 18:20, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. The sources provided in the comment above, the first is based entirely on an interview, fails ORGIND, and the second is a review of one game, fails CORPDEPTH. HighKing++ 17:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 05:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parliamentary Business[edit]

Parliamentary Business (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 stub is essentially an 'About Us' page for a publication that no longer exists. It appears as though it was intended to advertise the publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TiredMango (talk • contribs) 05:21, 3 Jul 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Spindler[edit]

Rebecca Spindler (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 in 2014. Only 2 articles link to this: Bush Heritage Australia and List of people named Rebecca. She has written a fair few articles but don't think she meets WP:PROF or WP:AUTHOR. ‎ LibStar (talk) 04:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.australiangeographic.com.au/tag/rebecca-spindler/ https://theconversation.com/profiles/rebecca-spindler-1249/articles CSIRO publishing (Aus government's leading science research organisation) https://ebooks.publish.csiro.au/author/Spindler%2CRebecca LPascal (talk) 07:52, 7 July 2024 (UTC) More sources showing impact outside academia:https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS Led a project to stop coral bleaching on Great Barrier Reef; she c-authored a paper on indicators to measure the impact of biodiversity research https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS ; her research has helped in the preservation of one of Australia's threatened species, the Tasmanian Devil https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:OTRS.LPascal (talk) 14:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Pawelec[edit]

Jan Pawelec (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 of this Polish businessman, written like WP:PROMO, may fail WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Pawelec has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Polish political party. My search do not show anything better than primary sources. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:19, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Likely a flawed translation of the Polish version, which has identical content. Sourcing might be largely in Polish and hard to find. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:19, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiseday Financial Inc[edit]

Wiseday Financial Inc (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 company. References are primary sources (press releases). Runmastery (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: References don't appear to be accessible at all: the URLs just link to home pages. The titles do appear to indicate press releases on the most part, coming from Cision, a public relations company.
Article is a bit promotional, but there is one legitimate source I could find, plus some routine coverage of it raising funding
Likely should be deleted, but doesn't have *no* sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be kept if there are any more of those (which is probably false, unfortunately) Mrfoogles (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 03:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lybrate[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lybrate (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)

Unable to find a news which is not a PR. Funding, launches, and announcements are all they have. Even the creator came only to create the page. Lordofhunter (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:43, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: One source that doesn't look like an ad: this one. So at least one source of significant coverage. The other articles could have been paid for, but might not all be: even if they sound ad-like, they could still be reliable coverage: we don't know. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main problem in this AFD is that it is unclear whether the articles are paid or not. If they are not, obviously Keep because it has an enormous amount of coverage, but if (given what the Reliable Sources Noticeboard says about unreported sponsored business content in Indian news) we just use the non-Indian business news sources, I think it likely has to be a Delete because I don't see many of those. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mrfoogles You are again sharing the funding related link from the source whose reliability is questionable as per WP:RSPSS I can't see any research done by a journalist. Lordofhunter (talk) 08:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. This discussion can't be closed as a Soft Deletion so we really need to hear from more editors here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to PK-42 Abbottabad-I as a valid ATD against which a case has not been made (vs. an opinion cast) Star Mississippi 02:05, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Nawaz Khan Jadoon[edit]

Ahmad Nawaz Khan Jadoon (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 NPOL as well GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:23, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Square dance. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Western promenade dance[edit]

Western promenade dance (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 could find very little coverage about this dance. The article was PRODed in 2022 with the rationale being it is indistinct from square dance, but this is not clear due to the lack of coverage. Was later dePRODed with the suggestion to redirect to square dance or country–western dance. I would slightly prefer deletion but I'm okay with redirecting. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's discussed in square dance books here [56] in a bit of detail and here [57] in no detail. It really doesn't seem to be used much as a term. I think redirect to Square dance is best considering the article's long life, although even this is a stretch as it seems to be linked only by lists of dances (including one that redirects to this one). Oblivy (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian College[edit]

Canadian College (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 and independent coverage. Northern Moonlight 01:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added a citation to improve article. https://thepienews.com/tokyo-based-travel-group-acquires-canadian-college/ Jerclark (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A single article about a business acquisition from 2017 (and nothing else) unfortunately isn’t enough coverage. Northern Moonlight 07:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Everyone Asked About You. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Be Enemies[edit]

Let's Be Enemies (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 another in a long string of totally unacceptable edits by User:BigChungusOnVinyl who routinely makes entire articles that fail WP:NOTABLE or just have no reliable sources at all. Note that he has also uploaded the two covers to c: as copyvios. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:58, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Everyone Asked About You. Complete notability fail. The two sources included in this article are from the original release's record label and the band's Bandcamp page; both primaries which convey zero notability. The lone reliable coverage I could find is what I included in Never Leave#Background and recording, and that is definitely not enough for a standalone article. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:32, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irina Nikolaeva[edit]

Irina Nikolaeva (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. PROD removed without explanation. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:59, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If there are reliable sources you've found, please list them in this discussion or add them to the article, don't just allude to their existence,
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:44, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still seeking more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Of the sources linked by Let'srun above, 1 is a profile on the (defunct) website of her skating coach (and thus not independent), 2 and 3 are blogs, and 4 is not WP:SIGCOV. Sources in the article don't qualify toward WP:GNG or WP:NSPORT, and as nominator points out she doesn't meet WP:NSKATE. If more sources are found, please ping me and I'll take another look. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be redirected to ISU Junior Grand Prix in Germany#Women's singles, ISU Junior Grand Prix in France#Women's singles or ISU Junior Grand Prix in Canada#Women's singles. Doesn't meet WP:NSKATE, she hasn't won World Junior Figure Skating Championship, only the intermediate stages of the Junior Grand Prix. Also doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV in Russian or foreign media. Tau Corvi (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely zero value in redirecting to any of those. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:28, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Ulterior Motives (song). Liz Read! Talk! 01:06, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ulterior Motives (The Lost Album)[edit]

Ulterior Motives (The Lost Album) (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)

Zero coverage in reliable sources. Does not meet notability guidelines. Skyshiftertalk 00:39, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As of now, there are 9 sources, only 4 of which are social media. Kierandude (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. Draftify. Give it some time and more sources should be able to be found. Kierandude (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've now !voted three times - you should strike your previous votes. Also please note that iMDb and Reddit do not pass WP:RS, and Amazon only proves that this album exists, not that it's notable. The only reliable sources are the ones from Rolling Stone, and they don't talk about the album. Richard3120 (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
“Christopher: So what we’re gonna do is release the song, and if people like it and they want to hear more, we’re prepared to release a whole album of tracks that sound a lot like that” Kierandude (talk) 12:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talking vaguely about a possible future album isn't talking about Ulterior Motives (The Lost Album), and even if it was, it would be just a passing mention. Skyshiftertalk 13:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That quote was from just after EKT had been found, in which Chris talks about possibly releasing an album if a rerelease of EKT was successful. The album he is referring to IS Ulterior Motives. 2405:6E00:28EC:2F23:A91A:50F9:B7ED:AC03 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One quote from one of the song's writers saying "we are going to make an album" is not an independent source and hardly enough to create an entire article about it. Richard3120 (talk) 02:19, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol nobody is deleting
we have like 4 other options and nobody votes delete Kierandude (talk) 13:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Vote. Kierandude (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Ulterior Motives (song). Most people view that song as the most notable aspect of the album. PortalPuppy31 (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's an unusual album in several ways (containing lost media, recorded decades ago, released ahead of schedule, etc.). More time may be needed. -ProhibitOnions (T) 19:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "unusual" is not an indicator of notability. I also don't see how "more time" is needed — so far the album has received zero mentions in any reliable sources, and it is unlikely that it will. Either way, if this discussion results in redirect or similar and the album does get notability in the future, the article can be recreated. Skyshiftertalk 22:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus. But this article doesn't need to be draftified as the content creator has already created Draft:Ulterior Motives - The Lost Album which is likely a copy of the main space article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did. I’m trying to preserve the article. Preserve. Preserve. You get it, preserve. Kierandude (talk) 14:09, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_July_3&oldid=1233857036"