Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

13 December 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Purge server cache

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Unsourced BLP. No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV scope_creepTalk 14:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As it stands now there clearly is not a consensus for any course of action. Hopefulyy another week will remedy that.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Franks (landowner) (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)

William Franks was a british landowner that helped in construction of Fitzrovia District, Percy Street, Rathbone Street and Charlotte Street. This article was marked for speedy deletion due to lack of importance in 2015 but was shortly unmarked to help the creator expand it. A lot of new information and sources were added since then but i still think its is not notable. Being a landowner in British Empire does not make him automatically notable. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No good rationale for deletion. Pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this is one of those really tragic cases where we have a genuine nice little story that's of interest, but it's in the wrong place. This article is basically a nice bit of local history research, but relies very, very heavily on primary sources of information. It should be published somewhere. But Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia based on secondary sources, not a place to publish research. I don't want to say delete because I enjoyed reading it, but it really, really doesn't belong here. Elemimele (talk) 16:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Disagree with the keep vote. The deletion rationale is clearly that this is not notable. It does not meet GNG because there are no secondary sources. Perversely, contrary to the keep !vote, it looks like we are actually thinking of keeping it because of WP:ILIKEIT. Or rather, we like the original research done by the writer of the page. And yes, that is a nice collation of the information from primary sources. I hope that Philafrenzy has a copy, and would suggest that a userfied copy be made available to them if this is deleted. But it is not an encyclopaedic page. This is the wrong project for this information. A site that could make use of much of this information would be Family Search, which allows user content to provide referenced primary source information about people. See [1]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you look at this editor's other AfD nominations, the rationale is almost always essentially WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which is why most of them have been rejected out of hand. They have also stated that they nominate articles for AfD because it's "relaxing"! Comments like A lot of new information and sources were added since then but i still think its is not notable and Being a landowner in British Empire does not make him automatically notable (italics mine) tend to imply this rather than a decent, properly thought out reason. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see that there were indeed rather a lot of nominations in quick succession, and that tends to overwhelm the effort at AfD. I am striking my delete in favour of a procedural/speedy keep. This was discussed recently in another context, and is sometimes allowed. My hope is that this will be closed as keep or no consensus with no prejudice against a better argued renomination (although perhaps not by the same nom.). My thoughts are unchanged. We don't have any secondary sources here, and this is the wrong project for histories synthesised from primary sources, but if we are going to take them down, let's do it in a more careful manner. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While I understand the reasoning, I do not believe this qualifies for a speedy keep. The nomination mentions notability, and that is almost always the core argument in deletion discussions, and several comments indicate they don't think this should be an article even if they don't agree with the reasons presented in the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 01:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Lekressner (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 was unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this American soccer player to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 01:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kealan Patrick Burke (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 subject appears to fail WP:GNG as well as higher bars at WP:NACTOR and WP:NAUTHOR. Note, not every Bram Stoker Award recipient is inherently notable. JFHJr () 00:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]