Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 16	December 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Church

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

Not sure why this minor group of nuns has it's own article but I cannot find secondary sources covering them. My searches turn up more information on a Ugandan group with the same name. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:15, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Palang

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Qatar-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 21:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:14, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: PROD was declined, citing potential coverage in Arabic sources; ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 22:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary-Catherine Deibel

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

A local celebrity only, with an interview and an obituary in The Boston Globe. A redirect to her restaurant, Upstairs On the Square, is an option. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandkorn-Theater

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

Created in 2011 as a translation from German wikipedia, hasn't expanded since 13 years. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Germany. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because it hasn't expanded doesn't mean it's not notable - unfortunately the German wikipedia only has one source so there'll have to be a source search done. SportingFlyer T·C 19:25, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German Wikipedia article has no sources; it has a link to the theater's homepage only. Searching for reliable sources will be hard because it's a semiprofessional theater only, and most mentions will be in guidebooks that list just any other location in the city too, meaning they're no indicator of notability. 13 years and still less information in this article than on Maps shows how notable this location is.

The reason this article is still live on the German Wikipedia is because there, notability is not based on independent coverage. By the way, there are actually three theaters in this building, and there is no reason to prefer one over the other, so rename this article or create articles for the other two theaters too?

I tend to soft delete or at least draftify. While WP:Deletion is not cleanup and I don't want to exclude the possibility that the theater has notability, Wikipedia's reputation is based on articles with reliable information; in this form, the article should never have existed. Killarnee (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't find that to be the case with a source search - there's multiple mentions in both Google Books and Google Scholar, though nothing which instantly tells me that it is clearly notable. I'm not sure it is notable independently of the complex where the two other theatres exist, but I think there's a chance it is notable if someone wants to adopt it. SportingFlyer T·C 03:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the nature of businesses like theaters that there is something published, because publicity is important for this branch. But do the sources you found just mention the theater or are they about the theater itself? Killarnee (talk) 04:37, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My German isn't very good - that's why I mentioned that I didn't see anything that was a clear pass, just mentions, but it has been mentioned more than other articles I've occasionally come across at Afd. SportingFlyer T·C 07:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:30, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of Spiritism

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

the timeline is not notable, and it is not supported by significant reliable sources Drew Stanley (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:16, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Tel Aviv truck attack

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LASTING, seems to be WP:NOTNEWS. E_F⁵ 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Israel. E_F⁵ 19:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Kept five weeks ago, with very few delete opinions. Geschichte (talk) 20:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No lasting effects, all news is from over a month ago at this point. The media cycle has moved on it seems. Two deaths is rather routine and nothing out of the ordinary, even in a regular traffic accident. This isn't the Yonge Street attack in Toronto where a dozen people got caught... Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There appears to be coverage after the first week. LASTING and NOTNEWS definitely apply. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of vehicle-ramming attacks or Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2024. Concerns above do apply but it is in the scope of those two lists. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marginally prefer the first target (also any merge should be very cut down). PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm not aware of much continued coverage so far (it's still early), but that isn't strictly required, and the initial coverage was quite extensive, easily meeting WP:N(E)'s standard of very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources. There are far too many RS to list, probably 100+. Just to mention some of the largest: BBC, NBC, CBS, Reuters, Al Jazeera, NPR. The article needs work but there's ample source material. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

XDanielx, your quoted standard refers to national or international impact, but I'm not sure any of your linked sources go over that in any detail? Can you clarify what you believe the lasting effects are? Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: I was thinking of the human toll (a death and 30-40 injuries), but on second thought maybe impact is a gray area. I think ultimately since WP:N(E) has no hard requirements, we have to consider multiple factors, but the WP:DIVERSE factor certainly supports inclusion. I also just feel that when coverage is so extensive, the WP:GNG presumption should carry weight, leading us to default to inclusion unless there's a particularly strong argument for why it would fail WP:N(E). — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While they may be WP:DIVERSE sources, no sources extend past a few days after the event. This attack has no WP:LASTING impact and no WP:SUSTAINED coverage. And while I understand that I should WP:FOC with this, I think it's important to note that the article creator wrote the page while the news was still WP:BREAKING, and has been PBlocked for these creations, something which should be relevant here as the article was created regardless of the event's impact. E_F⁵ 17:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Setting aside the burst of coverage immediately after (the guideline's language), there was still significant coverage days after the event, like [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Most of that was 2-3 days after, though the last was Dec 2.

I wouldn't say WP:PERSISTENCE particularly favors inclusion, but this doesn't exactly fail the standard either. In any case it's only one factor, not a requirement, while other factors like WP:DIVERSE favor inclusion.

I don't think the author's motivations should be considered, particularly since that was a while ago and this already survived one AfD. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Stay is a fact with significant coverage and great impact on Israeli society that is going through moments of fight against terrorism. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 16:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@190.219.101.225: Can I get a few examples of significant and lasting coverage, and that this event had long-lasting, if any, impacts on Israeli society? E_F⁵ 16:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just noting that the prior AFD was just held last month. It's pretty soon for a return trip to AFDLand. But I'm relisting this discussion as I don't see a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pál Székely

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:33, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely based on primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 16:09, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Another one who looks notable in Hungary. Found this [8] in Magyar Nemzet, This [9] [] in Nemzeti Sport. In Blikk newspaper there is is this [10] I've only looked at a few Hungarian papers so there may be a lot more. Any thoughts?Canary757 (talk) 07:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above sources identified by Canary757. That Magyar Nemzet article is a brilliant example of sigcov (and even has other outlets reporting on parts of it). Further coverage can be found in Index.hu, M4sport.hu, 24.hu, further coverage in Index.hu and Origo.hu. Trouble is that googling "Pal Székely" rarely returns any coverage because of Hungarian naming customs which put the name as "Székely Pal", but googling the latter or "Székely Penge" finds some very strong coverage indicating he's nationally notable in Hungary. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Nemzet article has only a paragraph of coverage; the rest is interview quotes which do not count towards GNG as primary and non-independent. The first three other sources also appear to be just Q&A interviews. Can you find some non-interview coverage of him? JoelleJay (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

János Végső

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:59, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely based on primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 16:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relist~~ I think this one warrants more investigation. Significant coverage in the Hungarian Sports newspaper Nemzeti Sport such as [11] and [12]. Also some here on Blikk website.[13] A google search for his name and nemzeti sport shows multiple strong hits so may well be notable in Hungary. Canary757 (talk) 07:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above coverage (though the Nemzeti Sport links seem to be the same one), with even more coverage available in Hungarian language websites - Hatharom, Nemzeti Sport and interviewed in part in Bunteto. Interestingly, Nemzeti Sport in an article specifies that there was "another final success, but not from János"... that's gotta be at least some sign of notability that they've gotta specifically mention it wasn't him, right? Anyway, further research would benefit from using the Hungarian-language versions of his name - either "Végső János" or "Végső Jánosnak". ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 10:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Good extra source addedCanary757 (talk) 13:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Simpsons Funday Football

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

One-off program lacking in non-routine coverage. Could redirect or merge to Monday Night Football#2024 summary as an WP:ATD. Esolo5002 (talk) 20:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to the Monday Night Football article. It's gotten about as much coverage as the Toy Story version (that was quickly forgotten), this would likely be headed in the same direction. Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and American football. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Monday Night Football#2024 summary. A single line explaining how it went is fine enough. I'd also be open to eventually having a list of these types of games, List of animated NFL games or similar. Conyo14 (talk) 23:01, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not surprised to see this nomination, but I don't think we're going to see a delete here since trying to get a Simpsons subject matter article removed/redirected...well, I think we all know how hard that is (see how we're still trying to get action on two-review sourced Family Guy episode articles from seasons ago even now). We really need to create an article that sums up NFL alternate broadcasts (including the Nickelodeon versions) that will properly catalog them in an appropriate way. Placing this in the MNF article as a sentence I don't think is an elegant solution (the Toy Story broadcast was a one-off of an international NFL game on Sunday morning while this was clearly upfront much more). Nate • (chatter) 23:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me I think it’s best to merge with Manningcast since it’s considered as a MNF alternative broadcast) since we can just make another paragraph in listing and mentioning both the Toy Story and Simpsons funday football there Hoopstercat (talk) 19:13, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have anything to do with Manningcast though? SportingFlyer T·C 19:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not part of the Manningcast. Such content is on ESPN Megacast#Funday Football instead. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge worth mentioning somewhere here, but it's new and currently falls afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 00:30, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, fails WP:NSPORTSEVENT at this time. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 17:51, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that I think the better target would be the appropriate section of the ESPN Megacast article, which it seems more relevant to than the general MNF page. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 07:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ESPN Megacast#Funday Football instead. Editors are welcome to improve that article. In any case, we should treat the concept of ESPN Megacasts/alternative broadcasts as a series that does not merit standalone articles to individual episodes/broadcasts. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the above Andre🚐 03:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which one? There are two targets being suggested. Conyo14 (talk) 06:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to either target, I slightly prefer ESPN Megacast#Funday Football. The important thing is that this separate article is not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per many users above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:57, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have even numbers for two different Redirect/Merge target articles so I'm relisting to try to determine which would be preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:20, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, after reviewing this I also agree that ESPN Megacast#Funday Football is probably a slightly better merge target than my previous proposal. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:54, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Division of City Schools–Valenzuela

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

None of the refs provide WP:SIGCOV or surpass WP:GNG. Most just show passing mention, or do not even mention the subject of the article at all. For example, this is about mayor Win Gatchalian address... we don't usually create articles about an address of a mayor. Other refs are WP:SELFPUBLISHED sources. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Philippines. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:26, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling the attention of the participants of the original AFD (Hariboneagle927 and AstrooKai). Howard the Duck (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. The division is not notable. Some of the schools that have their articles are already listed or under Category:Schools in Valenzuela, Metro Manila so I'm not sure if the tons of other non-notable schools can be merged to List of schools in Metro Manila because I think it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE (this article seems to be listing all of the schools in Valenzuela). I guess a stand-alone list can be created to accommodate some of the schools listed here based on WP:LSC?AstrooKai (Talk) 00:09, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Previous AFD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Schools Division Office of Taguig City and Pateros, so not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viktoriya Adiyeva

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

Disputed PROD. Fails significant coverage criteria. Editor who disputed the PROD said there are lots of sources but did not add anything to the article and I can not find anything that would amount to significant coverage. Shrug02 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Ice hockey, and Kazakhstan. Shrug02 (talk) 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Diego Garcia (footballer, born 1997)

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

This player went from Maia, Portugal to Italy just like Bruno Fernandes but that's where the similarity ends. Played four substitute games (67 minutes) in Italian third tier, then disappears off the radar for eight years until he's playing in Spain's fifth tier. I know it's not a reliable source for an article, but it is completionist, and Transfermarkt [14] indicates in that time he was playing at extremely low levels in Italy, Spain and Croatia. I know that mainstays and top scorers in Serie C will have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, but it's hard to apply that to someone whose peak was at this relatively low level for just 67 minutes. Unknown Temptation (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This player is a small albeit very important island in the Indian Ocean. Apart from that, I can't find anything, and he would have even failed our old WP:SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Very weak to establish notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ricardinho Costa

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

Professional career was under one minute in the second division for a reserve team when he was 19, no record of even his amateur career carrying on past 22. [15] Perhaps the biggest example possible of the defunct WP:NFOOTY clearly not aligning with WP:GNG Unknown Temptation (talk) 19:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete – Very weak to establish notability. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:10, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Christopher (radio host)

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

Notability concerns for this out-of-date stub. Not to be confused with the Seattle radio host of the same name, I see no coverage other than the one 2009 interview linked in the article. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, and Tennessee. Walsh90210 (talk) 18:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Libertarianism, California, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The link to the official website comes up, "We can’t connect to the server at www.markchristopher.net." Cannot find anything on this one precisely. More than one radio jockey named Mark Christopher comes up, but not associated with Nashville. And none of them seem a talk radio format. — Maile (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A WP:MILL talk show host hosting just as MILL talk shows down the line. Nate • (chatter) 23:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SUCH TV

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

~~Regulatory actions/penalties like this and this are enough to pass WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)~~ I've nominated this article under WP:NCORP as it is a for-profit media company. Regulatory actions or penalties like this and this are WP:ROUTINE news articles and come under WP:ORGTRIV. We need WP:SUBSTANTIAL coverage that direct and in-depth about this company. Otherwise, it clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 12:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nom seems to want to keep the article and the sourcing is fine. The ones used in the article and above count as RS. What was the issue, why was this nominated for deletion? Oaktree b (talk) 17:28, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I don't want to keep the article - I have corrected my nom rationale. Gheus (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Please elaborate on a reason for deletion, Gheus. Nate • (chatter) 00:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for noting the mistake, Nate. I have updated my reasoning. Gheus (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for the discussion on the rationale provided now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_news_channels_in_Pakistan#Current_channels -Mushy Yank. 21:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abb Takk News

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

The best source about this TV station is of Reporters Without Borders' article, but unfortunately it is very brief and says that this channel is known for "copying Indian TV channel ‘AajTakk’ down to its logo and most graphic designs." This is not enough to pass WP:NCORP which requires multiple in-depth articles in independent sources. Gheus (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news -Mushy Yank. 20:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:53, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Public News (Pakistan)

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

Non-notable news channel, coverage is mostly related to its founder Yousaf Baig Mirza. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Urdu_news -Mushy Yank. 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comilla Polytechnic Institute

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

The only independent reliable sources found are brief mentions within primary source news reports about broader events (e.g. https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-75355, https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/5enz43u7pl, etc.). Per WP:SIRS, primary sources do not count towards establishing notability. This title was previously redirected to the supervising Bangladesh Technical Education Board, where the school is listed, but the redirect was removed by an editor without regard to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce, non-profit and government-run schools don't have to comply with WP:SIRS. They only have to meet the GNG.

Also, did you check for sources in the Bengali language? Or in the local newspapers, such as the ones listed in Comilla#Media? When an article says that a secondary school is one of the oldest and largest of its type in its entire country, and that it has thousands of students, the failure to find sources usually turns out to say more about our limited search skills than the actual availability of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: Nearly all of my editing is of Bangladesh-related topics, so I'm constantly searching in Bengali, but sometimes forget that not everyone will know that, and neglect to mention it explicitly in nominations. In addition to general searches in Bengali, I specifically searched three local news outlets that in my experience are reliable: amodbd, comillarkagoj and dailyamadercomilla.

My reading of WP:ORG is that all schools must comply with WP:SIRS or WP:GNG, so I agree with you in part. Although WP:ORG's second sentence says "The scope of this guideline covers all groups ... with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, ...", its subsection WP:NSCHOOL says "All universities, colleges and schools, ... must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline." The subsection goes on to say that with respect to WP:ORG, for-profit educational institutions must in addition satisfy WP:COMMERCIAL. WP:SIRS is not part of the commercial requirements, but part of the top level "Primary criteria" section. WP:GNG doesn't spell it out as forcefully as WP:SIRS does, but says "'Sources' [used to establish notability] should be secondary sources ..." I can substitute that language for what I said about WP:SIRS in the nomination if you prefer, but the thrust of my argument remains the same.

It's true that Comilla Polytechnic Institute (1962) is one of the oldest government polytechnics in what is now Bangladesh, but the same can be said of the other 20 or so that were set up between 1955 and 1964. About 30 more have been established, I think all since 2000. Very little has been written about them individually, but some sources cover them collectively, so I believe a redirect to an article that treats them as a group is best. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The GNG doesn't "spell it out as forcefully" as SIRS because the GNG doesn't agree with SIRS. Secondary sources are not necessarily rare; a source that says CPI is "one of the oldest" is a secondary source (because it's comparing it against other schools, and comparison is a form of analysis, and analysis is the hallmark of a secondary source).

IMO some of the best sources for schools are government agency reports that cover multiple schools. A report that says something like these are bigger than those, these are cheaper than those, these require higher test scores than those, etc. would be perfect for getting a decent little encyclopedia article together for each of the schools in the report. (Neither CORP nor GNG require a source to be exclusively about the subject, though obviously the parts of a source that discuss only 'School 1' are not useful for determining whether 'School 2' is notable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wittekind, Prince of Waldeck and Pyrmont

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

Article subject does not meet GNG and is mostly a genealogical entry. WP:NOTGENEOLOGY . D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Royalty and nobility-related deletion discussions. D1551D3N7 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this is not just genealogy, but now I've violated Godwin's law. Sorry Mike Godwin. Bearian (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dharti TV

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

Non-notable local channel, lacks independent coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_television_channels_in_Pakistan#Sindhi -Mushy Yank. 20:52, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SKANS School of Accountancy

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

Non-notable for-profit accounting school, fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gheus, did you search for sources in Arabic? Did you check the Pakistani newspapers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Pakistan is not an Arabic-speaking country, so asking me to do checks in Arabic is not ok. In Pakistani newspapers or magazines, I found this press release. This is a for-profit school and fails WP:NCORP criteria. Gheus (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyohei Hagiwara

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

MMA fighter fails WP:NMMA (no evidence of ever ranking in world top 10 for division) and WP:NSPORT/WP:GNG for lack of WP:SIGCOV. Coverage in article (and in WP:BEFORE search) is routine match coverage and/or non-independent coverage on the website of his fighting federation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Japan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:36, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage. Match results are not significant and articles on Rizin's website are not independent. Fightmatrix has his current world ranking at #524, so he's not close to meeting WP:NMMA. Papaursa (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there seems to be independent written match reporting (as opposed to just results) for some of his fights on Asian MMA - example Here I dont know enough about MMA coverage to know if this counts as significant coverage or not, but it seems like several taken together might… as well as plenty of Japanese sources if you search using his name in Kanji - This article of example for his fighting, and This article as an example of the coverage around his domestic violence scandal. All in all there seems to be enough coverage to satisfy general notability, and then it’s just a matter of someone adding the information from those sources to the article and citing them properly. Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even independent match reporting is not WP:SIGCOV of the individuals in the matches; see WP:NOTROUTINE. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:31, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: based on the comment above... The first article seems fine, second one is rather brief coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Kade

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

non-notable musician, sourced entirely to blackhat SEO and the same "source". GRINCHIDICAE🎄 16:55, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Rwanda. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There's reporting on him from The New Times and so I added it in and he seems like a notable musician in Rwanda. He has a good career as a musician being both a solo artist and being reported by The New Times is very remarkable. Vikingsam (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The New Times is giving me pause; it feels like the coverage in Indian or Nigerian media, where it seems everyone is a superstar, but no one else bothers to report on their accomplishments. Way too many hits in the one newspaper for this to be a coincidence... Feels like a PROMO. I'm happy to be proven incorrect, but that's the impression I'm getting. Oaktree b (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I already !voted keep above) I think this hinges on if The New Times is a reliable source. I honestly don't know. Here's what I can ascertain:

It's the first listed newspapers on BBC for Rwanda newspapers https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14093244
The Wikipedia article and the BBC note it's proximity to government
Of course, plenty reliable sources are proximate to government, BBC, CBC, Al Jazeera, although I would suggest The New Times is not a reliable source for Rwandan politics.
The Wikipedia WP:RSPSS noticeboard is silent on The New Times. A search of the archive reveals nothing.

So my question is: does anyone have any evidence, any reason to assume it's a bad source? Vikingsam (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eitermillen

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

A very small place with no notability of its own, better as a redirect to Contern. The sources often don't support the text (e.g. despite repeated claims that Eitermillen used to be at a place now called Maulin Diderich, I don't see any of the sources making that connection?) and are passing mentions or names on maps only. None of the sources in the article are significant coverage of this tiny hamlet (a "lieu-dit" is basically a named house or group of houses, not a once independent village), and the history and demographics seem to be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR due to this lack of sources. Fram (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Luxembourg. Fram (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I do believe the subject matter here is notable, however it appears that the article in its current state lacks in sourcing to verify claims and establish said notability. Once redirected I can once again work on a draft or in my sandbox to compile more sources and improve the article so it’s ready for the mainspace. N1TH Music (talk) 13:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an odd vortex of an article where it clearly exists on maps and in at least one source, but there's nothing else to support that source in anything that's easily searchable on the web: ie I can verify that the place exists just enough to know it's likely not a hoax, but not enough to get it past the WP:V we need for a legally recognised place. (The fact there are no page numbers for the 1889/90 source help nothing.) I'd prefer a result which allows restoration once verified. SportingFlyer T·C 04:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer well the source [16], it might be just a map but it’s posted on an official government owned website also if you look at the article List of Populated places in Luxembourg the sources cited is also that of a government owned website and is a database of all the legally recognised localities in Luxembourg an it lists Éitermillen. Is that not enough to pass WP:V? N1TH Music (talk) 11:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first map shows Oetrange, Kackerterhaff, and Moutfort, but even when zoomin in no "Eitermillen" appears. Is it supposed to be where the Rue du Moulin and Route de Remich meet? Fram (talk) 11:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram there’s a search bar at the top wherein you can type Eitermillen and a point appears at the location was if you click the directions icon. Either way it’s in the database. I think I’ve found a clearer link here. Also here is another webpage from the government of Luxembourg website which also mentions Eitermillen. And yes it is around where Route de Remich and Rue de Moulin meet. Is that not sufficient to pass WP:V? N1TH Music (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and there’s also this which is a communal document discussing all the projects completed between 2017 and 2023 in Contern and there were 2 projects in Eitermillen which is mentioned by name on page 23 and page 32. N1TH Music (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Page 23 says "New railings on the Eitermillen", this indicates that it isn't really a populated place but a location, building, route... You wouldn't say "new railings on Contern", that would make no sense. Fram (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram might be a translation error, here’s the french version also those steps can’t refer to a building because there’s no building there, what they’re referring to is this path which is a public footpath connection 2 streets, there isn’t even a building there. Also what about the other citations I listed here. N1TH Music (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't looked at everything: after a map which doesn't mention Eitermillen, and a communal document stating that they will add railings to a path named Eitermillen, I now checked this one you gave, where the closest I can find is Hëttermillen, which is also the only results I get when searching that website for Eitermillen[17]. So, after three wild goose chases, I stop looking at sources you provide, as they are wasting my time. Fram (talk) 13:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fram Strange, the 3rd and most recent source you checked, when I typed “Eitermillen” into google, google stated that found inside the link “ Concernant la réglementation temporaire de la circulation sur la N2 entre Sandweiler et le lieu-dit « Eitermillen » à l'occasion de travaux forestiers.” And yet in the website itself I can’t find it. I apologise I should have double checked before sending it.

But you seem to have ignored the source I mentioned was listed on the List of populated places in Luxembourg article. On page 15 if you press the eye icon on the file you can find it clearly lists it under both Eitermillen and Oetrange-Moulin. And while it does say that it’s not an “official locality” thats because Lieu-dits aren’t incorporated as such because that entails them being census subdivisions. Kréintgeshaff for example isn’t incorporated either, unless you think Kréintgeshaff should be deleted too, either way is this not evidence of Éitermillen being legally recognised? And I actually found more sources but it seems you don’t need to see anymore. N1TH Music (talk) 14:27, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure "at the Eitermillen" is a translation error. I'd err on the side of keep now. SportingFlyer T·C 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't indicate much more than what we know, it's a "lieu-dit": our article on those isn't very good, but basically this is a named farm (or mill in this case), not an actual village. This is the Luxemburgish article on them[18], the translation makes it clear that these aren't really considered villages. Fram (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No - the translation of the Letzebuergish shows a lieu-dit could also have been anything from a house to a former locality, and we potentially have a census listing of 8 people living there which would indeed qualify it, if the source is any good (again this is where a lack of a page number hurts.) SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer do you not have access to the preview or something? Because when I view the source I can scroll through the pages of the book at located exactly where it says “Oetrange-Moulin”. The listing is on page 255. N1TH Music (talk) 21:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There it is, thanks! It's a very large document and search didn't work. SportingFlyer T·C 22:17, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer So is that a keep from you then or a redirect? N1TH Music (talk) 21:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep from me. It meets our criteria, but not by much. SportingFlyer T·C 19:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern-Oriented Software Architecture

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

Article does not comply with MOS and there are no references cited. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 17:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Computing, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pratt & Whitney GG4

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

I came across Ayres' History and Future of Technology and realized it copies substantial material from Wikipedia. This is explicitly acknowledged in the preface of the book, but there are still Wikipedia pages that cite it (without explicit qualification), in a case of citogenesis. Further, there are numerous passages from the book that are copied so closely to verbatim from Wikipedia, that they may be confused for copyviolations in the future. I'm taking on marking that reference as such to avoid this.

Pratt & Whitney GG4 is a particularly extreme case - all other references were copyviolations and were stripped from the article, leaving only the circular reference to Ayres, who explicitly back links to the Wikipedia page as his only source. Is there a different source demonstrating notability? Tule-hog (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I replaced the Ayres reference. RecycledPixels (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References fixed, and a quick gbooks check shows a couple of sources that could be used to expand the article. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pomodorino di Manduria

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

It doesn't seem to be a noteworthy article. JacktheBrown (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment plant species are not something I would normally edit. I've added two references, one was take from the article prodotto agroalimentare tradizionale. I've included that ref (pdf) as I think it fulfills one of the criteria of WP:NBREED? Recognised under prodotto agroalimentare tradizionale? I am going to wait to see if someone from the plant project can confirm this? Knitsey (talk) 22:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 14:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shuicheng Road station

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG and WP:STATION. Source 1 in article is an official system map (primary & not independent) and source 2 appears to be a database that may be user-generated (not reliable). A WP:BEFORE search on Google & Baidu in both English & Chinese did not turn up anything useful. I WP:BLARed this to Line 10 (Shanghai Metro) last year, but this was reverted by another user in October this year (rewritten but no improvements in terms of notability). I propose that the aforementioned redirect be restored. S5A-0043^Talk 14:44, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations, Transportation, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 14:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the adjacent stations it seems they have a similar level of sourcing. Batch nom might be preferable here? Jumpytoo Talk 02:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to do this as a trial run before nominating other articles. Last time I jumped ahead in a batch nom I messed up in explaining my case and it kind of backfired so I’m trying to avoid that. S5A-0043^Talk 04:41, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re-redirect >>> Line 10 (Shanghai Metro)#Stations Djflem (talk) 07:24, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felix Mendez

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

This is my first nomination, so correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the subject of this article is not notable. I haven't found any sources that would talk about him in detail. Li1411 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Li1411 (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Name is too common to find anything about this individual, all kinds of hits on various subjects with this name. The one source used now is a PR item, so a non-RS. Oaktree b (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG on WP:NBIO and WP:PRODUCER criteria. Content available online are predominantly from social media and user generated websites. No WP:RS or WP:IS for WP:V. QEnigma (talk) 14:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Television, Advertising, Puerto Rico, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. If you find 2 or 3 reliable sources, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That Girl (trend)

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

Contains little to no reliable sourcing and was created as part of a Wiki Education assignment. Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage exists, across multiple major outlets across the world. That it was part of a Wiki Education assignment is entirely unrelated to notability; the fact we're getting articles for subjects that are probably of more interest to younger readers is a credit to that project. :JeffUK 12:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The onus would be on you to locate some of those sources and to ensure they are reliable. There's a Cosmopolitan article and a Glam article, but they aren't much. Ornov Ganguly TALK 14:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are clearly some sources available CBC News, Michigan Daily, Health digest . Honestly, I got burned trying to find more, clicked on some magazine that tried to install ALL the viruses on my laptop, so I'm letting this one lie for now! JeffUK 08:29, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The CBC and Michigan Daily articles are 404'd without Internet Archive backups. If the CBC one is what we already have in the article, it's passable, but the Health Digest one just summarizes the Refinery29 article. It's hardly four paragraphs long. The trouble with most of these sources is that they are trying to capitalise on a microtrend. There is no longevity here to make it deserving of an article. It would be better served as part of another article. Ornov Ganguly TALK 13:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There was a brief blast of coverage in 2021, with the CBC article in the article and this [19], [20]... I'm not showing any lasting effect of the "Trend". Could be briefly mentioned in an article about internet memes/trends in 2021 or something similar. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Popular culture, and Internet. Skynxnex (talk) 14:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cossacks (video games series)

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

No clear evidence this is independently notable as a series or passes WP:GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cossacks: European Wars as an ATD. It's unnecessary that the games be lumped like this, but I think the first game in the series is a fine target. Conyo14 (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lanka T10

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

Domestic event with not enough coverage on independent reliable sources; Fails WP:GNG. Also, its season article. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 10:21, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say let’s keep it. What do you guys think about it - @Bs1jac, Kumarpramit, WikiEditPS, Goodknowme, Joseph2302, PEditorS10, Ankurc.17, MNWiki845, Cric editor, and Godknowme1:. Pkr206 (talk) 19:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd ask me there are already multiple T10 leagues going on, and soon more will pop up. But I guess we could keep the main article and delete the season wise articles, just have the final results displayed in the main one Cric editor (talk) 19:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the same logic which is being followed for domestic T20 Frachises.. Ankurc.17 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is to create articles only if it has WP:SIGCOV and passes WP:GNG. This one doesn't. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 07:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft it. The article doesn't have individual coverage or sources. Goodknowme (talk) 21:02, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even though this is a domestic and a T10 tournament, it is organised by Sri Lanka Cricket, the governing body for cricket in the country ([21]). It has received media coverage, both foreign and local, that is independent and verifiable ([22], [23], [24] and [25]). Local and foreign players who meet the WP:NCRIC will be participating. The event is broadcast live on television in several countries by reputed sports channels and is also available online ([26], [27], [28] and [29]). The tournament has also faced some controversy, including allegations of match-fixing ([30]). As a result, this article meets WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTSEVENT criteria but requires maintenance and the addition of up-to-date sources. QEnigma (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@QEnigma: out of the 10 links you've provided here,
- ref 1 is WP:PRIMARY.
- refs 3, 4, 8, 9 and 10 are WP:ROUTINE.
- ref 7 - WP:NOTTVGUIDE.
- Local and foreign players participating does not count as WP:NOTINHERITED.
Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:NSPORTSEVENT as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 16:01, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AEYE Health

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

AEYE Health does not appear to meet WP:ORG. In going through the sources, they appear to be press releases or otherwise connected with the company, and the very small number of exceptions do not appear to be significant. There is material out there, but nothing that I think passes WP:ORG, as I cannot find material which is clearly both independent and significant. Hopefully someone can do a better job than I did, but at the moment I cannot find enough to get this past the requirements. - Bilby (talk) 11:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, Technology, Israel, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzy Respondek

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

The subject of this article does not pass any criterion of WP:NPROF. Although very detailed, nothing in this CV is more outstanding than the average contributions of full professors. Moreover the article is largely written by its subject, is full of WP:PEACOCK terms and lacks of reliable sources D.Lazard (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Mathematics. D.Lazard (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So far indifferent GS citations in a high-cited field: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Citations do not look like a pass of WP:NPROF C1, no other assertion of notability, and no other notability apparent. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There are a few papers published that come in Gscholar, not sure how notable they are. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Oaktree

Thanks for try of balanced analysis. See wiki page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandermonde_matrix

And also my pre-published article (self-comment title!)

https://arxiv.org/abs/2407.15696

Combining it with the fact that the elementary wiki pages needed to be adapted to current (about it later what is 'current') state of the knowledge (particularly with just my result), what I did:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermite_interpolation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companion_matrix

it explains the notability of my result - and my page. Notice, that the cited book (knowledge source) is from 1960, but it is to insert the most mature version of the monograph. The fact we needed was in edition from 1932. It helps to clarify the notability of my page.

Thanks in advance. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Oaktree, Dear All

I have also achievements in "practically useful" fast matrix multiplication. This notion was invented by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Pan. See:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03081087.2024.2391807

It is hard to do sth new, in classic math, and useful for PC-computerss.

best regards, and PLEASE DELETE - BUT THE DISCUSSION, NO article. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 12:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete based on the comments above, does not seem to pass NPROF. Oaktree b (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. His citation record is not strong enough for WP:PROF#C1 and nothing in the article looks like it could meet any other PROF criterion. MathSciNet and zbMATH both show only one publication in the last 10 years, in 2016, not a good sign for research-oriented notability criteria. He has a new book but even if it already had reviews one book would not be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - in 2014, everyone knows that we do not publish original research and we are not LinkedIn. The subject has edited his own article. Bearian (talk) 04:13, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have just published a monograph:

https://link.springer.com/book/9783031769290

After it appearance I was and am going to correct this site, to include more citations to newspaper and public sources,

and removing of "WP:PEACOCK" sentences. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_of_matrix_multiplication

contained nothing about galactic size algorithms and that there are also available usable ones (since 80-ties!). I added sentence about it, but is was broken by Mr D. Lazard to:

"On the opposite, above Strassen's algorithm of 1969, and Pan's algorithm of 1978, whose respective exponents are *slightly above and below 2.78 have constant coefficients that make them feasible.*"

Above is a nonsense both mathematically and in the very language layer.

Thus I suggest Mr Lazard not insinuate to delete my personal page, better look what You are personally writing. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1) With comparison to the page was created, my PUBLIC SCIENTIFIC POLITICAL record is much augmented. In months it will appear new links to newspaper articles. It contains a series of links to public newspaper information on my person.

(!!!) 2) I added a few valuable sentences and information to wiki terms, WITHOUT SELF-CITING:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermite_interpolation

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Companion_matrix

It is very surprising, how above terms WAS WITH HOLE - WHAT IN CASE ROOTS ARE *MULTIPLE* ??? The problem was solved already before word war II (~80-100 years ago), and the "wiki community" does know it ??? I started to fill those gaps in the knowledge You present !!! You should be more humble in judging others.

3) If You defectively be able to, delete be sure it will reborn in a version which will be free of current drawbacks. I am going to correct it and aware of a few general minuses of it. But it deserve to be correct, not delete.

4) The page is to be re-create in a few languages, i.e. German, Spain and French. Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 10:30, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_complexity_of_matrix_multiplication

contained nothing about galactic size algorithms and that there are also available usable ones (since 80-ties!). I added sentence about it, but is was broken by Mr D. Lazard to:

"On the opposite, above Strassen's algorithm of 1969, and Pan's algorithm of 1978, whose respective exponents are *slightly above and below 2.78 have constant coefficients that make them feasible.*"

Above is a NONSENSE both mathematically and in the very language layer.

Thus I suggest Mr Lazard not insinuate to delete my personal page, better look what You are personally writing. Jerzy.Respondek Jerzy.Respondek (talk) 11:01, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jamalon

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP and NOTCRUNCHBASE very much applies here. Defunct - mostly Arabic - booksales website/POD operation in the Middle East, first in Jordan then the UAE. It started up, it closed down. There is no enduring impact or change in the market that resulted from its existence. The only likely ATD would be a redirect to Fadi Ghandour, but at the most it would be one of hundreds, if not thousands, of investments that Ghandour has made - and it's not really outstanding or worthy of a merge at his page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Observer

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

Non-notable newspaper, coverage is mostly related to its founder, Zahid Malik. Fails WP:NCORP. I suggest to delete this article and then redirect to The Bangladesh Observer which was once a notable newspaper known as Pakistan Observer in Pakistan but was later renamed after East Pakistan independence. Gheus (talk) 16:07, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there a good ATD like a Merge or Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not fully certain at this moment, but after reviewing the biography of the founder, I found that he received several top national awards, typically reserved for individuals who are highly distinguished in their fields. Furthermore, it appears that his principal achievement was the founding of this newspaper, which seems to hold significant prominence within the country. Based on this information, I recommend retaining the article, with appropriate improvement tags, to further enhance its quality.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 02:21, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hydra Ventures

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP.Insufficient WP:ORGCRIT sources.

Edit: @WikiOriginal-9:, you withdrew the nomination last time. Do you have any comments on whether or not this article should be deleted?

Imcdc Contact 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Germany. Imcdc Contact 08:35, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Fashion, and Sports. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I found this: [31], not certain about its reliability. There are plenty of insignificant news items and database listings, but no significant coverage I can find. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zero Hour (video game)

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

Found reviews in The Games Machine and Softonic, and a news mention in PCGamesN. While this isn't terrible it also isn't enough to pass WP:GNG because PCGamesN doesn't really offer up any critical opinions, and everything else is an unreliable source. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:43, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. While I think a soft deletion would work in this instance in case the game becomes super popular (it was released only three months ago), the article does not really have significant coverage aside from The Games Machine article. The Softonic article I would also consider more unreliable as it appears user-generated and may not be independent with a download link. Conyo14 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, this is not a game for an international audience. It's targeted at local Bangladeshis, & it's quite popular here. That is why you will find numerous evaluations in Bangla newspapers. You can also read Sportskeeda's review and IGN's article, "Old-School Rainbow Six Spiritual Successor 'Zero Hour' Drops Launch Trailer" Prantoo Biswas (talk) 18:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sportskeeda is not reliable: WP:SPORTSKEEDA. Conyo14 (talk) 18:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A source search should be conducted in Bengali per Prantoo Biswas to see if anything can be turned up. I'd do it myself, but I admittedly don't know the first thing about what Bengali sources are reliable, so I'll leave it in the hands of a more experienced editors. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has notable sources attached to it. This0k (talk) 22:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones? Conyo14 (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by The Daily Star, as well as their other potential game Agontuk. IgelRM (talk) 10:54, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Xaba

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of the subject, a South African cricketer, to meet WP:GNG. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 08:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not enough significant coverage to warrant an article.
Shrug02 (talk) 12:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails GNG -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 10:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Vampirefreaks.com

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

Does not appear to be a notable company. The only reliable sources I could find that covered it were passing mentions to the website as a result of the Murder of Carly Ryan. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment references 1, 2 and 3 are the subjects websites. Ref 4, passing mention. Ref 5, they've organised a festival which is a 3 day event and touted as 'America’s largest 3-day gothic-industrial music festival and convention'. Ref 6 is a interview with one of the owners. Ref 7 now points to a casino website. Ref 8 another 'Dark Force event page which doesn't give any real detail about Vampire.com. Ref 9 is another interview. I will have another search before voting, but there doesn't seem to be anything indicating notability per WP:GNG. (Further edit) I've had a look gor referencs. I've added one from Kerrang about the network site closure. The only other references I can find are a tenuous connection to the murder mentioned above. Knitsey (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Just noting here that the previous AFD on this article subject was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamidreza Sadri. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Sadri (Taekwondo)

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

Fails notability, it was deleted once after this discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hamidreza Sadri now created under another name by the same user to trick wikipedia. This is also clearly against WP:COI. Sports2021 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 22:34, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Martial arts. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given that this was created by the same user as the one that created Hamidreza Sadri, could this be WP:G4 speedy deleted? Both claim to just be direct translations from Farsi Wikipedia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the deleted version, and had to decline the G4 as this one has more content and more sources, so can't really be considered identical enough. I'm not commenting on whether this demonstrates any notability either, only that it appears (superficially) to be a more credible attempt at least. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:58, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep to me the users decided wrongly about last AFD , because he has the notablity of sportpersons in Wikipedia and I Didn't tricks anyone I just couldn't put New AFD, however This article is only translated from the farsi Wikipedia . Hamidreza Sadri is holder of Silver medal Asian junior and Gold medal at military world games which both competitions are notable for Wikipedia and many other international tournaments and now he plays Azarbaijan national team and these days he injured but he will get back to competitions soon

*Timsar* (talk) 03:47, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "users decided wrongly"; everyone is free to make their arguments as they see fit, and the closer of the earlier AfD discussion certainly closed it correctly as reflecting consensus. You may not like the outcome, but you should not dismiss it as "wrong". -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again misinformation here, he never won a gold at Military World Games, he probably won a medal in World Military Championship (a different competition with a lower level) even though even winning medal at World Military Games (which he never won) doesn't justify notability. this is clearly WP:COI, trying to promote someone. Sports2021 (talk) 12:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sports2021 he never won? What do you mean exactly?! All the military world games organized by the International Military Sports Council (CISM) and Hamidreza Sadri won gold medal at it! Here you can find out! And he achieved the best technical player in This tournament! *Timsar* (talk) 14:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sports2021and I'm not promote someone! He had farsi and Azarbaijani wiki I only translated it to English wiki. *Timsar* (talk) 14:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sports2021 I checked your actions many times on many articles Like this one! Please check Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point *Timsar* (talk) 15:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Military Games and World Military Championships are two different things. both of are not notable in wikipedia standards. but at least World Military Games has some level of importance because it's a multisport event. someone who never won a major senior World or continental medal (probably never even passed the first round) and never qualified for the Olympics fails Wikipedia:NSPORT. Sports2021 (talk) 15:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But I think International Military Sports Council is notable too! They have article in wiki! *Timsar* (talk) 16:00, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sports2021 a sport person When is notable that plays for International tournaments in order to achieve topic or medal not mentioned to Olympics or ... Whi *Timsar* (talk) 16:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing has really changed in the six weeks since the article was previously deleted. The coverage is still insufficient to meet WP:GNG and he has no accomplishments that would meet WP:MANOTE or show he is a top 10 world athlete (a criteria used in sports such as boxing and MMA). World Taekowndo shows he has never won a fight (or even a round) at any international tournament they recognize. Success at minor or youth events does not show English WP notability, nor does the fact he has an article at any other wiki. Papaursa (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are looking for WP:GNG or WP:MANOTE you can just search him in Persian "حمیدرضا صدری (تکواندو)" and if you are looking for all the events where he fights in ; you can just click here *Timsar* (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at taekwondodata.com and a number of other sources. He simply doesn't meet WP:GNG or any SNG. Different wikis have different notability criteria and he doesn't meet any of the ones on the English WP. Papaursa (talk) 20:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the content in farsi and English wiki are same, how you come that they have different notablity criteria?! It seems you didn't check wright, anyway All his honors mentioned in his article in 3 languages, All his honors are mentioned in many sources in several languages *Timsar* (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All the Wikipedia's rules in all languages are getting update of English wiki! So they have not different rules with each other. And Hamidreza Sadri (Taekwondo) article is only a translation of the orginal ones in farsi. And he is qualified enough for have an article He is champions in world military championships and Silver medal of Asian championship 2017. So if these tournaments are not notable whay they have article in Wikipedia? I have nothing else to say. Thanks for the corporation

*Timsar* (talk) 14:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:15, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please notice that the page creator is now globally blocked. Sports2021 (talk) 01:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are they a sockpuppet and, if so, could this be WP:G5 deleted? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look and apparently he used sockpuppets in another wikipedia not sure if that counts in English wikipedia. Sports2021 (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why that matters, socking is socking. Oaktree b (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The medals won don't seem notable enough for an article. This is the only coverage I could find [32], this would seem to fail notability requirements and a lack of sourcing isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maoist Communist Party (France)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Every source given is from the organisation itself or a Maoist blog site, except one by the conservative tabloid Diario Correo, which mentions the French organisation in passing. Online searches in English, French, and Spanish return zero reliable sources, and I doubt such sources will be found in print offline. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Internet aesthetic

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

This is largely an essay lackign a sourced defintion of "internet aesthetic" and collection of topics that aren't supported through any source suggesting their connection to this term. This is largely WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. There is one source from Vogue in 2022 that references "internet aesthetics" but not in connection to wide range of examples provided here. ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Visual arts, Fashion, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Presents a list of things that are somewhat related, more of a meme or trends than any sort of related aesthetic items. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of this is synthesis. Just because an aethetic or design or fashion is popular in the modern day and is discussed on the internet does not mean it is an "internet aethetic". That's just how the world works now, not a substantive cohesive concept: "that usually originates from the Internet or is popularized on it" – very little in the last 20 years wasn't popularized on the internet, so this is a meaningless characteristic unless you are just fluffing up the most recent and niche trends. "micro-trends such as mob wife and tomato girl summer" Groan. Which sources actually bring the concepts here together? Reywas92^Talk 14:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For all reasons above. At most, this might be best suited as a category for worthwhile articles such as Corecore, dark academia, light academia, and so on. Only problem is that the title is itself a wholesale invention. I don't think it's influenced the popular literature to remain as . Ornov Ganguly TALK 17:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nom and the arguments presented that the article is a synthesis of original research. Perhaps in a few years if scholarly books or articles are written about this topic it will become notable. At this time it is not. Netherzone (talk) 18:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with everyone else. History being a definition of aesthetic with a line from Vogue tacked on? Seems like a desperate, last minute high school essay more than an article. There are individual elements which might be able to stand on their own, but as a whole it's all over the place. Tengu99 (talk) 03:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I don't understand why everyone wants this deleted, the pageviews showcase notability and I wouldn't consider it original research, maybe synthesis but ut has still managed to get 90k pageviews this year alone. This0k (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 06:44, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pageviews does not establish notability. See WP:POPULARPAGE. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is an essay. Essays have nothing to do with policy or guidelines, they are opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:50, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, and I suspect most editors here respect the views expressed at WP:ATA. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 14:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Respect is fine but is not a policy or guideline. Many editors name essays as if they were canon, they are not. They are opinion and have nothing to do with deletion close decisions (or at least shouldn't). Sources have been found and listed for this topic, and that should be enough, per GNG, to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move - There's a lot of well researched and cited information here. We should discuss moving them to their relevant pages, I wouldn't want us to lose all of this. But yes, the article name and scope is weird so it can be deleted. Egezort (talk) 12:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per This0k and search engine results such as this descriptor, and this art and popular culture site, and many more. Just search for the term and articles, dictionary definitions, videos, etc. appear. When a page receives 90 thousand views a year it has real-world connections and real-world definitions (readers aren't searching for this out of the blue or in a hypnotic state, they came here to find out about internet aesthetics). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination mentions a lack of sourced definitions, here is a link to some (disregard the first, Wikipedia, and look beyond that, such as this long and detailed screenshot article). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. While the majority of sources are unusable, the Glamour article, this First Monday article, and potentially this German one are all usable. Ornov Ganguly TALK 12:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly significant coverage of this, not in stuffy academic literature yet, but that's not a requirement for notability. I've spot-checked a couple of the listed aesthetics and found multiple people referring to them as 'Internet Aesthetics', or found them on lists of 'Internet Aesthetics' of course if things on this list are not called 'Internet Aesthetics' they shouldn't be there, and can be removed. (If that happens to leave us with the two that I picked at random, a delete might be appropriate!) JeffUK 11:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jhala Manna

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

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Man Singh and recreated under a different title with sufficient differences that G4 speedy deletion was declined.

However, the recreated version still does not show that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

Most sources have one or a handful of passing or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject (A History of Rajasthan, A History of Mewar, Battle of Haldighati, Jhālā rājavaṃsa, Mewar Saga, Mewar & the Mughal Emperors, and Maharana Pratap: The Invincible Warrior.
In addition to having trivial mentions, some sources are also considered of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ, such as Tod's Annals of Rajasthan
One source is WP:SELFPUBLISH: Sacred Mysteries from vanity publisher by Notion Press.
Chiefs and Leading Families in Rajputana has no mention of Jhala Man Singh/Man Singh Jhala/Jhala Bida/Jhala Manna/Jhala Sardar or any other configuration of his names.
Another "source" is a poem.
The final source is an e-commerce site.

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources is found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Still not seeing notability, sources are as explained above, not much for showing notability. I still don't find any sources we can sue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable person. Mentioned in many sources. He played a significant role in the Battle of Haldighati. Lordo'Web (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're now at a split opinion, so worth relisting in an attempt to garner further clarity on consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BiSheng compiler

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It says the compiler was integrated into EulerOS, perhaps merge to there or delete for lack of reliable sources. IgelRM (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BlueOS

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:PRODUCT. Rainsday (talk) 02:09, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

● Keep- Covered in Multiple Reliable Sources, thus passing WP:GNG. 😎😎PaulGamerBoy360😎😎 (talk) 19:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are multiple secondary sources cited in the article with by-lines authors. Without a source analysis from the nominator explaining otherwise, I'm not seeing a reason that doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of health insurance executives in the United States

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:NOT, specifically WP:CROSSCAT. Even if this does stay it should be broadened to List of health insurance chief executives (Similar to Category:American_health_care_chief_executives) and be a category, not a random listicle only including the "top 50". Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Organizations, and Lists. Jcmcc (Talk) 13:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This clearly has become an important topic of discussion. Deleting will lead to cries of Wikipedia bias and appear to favor one or another view on the event that led to the creation of the article. It will continue to be an important topic of discussion. There are lists of well-noted leaders of other industries, this should be no different. DharmaDrummer (talk) 03:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or extensively rework, per Jcmcc450. While there might be a place for an article with this title, it would have to have a much broader scope - including both present and past executives for said companies, expanding the number of companies discussed, and adding more information about the health insurance executives themselves such as their tenure. The sourcing would also have to be far stronger, beyond merely the pages for the health insurance companies themselves. This would likely be a rework so fudnamental that it would render the article unrecognizable, but it is the only good alternative to deletion. As it stands, considering current events, the 'Notable former executives' section, and the timing of its creation, this reads less like a Wikipedia article and more like a hit list. RWall514 (talk) 18:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the top 50 companies by whatever metric is arbitrary. I suggest having the article list the chief executive of companies notable by Wikipedia's standards is a better scope and have updated the article to reflect that. Also see List of chief executive officers. It seems like the article can likely be improved as an alternative to deletion. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Timing is very suspect and does make it much harder to search for sources under WP:NLIST, but I couldn't find anything independent of the recent shooting that mentions the CEO's as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this isn't List of health insurance executives in the United States on a hit list, so I don't think the dependence of the shooting should negate those sources. I'm not advocating that though. I also think delete because the grouping is not significantly covered. Conyo14 (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The chief executives of health insurance companies have been covered in reliable & secondary sources over several years as a group in the context of executive compensation (NPR, STAT News, Becker's Hospital Review, STAT News, Hartford Courant) and more recently, the context of security (The Hill, STAT News). GeorgiaHuman (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here isn't whether or not it is sourced, but notable. The grouping (CEO's of health insurance executives in the United States) doesn't appear to be notable or specifically sourced in any way. This is why it fails WP:CROSSCAT. If this were a category (not a list-article) of all health-related organization CEO's past and present would be far more appropriate as it could be used to support the project. As it stands, even if this were converted to a category, it would be very challenging to maintain (keeping it up to date with the "current" CEO's and only applying it to specifically the top 50 Health insurance Orgs again, subject to change) Jcmcc (Talk) 00:47, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as failing WP:CROSSCAT and WP:NLIST. The timing, the mention of Johnson and the fact that the only detail is about compensation packages is highly suspect and the article creator should probably be on a list somewhere. Astaire (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like you're arguing for more lists, not less. 120.22.16.98 (talk) 08:15, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Feels suspect re timing, and we don't need articles simply listing execs in particular industires. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than Delete due to WP:CROSSCAT, the article should become wider, such as "List of health ensurance chief executives", period. Worldwide. This on its own should also mitigate the notability issue. As a Brazilian, I am willing to source executives from my country. MandRaiden (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Health insurance in the United States is enough for now. Dympies (talk) 03:17, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failing WP:NLIST and the timing. Multiple previous vandal edits include "Hit" or "Hit List of chief executive officers Effective immediately".--Chefmikesf (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That you bring up which kind of vandal edits were made to the page just highlights that the delete rationales are not based on Wikipedia policies or any reasoning. It does not fail the policy you linked for example because it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and the timing is irrelevant to whether or not an article is to be kept. Per policy, decisions should be made not based on vote-counts but on rationales/reasoning/discussion. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep its a part of what is arguably a historical event. make it larger and expand it to a worldwide scope maybe. but dont delete. MildLoser (talk) 10:49, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is about the Killing of Brian Thompson, then that article already exists as linked. Jcmcc (Talk) 17:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is just textbook WP:RECENTISM. 1) We're not a crystal ball and so are in no position to establish if this is "arguably a historical event" (everything is a historical event, but we'll say a highly notable one). 2) This list, while hastily constructed by GH as a direct response to the killing of Brian Thompson, is highly incidental to it. 3) There's really no such thing as "expanding it to a worldwide scope", because for most health insurance executives even in the US, we're already scraping the bottom of the barrel here with this six-item list (arguably two of which don't even warrant their own article). And the US has the categorically most dramatically privatized health insurance system in the entire developed world that I know of and thus should yield the most notable health insurance executives. I would suggest that you try creating a concrete example worldwide list in your sandbox before suggesting that this be moved without any evidence that it would improve things. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per RWall514. It would be good to convert this list into a table with more details about each like relevant qualifications. The timing for this list may be bad but one has to admit that currently there is a lot of discussion and news reports about the article's subject (btw due to that it's now a "culturally significant phenomenon"). More articles like it would be useful to e.g. compare politicians' qualifications or CEO salaries across countries. It does not fail WP:CROSSCAT, e.g. it's not a "cross-categorization" and is encyclopedic. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:24, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia is a reference for public information. These people are of financial and medical note. I agree with MildLoser that it need not be exclusively US-focused. Amber388 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly if a List of Pokémon is notable so are real world CEOs. Naturally the list needs clear cut criteria, then it wouldn't be open ended but eventually come to a natural conclusion. The criteria shouldn't be too strict though, lest we cut the list short. We certainly shouldn't overshoot when deleting content. As for design, bullet points seem the logical choice but maybe a table instead would be better? Anyway, the page hits already show that the content is of interest. The listed CEOs so far all have articles, even with professional headshots, so clearly notability is given. Maybe a minimum annual salary would be a good criteria for inclusion. If it was based on that an international comparison could be educative. --SchallundRauch (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Certainly if a List of Pokémon is notable so are real world CEOs" - that's not how this works. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:53, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Pokemon Test. Just because Vaporeon has a page, doesn't mean some CEO should have one. ☩ ^{(Babysharkboss2)} 16:47, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See List of chief executive officers for a similar article that has been kept at AfD. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This is not similar enough to warrant discussion (even if WP:WHATABOUT were generally valid), because your list is incredibly restrictive to the point of effective uselessness, whereas that one isn't. Being a chief executive officer of a company with over $10 billion in revenue is substantially less restrictive than being an executive of a health insurance company which operates in the United States. You'll note List of chief executive officers is 1) worldwide (something this article couldn't even benefit from expanding to because of the uniquely messed up state of US healthcare), and 2) operating in any kind of industry. Moreover, that article actually has a completely objective criterion to gatekeep inclusion in the form of "companies with revenue over $10 billion", whereas you cobbled this one together without regard for this sort of good, common practice in lists. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as standard index of people by occupation per WP:LISTPURP and WP:NOTDUP. Should Category:American health care chief executives be deleted? Expand and improve. Mbdfar (talk) 20:16, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep* Note there are several other pages with executives of various companies and industries, like this List of Paramount Pictures executives or the List of railroad executives. This deletion request is clearly related to recent events, and this article is also clearly related to them with its timing – however, just because the timing of the article creation lines up with something doesn't mean that this article is inappropriate. If we have something as niche as a list of Paramount Pictures executives, then a list of health insurance executives is far more important to be included. Kopf1988 (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This kind of textbook whataboutist argument often gets brought up at AfD discussions, and it isn't compelling. 1) Whereas List of Paramount Pictures executives has actual, unambiguous criteria, this list in the nom clearly doesn't (see, for example, what I talked about on the talk page). 2) I would argue that because they're never seemingly discussed in reliable, independent sources as a group that 'List of Paramount Pictures executives' probably ought to be axed itself. 3) List of railroad executives should be cleaned up to remove those without a corresponding article, but here's something you're failing to grasp here: that list is able to be so long because it has two only criteria – firstly, you need to be in the railroad industry, and secondly, you need to be an executive.

List of health insurance executives in the United States is so, so lacking in blue links because the following criteria need to be met: a) in the insurance industry; b) specifically in health insurance; c) an executive; d) in the United States; and (unstated because this list was created for soapboxing and thus the inclusion criteria are vague and clumsily established) e) you should be a current executive of the company. The inclusion criteria are both hyper-specific in the kind of job you have to be in (like 'List of Paramount Pictures executives') but simultaneously completely unclear as to the threshold for inclusion (like 'List of railroad executives, where even redlinks are included seemingly at random). Thus, you get the worst facets of these two arguably poor lists you've cited. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:52, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lists don't need to be strictly made of blue links per WP:AOAL, where it is encouraged to "include entries which are not sufficiently notable to deserve their own articles, and yet may be sufficiently notable to incorporate into the list". Mbdfar (talk) 22:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. In taxonomic articles, where large portions end up being red links to child taxa which are themselves considered inherently notable, this is a crucial component to building out the encyclopedia. However, lists have to have some sort of defined, auditable scope that inherently constrains the size. As I noted at the talk page, these include 1) A title that automatically makes it so that people can easily audit when a list is complete (such as child taxa or officially licensed games made for a specific console), 2) an arbitrary cut-off of n elements based on a certain metric (such as cutting it off at the 50th or 100th most x thing), 3) a similar cut-off except defining a high floor for x instead of fixing the number of elements n (such as cutting off companies under $10 billion in revenue), and 4) only permitting list items which either already have a Wikipedia article or (if a red link) for which the notability isn't contentious. Often for criterion 4, articles will have a commented out subset of these items which may be notable but which don't currenlty have articles. This functions as a compromise for facilitating expansion while also not becoming a landfill for redlinks of questionable notability. The fact that GH wasn't even using redlinks and was just throwing in CEOs seemingly at random tells me they didn't care so much about expansion based on notability and moreso that they wanted to treat this list like an indiscriminate landfill. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This list is hyper-specific and extremely poorly made in a way that it's only "useful" as construed by recent outrage spurred by the killing of Brian Thompson. You can see my suggestion on the article's talk page to make this a potentially viable list, and to my mind, it's clear nothing like that is actually workable. GeorgiaHuman's conduct since December 4th has shown me very clearly that this article was made with soapboxing in mind, not because they seriously thought that it meets something like WP:NLIST. Keep in mind that this nomination is currently being brigaded from Reddit (weird how with that, there's a sudden influx of 'keeps' after all the 'deletes'), and I think it's a serious wake-up call that we might want to keep these sorts of high-profile deletion discussions semi-protected to protect the integrity and make sure they're high-quality and based on policy instead of just off-site brigading from people with almost no grasp of policy or guidelines (edit: to clarify: at least in this case, /r/wikipedia is more likely to understand policy and guidelines, but brigading often comes from sources with literally no knowledge of these principles and derails discussion). TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 21:26, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is specific, but not hyper-specific. List of United States insurance companies currently has almost 40 notable insurance companies. This list of CEOs, if kept, could potentially have several entries per company. Seems like an appropriate amount of content and useful for navigation. Mbdfar (talk) 21:54, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main caveat with List of United States insurance companies, which I did see when trying to give the nom a concrete inclusion criteria, is that every single one of the items (except one, which I'm going to remove as non-conforming with the others) have their own article (and as you can see, the fact that it's just companies and not tethered to health dramatically increases the number of articles listed; it's dramatically less specific because we axe two majorly limiting criteria from this one). It seems that ZimZalaBim did what I should've done a few days ago which is to remove all of the execs who weren't notable enough for their own articles (at least counteracting some of GH's worst tendencies as an editor), but even then, something like Sarah London and Jim Rechtin are very arguably non-notable (they were created recently as minimally cited stubs expressly as a response to the killing of Brian Thompson). And unfortunately, opening up this article to 'List of health insurance executives' probably doesn't help that either, simply because the US is – if I'm not mistaken – one of two developed countries in the world with this kind of absolutely screwed up private health insurance system, the other being Switzerland. And I'm sincerely doubtful more than even one Swiss health insurance exec is notable enough for inclusion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:19, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it used to resemble the top 40 list before people decided to delete half of it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_health_insurance_executives_in_the_United_States&oldid=1262191393 Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per reasoning of Users Kopf1988 and MildLoser. - L1A1 FAL (talk) 22:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but consider broadening the scope of the article per nom Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 22:55, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. ~ HAL333 23:45, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Close w/o prejudice for renom This article is undergoing an edit war over the inclusion criteria. I a disappointed in certain well established editors, who should know better than to enter in an edit war over this. [33] [34] The problem is the inclusion criteria, and we can't judge the article on its merits when that question isn't settled. This whole discussion would have been better resolved through an RfC, than by nominating the article at AfD and people blanking half of it. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and expand to different industries. Pedrogmartins (talk) 02:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NLIST. Rare examples of actual WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argumentation in this discussion. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mild keep. This isn't currently a great list, but I don't think it's categorically improper under WP:CROSSCAT; that would be something like "list of insurance executives who play the accordion". Health insurance executive has been a well-recognized category of American executive for generations. Health insurance executives have featured, inter alia, as a group called before Congressional hearings and as the subjects of surveys (there could be numerous additional links for both of those). Discussions about them as a group (and their pay) have been a fixture of every wave of national health care discussion since at least the 1990s. I am inclined to agree with the comments above that the concerns over scope and quality of the list are best addressed by iterative improvement through the wiki process. That said, with an eye to such improvements, I think this would support the encyclopedia much better as part of a detailed List of health insurance companies in the United States, which could contain fields for CEO information and also put that information in a more meaningful context. (The existing List of United States insurance companies#Health insurance (major medical insurance) is sadly little more than a navigation aid, but could be the beginning of something.)
As an aside, I am concerned by the above bludgeoning of keep !voters with charges of whataboutism. There should be no place on Wikipedia for this kind of hostility to thoughtful dissent. Using WP:WHATABOUT to attempt to discredit any and all arguments from analogy simply reduces that essay to absurdity. After all, [a]nalogical reasoning is one of the most common methods by which human beings try to understand the world and make decisions. Moreover, our PAGs derive their legitimacy, if any, from accurately reflecting actual practice, so attempting to discount arguments simply for being based on actual practice is literally as far from a policy-based argument as it is possible to be. -- Visviva (talk) 05:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I was going to say delete, but then looked at five or six other entries in Category:Lists_of_businesspeople, and they’re all way worse than this. So while maybe there’s a broader discussion to be had about how lists that just duplicate categories should all be culled, this article doesn’t just do that. And I’d argue, also, that it doesn’t fail CROSSCAT as it’s not an arbitrary selection of criteria; the US health insurance industry and the levels of recompense of its CEOs has been often discussed in print media, so the criteria are sufficiently interwoven. Fish+Karate 07:23, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CROSSCAT and failing WP:NLIST. A lot of the keep votes seem quite policy deficient, with arguments that amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSIMPORTANT, WP:THEYDONTLIKEIT, etc. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now This article was created a few days ago. I think it’s eminently reasonable to allow some time to ascertain whether WP:NLIST is met (my intuition says it can be shown to be if it hasn’t already been somewhere in the comments above).

I think the WP:CROSSCAT argument is rather weak since it interprets the policy as covering “Americans” as a group, which is a tight squeeze. That’s neither commonsensical nor supported by the extensive coverage in RS of the topic.

Is the timing of creation suspect? Well, perhaps, but also not really. Newsworthy events tend to draw editors’ attention to related topics, and it’s perfectly reasonable for the sort of editor who is brave enough to create articles to decide to do so after their attention was directed by news, or widespread internet discussion. And even if the creator had the motivations some above have ascribed to them, there is an extremely wide gap between an editor wanting, say, the names of a group they consider notable for bad behavior to be publicly visible in one place that Google likes, and creating a hit list. Their motivations don’t matter anyway here, since the decision rests on the usual inclusion standards and nothing else. The topic itself appears to be notable, a page as short as the current revision couldn’t conceivably be worth nuking, that should be that as far as I can see.

Per policy, there is no legitimate reason to bandy such terms around, and the delete voters are also making a lot of noise about keep votes being non-policy-based, while by eyeball estimate making fewer and shorter policy arguments themselves.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 08:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article cites multiple third-party list articles which themselves group these people together. Also, Wikipedia already has biographies on many of these people, and it is routine to make lists and categories for topics which have things in common, and are as a class the subject of reliable sources, and when topics in the list have Wikipedia articles. We do not need a comprehensive list in third party media to decide who to include. We just need to establish that sources have listed people in this category in any lists of any kind whether short or otherwise, and then we include people who meet those criteria when they also qualify for a Wikipedia article. Bluerasberry (talk) 20:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This List serves as a valuable and verifiable resource for users interested in understanding the leadership landscape within a critical industry that significantly impacts public policy, economics, and individual well-being. It's importance can be summarize in the following:

(1) Health insurance executives wield substantial influence over healthcare access, affordability, and policy-making in the U.S. By aggregating information about these individuals, the page provides a unique and relevant resource that highlights key players in this VERY high-impact field.

(2) This List is particularly useful for researchers, journalists, and policy analysts investigating trends in corporate governance, healthcare management, or industry consolidation. This List helps us understand the individuals who shape a critical sector of the U.S. economy!

(3) This List should be KEPT! In fact, if properly maintained with verifiable and reliable references, the page aligns with Wikipedia's standards for content reliability. Its continued existence should hinge on maintaining and improving the references, not deletion. We should ADD more to this list to cover ALL of the CEOs, their board members, and executive teams from ALL health insurers in the USA.

(4) ACCOUNTABILITY and TRANSPARENCY are enhanced when information about influential figures, like health insurance executives, is accessible. This aligns with Wikipedia's mission to democratize knowledge! Why are people even talking about gatekeeping this information 🤦

(5) Wikipedia already hosts numerous lists, such as "List of CEOs of Fortune 500 companies," which serve as templates for this type of resource. The presence of this page aligns with similar contributions to the platform's encyclopedic scope. You delete this, just delete them all!

LuciusRex5 (talk) LuciusRex5 (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hello all. I would welcome feedback on the current version of the article. I know there were some initial questions about the scope. I took it upon myself to add more links to articles of executives of companies that manage health insurance. Basically, any person who has ever been a c-suite executive or in an executive senior management position (presidents, chairmen). There are probably some missing, and certainly other notable people who do not yet have an article. In my opinion, this is an acceptable length for a list article with room for expansion. Mbdfar (talk) 21:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but expand and improve citation per RWall514 Snokalok (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: This list is not inherently inappropriate, and could be improved, but the timing of its creation is certainly suspect and it is likely to be a vandalism magnet in the near future if kept. As such I think it should be workshopped in draftspace until it meets a higher standard. It can be moved back into mainspace later, provided that it has been sufficiently improved and there is consensus among editors to do so. silviaASH (inquire within) 00:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Timing is irrelevant. If there was a cabbage story in the news and someone was prompted by that very story to write a page about cabbage (assuming it did not exist, of course), nobody would care about the timing. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 22:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coming in late to this discussion, but I don't see how this meets WP:NLIST since no one has supplied sources that provide WP:SIGCOV of all of these individuals as a discrete topic. Next, it fails WP:NOT by being a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of information with no clear boundaries. "Health insurance executives" can include dozens of individuals at each company. And there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of companies in the health insurance area when you factor in subsidiaries, reinsurers, health insurance service companies, insurtech, and more. The standards of inclusion are unclear and no one has supplied sources that narrow them down reasonably and in a way that does not constitute WP:OR. Moreover, this is a violation of WP:CROSSCAT by arbitrarily slicing the list as "executives" versus other employee types and to the United States. Finally, and this is an WP:IAR rationale, in the context of the online discourse following the murder of Brian Thompson, this list is basically going to be viewed by people (although heaven forbid not used by anyone) as a hit list, and that's certainly what Wikipedia is NOT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:54, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Added comment: I see Mbdfar above has identified the scope of the article to executives of companies that manage health insurance. Basically, any person who has ever been a c-suite executive or in an executive senior management position (presidents, chairmen). Given the range of executive titles encompassed and the unlimited time period, we could have any number of chief financial officers, chief risk officers, chief marketing officers, chief technology officers, chief investment officers, chief administrative officers, chief legal officers, chief operating officers, and so forth. The scope is truly indiscriminate, and this article seems like a WP:COATRACK to build a database of people in these roles, which again Wikipedia is WP:NOT. (Not to mention this list is going to require immense levels of maintenance to be kept up to date as people switch between different jobs.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after a "no consensus" closure following discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Lists of people, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Dclemens1971, who has very clearly shown all the policy arguments I would have made. That is, this does not meet WP:NLIST (vague as that guideline is) because this list, as envisaged here, cannot be demonstrated to be significant as a discrete topic, discussed as a group or set. It is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and a violation of WP:CROSSCAT. List articles can be frustrating because our policies are vague on them, and we often retain list articles that fall in the grey area, but in this case there are very clear reasons why this article should not be retained. Again Dclemens1971 puts a finger on it. This is very clearly a WP:COATRACK, and an absolutely astonishing example of unwise drafting based on current events. At a time when US health insurance companies have been taking down the profiles of their executives on safety grounds, it seems that some feel Wikipedia should frustrate their attempts to do so by providing a handy ~~hit~~ list of all such executives. If that is not a violation of WP:NOT then WP:NOT needs rewriting. Indeed, intentional or not, the existence of a page such as this also fails on neutrality and public safety. It risks bringing the encyclopaedia into disrepute, and it does not serve any true encyclopaedic function. The information about the notable executives remains on their pages. The collation of this list adds no encyclopaedic value. It can safely be deleted. It cannot be safely kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I respect the takes of the two above editors, but disagree. Even with recentism at play, the subject of 'American health insurance executives' is notable as exampled above. I understand the CROSSCAT argument, but also as stated above, would broadening the scope to simply global 'health insurance executives' really change the list? I don't know the answer. I also think it's interesting that between this page and the talk page there are simultaneous discussions about this article both being too broad in scope and too restrictive. Finally, I think it's dangerous territory to limit the creation of controversial articles based on timing. Was this page made in response to a terrible event? Yes. But at what arbitrary point would we then be allowed to create controversial articles? Who gets to decide what's controversial? Slippery slope. I think the timing of this needs to be taken out of the equation. Mbdfar (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Kumar Verma

AfDs for this article:

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

This article is clearly not ready for mainspace but a new user has now move-warred to keep it in mainspace from draft.

Sourcing in the article is inadequate for a BLP and are mostly primary sources. Better to continue to incubate in draft, if not delete outright per the last AfD's consensus. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, India, and Canada. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:24, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:40, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last version of the article by the creator stated he was born in Kerala before another user changed it to Bihar without adding a source on the matter.[35] ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 11:42, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there!I was the new user that "move-warred" to keep this article in mainspace. This article is based on the article for Escott Reid: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escott_Reid, however it contains more sources.

All sources are vetted and from the Indian government (2 articles), neutral sources (1 article) or press (2 articles).

Beyond the article,

I moved the page to article, ghostofdangurrey moved it to draft, I removed an uncited sentence and moved it to article (which I assumed was the best way to work based on the details from the help articles). While I understand if there is room for improvement, gatekeeping editing and using words like move-warred (when I apologized for moving it following a comment), is an interesting way to moderate. Researchmoreorless (talk) 12:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the only thing to change since the last AfD is something that would fall under WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I feel like Detective Columbo right now. Wait, what was that last thing? Covering up an international assassination plot and getting you and your cute family deported and expelled from a country famous for its super nice diplomatic culture? I think that’s more than BLP1E. This is the stuff of which procedurals are made. Bearian (talk) 09:50, 3 December 2024 (UTC) I would not oppose a ~~murder~~ merger to Canada–India diplomatic row. Bearian (talk) 09:52, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would also be amenable to a merge to Canada-India diplomatic row. Simonm223 (talk) 13:29, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same. Bearian (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom as there is no appropriate coverage to warranty an entry especially for a BLP and the information is already included in Canada-India diplomatic row FuzzyMagma (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canada–India diplomatic row#2024 expulsions. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:00, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting is fine; I don't believe there is any content worth merging that isn't already at the target. ―"Ghost of Dan Gurney" _(hihi) 18:12, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senco Gold Limited

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

This article fails WP:NORG , the sources listed here do not provide the coverage required by stringent WP:CORPDEPTH and most sources I found in WP:BEFORE search were unusable for establishing notability as they fell under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the history of socking and undisclosed paid editing can't be overlooked either, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soumya511569- Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MCI Group

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Previously PROD. Imcdc Contact 04:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Switzerland. Imcdc Contact 04:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG on WP:NCORP, WP:ORGSIG and WP:ORGCRIT. Most of the coverage are from PRWeb, which is an online press release platform. No WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma (talk) 13:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail to meet WP:GNG.--Tristancr (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of JD Vance

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

Premature page splitting for a topic that is not mature enough to have long-term notability under WP:LISTN. Generally, a politician should not have a separate electoral history article until they've been through a few cycles with substantial analysis between performances. Sounder Bruce 04:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists, and Ohio. Sounder Bruce 04:21, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back per nom Andre🚐 04:24, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A separate page is not needed for someone who has only been in two elections. Reywas92^Talk 05:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a stand alone list, so WP:LISTN does not apply. I don't see any harm with having this as a seperate page, but for now it doesn't seem like we need to. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 06:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - duplicates information already on his main article. — Maile (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to main article as a plausible search target. S5A-0043^Talk 15:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nathalie Beasnael

AfDs for this article:

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

While it has been improved from its poor state after creation by a subsequently blocked sock, this is still a WP:PROMO biography for a non-notable individual. Sources are limited to:

The subject's own writing and thus WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs ([36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44])
WP:PRSOURCEs ([45], [46])
Churnalism based on interviews solely with or statements solely by the author (and thus also primary sources) ([47], [48])
Primary source official bios ([49], [50])
A WP:TRIVIALMENTION ([51])

Meanwhile, the awards she has received are not of the kind to qualify her as notable under WP:ANYBIO. Nothing qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search. Bottom line: fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Africa, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:57, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:04, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had the same concerns while editing the article recently. Ligaturama (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eldon Howard

AfDs for this article:

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

Hasn't changed since previous AFD. Jay Cubby 02:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jay Cubby 02:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unclear why the article was kept per no consensus in the previous AfD. Allan Nonymous (talk) 22:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:50, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Zubretsky

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

WP:BLP of a health insurance executive, not adequately sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, health insurance CEOs are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on coverage that's substantively about them and their work, but the referencing here isn't really cutting it: the best sources are two short blurbs published on the same day announcing his initial hiring for the job, which aren't substantive enough to get him over GNG all by themselves, while the rest of the footnotes comprise a press release self-published by his company (which isn't an independent source), an industry trade newsletter that isn't a GNG-worthy publication, and three articles that aren't about him in any non-trivial sense, but just glancingly namecheck him in the process of being principally about the overall phenomenon of how much insurance executives are getting paid.
Further, the information about his annual financial compensation over several years is a bit of a BLP minefield, especially in the wake of last week's shooting -- the amount that a person gets paid is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but that appears to be this article's primary concern.
Simply existing as an insurance CEO, regardless of how much money he is or isn't making, is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be the principal subject of more GNG-worthy coverage about him and his work than this article is showing. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BLP1E - If the Brian Thompson murder had not happened, it is unlikely Zubretsky would be eligible for his own article. As is, it reads like an unremarkable resume. The same career background and compensation is not that out of line in corporate executive salaries. — Maile (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the mention in the article, "While at Aetna, Zubretsky increased telecommuting for employees as a way to save on office and real estate costs." Maybe so, but this was already the going trend in corporate America about the time he started doing that. — Maile (talk) 04:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I mean, this is well-sourced. A "Run of the mill CEO article" isn't exactly routine, there aren't thousands of health-care CEOs, he's one of a handful... A company of this size is akin to General Motors or Enron, so the CEO would be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well-sourced how, if the only footnotes that actually represent real media outlets writing about him are both short blurbs? Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's generally at least enough for a stub article. We have confirmation of employment at a large healthcare enterprise. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's enough in terms of sourcing to justify this article's existence. I'm less than keen on Wikipedia being party to a naming-and-blaming campaign, but we're not censored. I created an article on a corporate executive that survived an AfD (Ted Decker) and this is article's subject is vaguely reminiscent of that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:00, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Also this profile in a newspaper [52]. There are mentions of his name in newspapers back to 2007 with Aetna, he's had a long business career. Oaktree b (talk) 14:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TriangleOS

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined G4 (not sufficiently identical), although the given sources do not provide much more evidence of notability, and a WP:BEFORE couldn't find anything else except forums and primary sources. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned by nominator, WP:BEFORE search came up with primary sources and forums. The article itself cites two self-published sources (here and here) which are not reliable. I would say this fails WP:GNG and definitely fails WP:SIGCOV. I also doubt there will be any future coverage considering the project was seemingly discontinued as of 2006. Beachweak (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obscure hobby OS doesn't appear to have enough coverage in reliable sources. Andre🚐 04:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original website of the project (wcools.nl) must be reliable, it's managed by the creator himself Swsrqurk (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is reliable, it is not independent and so does not build the case for keeping an article, see WP:GNG. - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of sourcing to meet WP:GNG or WP:NSOFTWARE. - MrOllie (talk) 18:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:GNG, lacks significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Just a discontinued hobby project, I would be surprised if there was anything. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 22:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above editors' findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruger LC carbine

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

Disputed WP:BLAR but this article fails our WP:NOT policy, it is little more than a catalogue listing for two of the related guns by the company. As the BLAR was disputed, I proposed redirect to Sturm, Ruger & Co.#Products. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object. I created the page for other to edit it as they wish. I oppose the deletion of the LC carbine wikipedia page outright. Stormm001 (talk) 20:41, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:54, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Needs sourcing... Some coverage in the NRA magazine [53] and in Guns magazine [54]. The NRA would certainly be biased, but I see no reason it would not be a RS. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank You 🙏🏻 Stormm001 (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would point out that the coverage is not the issue and I too saw some reviews in conducting a BEFORE. I'm not saying the notability of the subject is the concern here. To Oaktree b's point, not only does it need additional sourcing in the article, it needs content. My argument instead was a WP:NOT policy. Redirect and tag with {{R with possibilities}} and {{R with history}} but presently two infoboxes and some catalogue stats do not an article make. Like I said, this is just the formal process of a disputed WP:BLAR. Thanks, Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] Topic appears to be notable, though article needs expansion. DarmaniLink (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bias Capital

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

Article does not assert a claim of notability. Leading an investment round is WP:ORGTRIV that would not suffice for notability of the company raising the funding, nevertheless one of the investors. Brandon (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Business, and California. Brandon (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. The company is notable not just for the investment or its amount, but because it invested in a Mexican American-founded and minority-led biotechnology company. This aligns with their focus on addressing bias and the lack of funding for minority and underrepresented founders—an issue that has been highlighted in multiple reliable sources. Vortexjourney754 (talk) 01:06, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article currently contains no reliable sources. If some exist, it would be helpful to include them in the article. Brandon (talk) 01:11, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I used 3 sources and I believe they are reliable, given the content of the article. I could be wrong though.

Do you mind expanding on your comment? Vortexjourney754 (talk) 01:41, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The test here is notability (from WP:ORGCRIT) "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Only one link in the article (businesswire) is a secondary source, and Bias Capital just gets a passing mention. JeffUK 13:58, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are additional sources. However, given the name of the company, it's not necessarily obvious whether the content is about the company or the concept of "bias in the investment space." There's definitely an overlap but my understanding is that the connection between a cited source and the its subject (e.g. the relevant wiki page) should be obvious. Am I mistaken?

I also just added some information about the company that I for some reason believed was already present. Thanks for letting me know about the passing mention. Vortexjourney754 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably the Business Wire source is a press release and would fall under WP:PRSOURCE. Brandon (talk) 16:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm now officially confused about the feedback. Is it the issue the quality of the sources? Or simply the amount? I've run across a few pages that have as low as 2-3 citations, and afaik there has never been a request for more citations. If the number of citations is the issue, then there should be a tag/warning added requesting that more sources be added. There was initial feedback stating the article relied solely on a single citation. This was fixed. The press release was written by Parker Health for Parker Health, so from Bias Capital's perspective, it is an independent source. Bias Capital's mention is not promotional and simply reflects the factual structure of the deal. Vortexjourney754 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria will give you the answer to that! JeffUK 08:06, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG, just not enough coverage. JeffUK 13:56, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I find no coverage outside of funding announcements, which is rather routine for a venture capital firm. I don't see how this is much different than any other such firm... Sourcing now is their own website and a funding announcement. Neither of which is helpful for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:08, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no coverage because you don't like the coverage you saw? That's no way to make an argument. This goes against "notability doesn't equal fame." If I was to claim that A, B, C articles have 3 sources or less, therefore if this page is deleted, they should be deleted as well, I'd lose all credibility. Outside of the Parker deal, I didn't use any funding announcement as a source. Also, outside of maybe the Microsoft, Google, and A16Z of the world, most corporations, independent of industry, use their own site as source so your claim about it not helping for notability goes against the established patterns of the wikipedia platform. Would the firm be notable if has received a profile by the Wall Street Journal instead of the funding round? Vortexjourney754 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did a google search, and found no sources that discuss this firm. I hope that helps. Oaktree b (talk) 00:36, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hunan Self-Study University

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

This article does not appear notable based on WP:RS Amigao (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An important, if brief, part of modern Chinese history and a listed cultural heritage site in Hunan. Chinese wikipedia has an article: zh:湖南自修大学旧址 (admittedly, unsourced). I've added a number of links, including a biography of Li Da which discusses his time at the university, and this article from China Daily.

Article is not an orphan (single link at Yang Youlin but could be linked to from a few of the notable students/teachers' pages. There are a few uncited passages in the article which may or may not be supported by sources, but I've left them for now. This should pass GNG either as an orgainzation or as a historical site (which is how it's treated on the Chinese wiki). Here's some info from the China Daily article.

China Daily "From Qingshuitang to Chuanshan Academy, Chengbei witnessed Mao Zedong's "small family, big country" road[60]

Via Google translate "Under the plaque of "Chuanshan Academy" in the courtyard, there is an inconspicuous signboard of "Hunan Self-Study University". Surrounded by progressive youths and workers and peasants, Mao Zedong took to the podium to give instructions and talk freely....The second two rooms restore the bedrooms of Mao Zedong and He Shuheng, the office of the Hunan Student Union, and the library of the Self-Study University. Pictures and other forms show Mao Zedong's experience in the Self-Study University, as well as photos and life stories of some people who studied at the Self-Study University.....In 1921, Mao Zedong, He Shuheng and other comrades set up Hunan Self-Study University here to gather talents from all over the world. From its founding in August 1921 to its closure in 1923, the Self-Study University had more than 200 students, including Li Weihan, Xia Minghan, Yi Lirong, Jiang Mengzhou, Guo Liang, and Mao Zemin, who trained and sent a large number of backbones for the Party."

Oblivy (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amigao would you like to have a look at the article and see if you still think it qualifies for deletion? I think we're at WP:HEY. Oblivy (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oblivy, although I would not be opposed to a suitable merge. No obvious merge arises though, so perhaps make that a separate discussion. Although this was only open for such a short time, the identity of the founder, the notability of alumni and its place in history all speak to clear notability, and the sources added are already sufficient. It is likely it gets mentioned in other secondary sources too. Definitely not a delete. Is seems that the article will always be short. This is not necessarily a problem though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:20, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]