Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

13 November 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 12	November 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Kai Paulsen

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Created in 2006 and has never had a single source. Geschichte (talk) 09:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete tagged for notability since 2012, there are Kai Paulsens out there, but no Norwegian journalist, photographer, and computer collector Kai Paulsens. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tehace

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

Tagged for notability for 12 years. Fails WP:NBAND. I could not find any reviews of their work in reliable sources (I searched for the band and album names, first in conjunction with review then with recenzja.) Geschichte (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Stahl

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

Article is unsourced with the only external links leading to database-type webpages (WP:NOTDATABASE), only notability appears to be as a relation to the Schumacher family and not his own sporting achievements (therefore failing WP:NMOTORSPORT). MSportWiki (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Motorsport, Germany, and Sportspeople. MSportWiki (talk) 09:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senegal Music Awards

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

This article was created in 2009 by an WP:SPA, and has been unreferenced for c. 15 years. I have tried numerous searches to verify this award exists, but have been unable to find any sources via google, news searches, and also TWL searches including via Ebsco and ProQuest. No evidence the subject meets WP:GNG. ResonantDis_tortion 08:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Awards, and Senegal. ResonantDis_tortion 08:33, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen CuUnjieng

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

This was a pending "draft" in articlespace. The sources in the article are of low-quality, and the WP:BEFORE search was questionable at best. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 08:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Philippines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 08:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. However, it is recommended to enhance the content by incorporating additional reliable sources, which are available online and can be appropriately cited to improve the article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reason why I wanted to draftify is that I couldn't find any reliable sources, and unfortunately, in my experience, without draftification, the article gets abandoned. The draft might get abandoned as well, but can be G13-deleted (basically, a "soft delete" where someone can get the draft "refunded" or bought back). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mithu Aur Aapa

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

No significant coverage. Only reliable source on the page is DAWN and that is a simple mention. Nothing I can find online other than some social media and unreliable sources. CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hum_TV#Comedy_and_sitcoms: notable cast, verifiable content; Dawn mention; so suggesting this ATD instead of deletion (to which I am opposed). Mushy Yank (talk) 10:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being opposed to deletion, are you voting keep with a redirect as an ATD?--CNMall41 (talk) 18:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am !voting Redirect (bolded word). And am opposed to deletion. Mushy Yank (talk) 18:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I saw that part about being opposed to deletion so I was wondering if it was a keep or redirect. Thanks for the clarification this is a redirect !vote, not a keep vote. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Should have multiple sources instead of just one to establish notability. Fails SIGCOV and GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meri Behan Meri Dewrani

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

No significant coverage that I can find in a WP:BEFORE. Only verification taht it exists or at least existed. CNMall41 (talk) 06:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 06:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_programs_broadcast_by_ARY_Digital#Daily_series: notable cast, verifiable (for example with https://nettv4u.com/about/Urdu/tv-serials/meri-behan-meri-dewrani/all-cast-and-crew ) Mushy Yank (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails notability. Redirect is also possible as suggested above. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Madiha Maliha

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

No significant coverage that I can find in a WP:BEFORE. Can verify it exist(ed) but nothing significant for notability. CNMall41 (talk) 06:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 06:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Significant mention here: https://tribune.com.pk/article/13733/pakistani-dramas-are-women-really-less-empowered-now for example; existing coverage (such as https://www.adgully.com/zindagi-all-set-with-new-show-madiha-maliha-59652.html) allows verification; notable cast, notable crew, so opposed to deletion, and suggesting redirect (and possible merge, with the said source and other sources for verification) to List_of_programmes_broadcast_by_Zee_Zindagi#Former programming.Mushy Yank (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails SIGCOV and GNG. Wikibear47 (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths as a result of Cyclone Tracy

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

A vast majority of this article is unsourced. There's no real reason that this list should exist, as although Tracy was a horrific tragedy, it is nowhere near the most deadliest (Typhoon Yagi and Hurricane Helene of this year are more deadlier than Tracy). I'd propose it for deletion, however, it was declined. Tavantius (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tavantius (talk) 05:47, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - the specific event, and resultant deaths were of considerable trauma for the whole of Australia at the time, and this list has nothing to specifically existential comparison with other deadly cyclones. Australian weather events in the particular era were nowhere as deadly, or as circumstantially profound as it occurred in the Christmas New Year; also such surprise had been only happened on Darwin when it was bombed during the second world war. Of Australian disasters such as this one, and specifically the deaths, the actual numbers and identification of casualties is of considerable significance due to the length of time to resolve, and the potential for the number to be potentially in actuality never finalised due to suspicions about unidentified and unknown deaths.JarrahTree 06:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is one of the biggest disasters in Australian history. The number death is a particularly contentious and prey to misinformation and conspiracy. This is an incredible reference for researchers everywhere. The reference list could be expanded to support it better.--Tenniscourtisland (talk) 07:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"This is one of the biggest disasters in Australian history." This might be an argument for the notability of the main article on the storm itself (and even then, it's not really...it's the sources we have about it), but not for this list. "This is an incredible reference for researchers everywhere." Please see WP:ITSUSEFUL. This also rings a bit hollow since you're the creator and main contributor of this article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above reasons. Refs could be improved. Here's one. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 12:20, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a reliable source and does nothing to establish notability of this as a standalone topic. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:56, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:53, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (note:I removed the prod because sources are available and deletion is not a cleanup tool) The deaths involved with Cyclone Tracy has resulted in multiple government/coroner inquiries, with names added and removed at various points in time over the last 50 years. The list has changed each time the inquiries were completed so it may require restructuring to show each change deletion is not the way to improve this article. Every person and every change can be referenced, thoug some sources will be paper sourcing which is held in Northern Territory Library requiring on the ground sources. Gnangarra 12:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment my one is bigger than yours doesnt constitute deletion reasons either. Cyclone Tracy was avery unique cyclone, in timing, size, and intensity. Gnan garra 12:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the overall topic of the accounting for all the deaths might be noteworthy, it's already covered at the main article. This is just a context-less list of names and ages of the dead, which runs afoul of WP:NOTDB and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There's been a long tradition of not keeping lists like this, especially from natural disasters, and this one is no different. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 14:49, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The event itself is notable but the names of all the casualties are not. If any are notable, they should be mentioned in the parent article. Wikipedia is not a memorial site. Ajf773 (talk) 21:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 35 and Ajf773. Only very, very notable events warrant lists of victims, e.g. Sinking of the Titanic. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:11, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Cyclone Tracy. Some of the information is encyclopediac, some is not. But the main article is only 3,300 words and can handle the extra content. Thus the relevant information should be merged into the parent article. 12.69.202.75 (talk) 14:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC) Striking vote by WMF-banned user. ChrisWx ☁️ (talk - contribs) 23:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC) [reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Any notable fatalities can be included in main article. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Everything important can be in the main article. Bduke (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Epack Prefab

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

Epack Prefab

Article about an Indian company which manufactures pre-engineered buildings (PEBs), also known as prefabricated buildings, but does not establish corporate notability. None of the references are significant coverage by independent sources. The references are mostly press releases or paid pieces by the company or interviews with the company, and some of them are about the technology rather than the company.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	livemint.com	A corporate profile	No	Yes	?	No
2	Times of India	An interview with an officer in the course of an article	Yes	No. Passing mention.	No	?
3	news.abplive.com	An interview	No	Yes	?	No
4	businesstoday.in	An interview about how prefab building reduces pollution	No	Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes	No
5	www.tv9hindi.com	An interview about prefab building	No	Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes?	No
6	www.zeebiz.com	An interview about the company	No	Yes	Yes?	No
7	www.etnownews.com	An interview with some promotional content	No	Yes	Yes?	No
8	auto.economictimes.indiatimes.com	A feature story, reads as if it was paid	No	Yes	No. Times of India.	No
9	infra.economictimes.indiatimes.com	Another feature story, may be paid	No	Yes	No. Times of India.	No
10	www.financialexpress.com	Reads like a corporate profile	No	Yes	Yes	No
11	www.adgully.com	An ad in an advertising web site, corporate information	No	Yes	?	No
12	www.constructionworld.in	A press release	No	Yes	?	No
13	www.outlookbusiness.com	An interview about prefab building	No	No. Not about the company, but about the technology	?	No
14	The Hindu	A press release	No	Don't know. Only able to view lead of article due to paywall, but that was enough to see that it is a press release.	Yes	No
15	indianinfrastructure.com	Article about prefab building. Doesn't mention the company.	Yes	No. Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes	No?
16	www.zeebiz.com	An article about prefab building. No mention of company.	Yes	No. Not about the company, but about the technology	Yes?	No
17	www.business-standard.com	A press release about corporate plans.	No	Yes	Yes	No

This article was originally created in article space by a now-blocked promotional editor, and moved back to draft space by the blocking administrator. This article appears to be identical to the draftified article by another editor. There are concerns about covert advertising, but it isn't necessary to know whether there is covert advertising, because there isn't coverage that satisfies corporate notability. The author of this version of the article has now been blocked as a sockpuppet.

The draft can be left standing because drafts are not checked for notability. In view of the history of sockpuppetry and conflict of interest, salting is probably in order in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Uttar Pradesh. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject lack notability Per WP:Notability_(organizations_and_companies) Tesleemah (talk) 05:40, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I’d like to address Reference Number 5. It was mentioned that this is just an interview about prefab building, but after reviewing it carefully, I see it as an independent article. The article discusses EPACK Prefab’s role in the prefabricated construction sector. In it, the director of EPACK Prefab highlights how prefabrication allows for up to 90% of the work to be completed in a factory, which significantly speeds up the construction process. From my perspective, this is more than an interview—it’s an article that explores prefab construction and specifically references Epack Prefab company's name. Suhailjav (talk) 04:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Suhailjav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I’d also like to address Reference Number 1. It is mentioned that this is an interview, but after a thorough review, I believe it’s actually an independent article. The article covers the growth of warehousing in Visakhapatnam and includes references to EPACK Prefab’s contributions within this sector. It highlights the company’s involvement in prefab construction for warehousing, showing how our solutions support this expanding industry. From my perspective, this is more than an interview—it’s an article that provides insight into warehousing growth while specifically mentioning EPACK Prefab’s role. Suhailjav (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Suhailjav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reference Number 10. It was noted that this reference 'reads like a corporate profile,' but upon reviewing it, I see it as an independent article focused on EPACK Prefab’s #WasteToWorth campaign. The article discusses the company’s sustainability and recycling initiatives rather than promoting its profile. It specifically highlights EPACK Prefab’s efforts to encourage eco-friendly practices within the prefabrication industry. In my view, this piece serves as a report on the campaign and EPACK Prefab’s commitment to sustainable practices, rather than a corporate profile. Suhailjav (talk) 04:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC) — Suhailjav (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This may be eligible for WP:G4 as it closely resembles the page deleted in July following the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPACK Prefab. Yuvaank (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEYMANN. The subject certainly meets WP:LISTED, WP:NCORP and Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines with significant coverage in independent reliable sources, including the EPACK Prefab to set up pre-engineered building manufacturing unit in Tirupati district of Andhra Pradesh written by V. Raghavendra from The Hindu which is a reliable source in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#The Hindu, Vishakhapattanam records 265% increase in warehousing] written by Umamaheswara Rao from The Times of India generally count as reliable and Can pre-engineered building construction help reduce air pollution in Delhi? written by Nidhi Singal from Business Today magazine which is also a reliable resource. 2409:40D0:2022:3A4:A8BB:13DD:AC2:204F (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)\[reply]
Appealing to WP:HEY makes less than zero sense here. The article is literally the exact same at this time as it was at the time it was nominated for deletion. I would also note that The Times of India is not presumed generally reliable; see WP:TOI. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has received significant coverage in national media. The page appears to have passed WP:NPP. Additionally, it satisfies WP:GNG and meets WP:LISTED.Wasisi Cyclelove (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:48, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwatumininu

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

Page about a name, sourced to one unreliable (wiki) and very short source. I had redirected it to the one article for someone with this name, but this was reverted, so here we are. This AfD is to reinstate the redirect, not to delete it. This seems to be part of some major Nigerian project to have a separate article for every single Nigerian name, no matter the notability or the need for a disambiguation. Fram (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Disambiguations, and Nigeria. Fram (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Park

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

Non-notable actress. Could not find SIGCOV about her. Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Natg 19 (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. K. Kurien

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

Article fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NBIO. Brandon (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Perry (computer specialist)

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

Article does not demonstrate notability under WP:NBIO. Brandon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Macalester College Observatory

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

Beyond the single primary reference to the observatory's homepage, the only sources a WP:BEFORE search turned up were very small newspaper items, like this two-paragraph one for the opening, that lack enough detail to meet WP:SIGCOV. Sdkb ^talk 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Macalester College as nominator. Sdkb ^talk 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's beyond the scope of this AfD, but if anyone wants to seek out AfDable articles, the new Category:University and college astronomical observatories is chock full of them. Sdkb ^talk 07:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Astronomy, and Minnesota. Sdkb ^talk 07:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Spectre of Lanyon Moor

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

fails WP:GNG unsourced since 2013 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and England. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Johri

AfDs for this article:

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

References do not demonstrate significant coverage by multiple sources. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

House of Blue Fire

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

Fails WP:GNG prod opposed Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond Public Schools

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

out of date info,lack of secondary sources best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. best regards, Paytonisboss (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annette Jones (architect)

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

An orphan article. An unremarkable career that does not meet WP:ARCHITECT. Source 1 is merely a registration database, sources 3 and 5 are primary. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 05:38, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with Einstein's general theory of relativity

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

This article is purely WP:OR. All of the sources are used to contradict the theory of relativity by taking the quotes presented out of context. This clearly violates WP:NOT. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. That Tired Tarantula^Burrow 05:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons given by User:That Tired Tarantula: original research, quote mining, general crackpottery. Athel cb (talk) 08:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is the wrong venue for this type of article which is WP:OR written from the writer's perspective. I don't think it is crackpottery: the article raises interesting questions and I hope it will be published elsewhere. But Wikipedia follows opinion: it does not lead it. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Transwikiing to uncyclopedia would also be reasonable if that’s feasible. McYeee (talk) 09:27, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Association of Colleges and Employers

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

Unsourced article from 2008 about a professional association. A WP:BEFORE search reveals scattered media, e.g. [1], covering the organization's annual jobs survey, but such coverage is not focused on the organization itself. Sdkb ^talk 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Economics, and United States of America. Sdkb ^talk 05:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raw ("Hopsin" album)

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

Contested draft. Duplicate of Raw (Hopsin album) which was WP:BLARed last year due to a lack of notability. Pinging @QuietHere: the editor who performed the BLAR on the previous article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and United States of America. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Juola

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

Does not meet WP:N standards. WP:BLP1E may be applicable Djibooty (talk) 04:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, Computing, Colorado, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to J. K. Rowling#Adult fiction and Robert Galbraith where a brief, sourced mention is likely appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Free, Indiana

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

A rail point marked by a grain elevator complex which has changed over the years but which has nothing else around it. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Cannot see any community there on Google Maps. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:10, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Foresman, Benton County, Indiana

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

This is an example of why I'm inclined to take Baker calling a place a "village" with a grain of salt. This is indeed a rail point, but there's no sign of a settlement or for that matter any place it could have been. There is one business, a concrete plant, which replaced a different ag/industrial facility sometime in the 1960s/'70s. Other than that, nothing. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Nothing on Google News. No community seen on Google Maps. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:16, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Browne

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

Fails WP:ARCHITECT. An unremarkable career. 3rd source is her employer, 2nd source is a media release. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Architecture, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to pass WP:GNG - Google News apparently only turns up false positives. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Campus Maps

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

The only secondary coverage available is from campus papers, which don't contribute to notability under NORG's heightened audience requirements. Sdkb ^talk 03:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Schools, and Computing. Sdkb ^talk 03:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barak Rosen

AfDs for this article:

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

Fluff piece about non-notable businessperson. Cannot find any significant coverage of the article's subject, completely failing GNG. All sources in the article are about his company's acquisitions or incidental inclusion in lists of businesspeople. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Israel. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 03:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Dan Leonard,

I have three big profile articles about Barak in Hebrew. Since he is Israeli, can I add them to the article? And will it suffice?

כבר לא שני מתווכים מרעננה: "הם רוצים להיות השחקנים הכי גדולים, רוזן מוכן להתאבד על עסקות" (דה מרקר)

https://www.themarker.com/realestate/2021-11-05/ty-article-magazine/.highlight/0000017f-e3c4-d9aa-afff-fbdcdc580000

הילדים הרעים של שוק הנדל"ן הכפילו את שוויים ב־2016 (כלכליסט)

https://www.calcalist.co.il/markets/articles/0,7340,L-3706754,00.html

הכל בכל מקום בבת אחת (כלכליסט)

https://newmedia.calcalist.co.il/magazine-12-05-22/m01.html

עידו כ.ש. (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of campus identifications in mobile wallets

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

This list fundamentally fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It is sourced only to individual universities or to the technology platforms that provide the mobile wallets, both primary sources. The best case for WP:NLIST would invoke the secondary coverage in dubious-reliability sources like CNET (generally unreliable at RSP) and TechCrunch ("may be less useful for the purpose of determining notability" at RSP), but even setting aside the reliability concerns, these articles mention only a few institutions rather than discussing them all as a group. Lastly, at the risk of making a prediction, the long-term prospects for this list are poor, since presuming this technological trend continues, eventually nearly every college will be part of it. Sdkb ^talk 03:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Campus card, where the overall trend is discussed, but without merging the indiscriminate list, as nominator. Sdkb ^talk 03:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Lists. Sdkb ^talk 03:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 04:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fargo, Benton County, Indiana

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

According to the topos, a former passing siding; now, just a name by the tracks in a field. No sign of a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Google Maps shows ... one farm / residence. There is nothing on Google News, that one link isn't talking about this Fargo. starship.paint (talk / cont) 07:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daveed (2025 film)

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

Unreleased film, nothing especially notable about the production, therefore does not meet WP:NFILM, specifically WP:NFF, as an as yet unreleased film. Should have remained in draft space but has been moved back to main space, so deletion is required. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see many upcoming movie articles on Wikipedia, and as an editor who enjoys creating and editing movie articles, I’m particularly focused on the Indian film industry. My goal is to reach 10,000 edits and become a strong contributor to Wikipedia. Recently, I encountered a deletion nomination for an article on an upcoming film, even though its release date has been announced. I removed the "unreleased" category and added the "upcoming films" category since the shoot and post-production are complete. I’ve verified all the data through news articles, and everything seems accurate. This is the first time I've faced a deletion nomination for a film article, and I’m feeling a bit helpless. Any advice would be greatly appreciated! Arjusreenivas (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And regarding the notbaility of prodcution, The film was distributed by Century Films which is the distributer of Malaikottai Vaaliban, Perumani and John Luther etc. These are the details I got from the producers social handles. Arjusreenivas (talk) 18:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" would rather be established through sources independent of the subject. (Not saying that what you are saying is not true nor that it is not interesting) Mushy Yank (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Thank you for your Participation in this Discussion, Please Check sources, I think the article have more than enough sources. Arjusreenivas (talk) 03:07, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the production, as stated, is notable. Everything is very, very standard. WP:NFF is clear: Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines. Basically, you should not be creating articles in main article space about the vast majority of films that have not yet released. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, This article covers a film that's set to release in the next two months. Regarding production details, I can only reference publicly available news articles and interviews. Given the popularity of this film in India, I believe many people here are already aware of its production background. I kindly request someone from India to assess the notability of this article, especially regarding its production and other key details.

I welcome everyone to expand the article and contribute with verified information. I’m also sharing data I’ve gathered from media sources to help make this a comprehensive and accurate article. Please feel free to edit for clarity, correct any English errors, and improve. Arjusreenivas (talk) 11:14, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antony_Varghese#Films: listed there; given existing coverage, the fact that filming is wrapped, the cast, notable and details about productions are verifiable, I am not opposed to Keep if other users agree it can be kept (opposed to deletion, not necessary in the present case). Mushy Yank (talk) 22:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Mushy Yank. Yes, I believe this article is relevant to keep on Wikipedia because the release date has been announced, and the film has already wrapped. Therefore, deletion would not be the right decision. Thank you for your comment. Arjusreenivas (talk) 03:13, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect would be fine, until the film has released. I mean, draftifying would have worked, too, but... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, The article meets 4 out of 5 of the WP:NFF production guidelines. Enough information is available to support article. Also it can be classified under the "2025 films, Upcoming films, Upcoming Malayalam-language films" category. Arjusreenivas (talk) 15:42, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The film has successfully completed its production phase, and reliable sources confirm that it is currently in the post-production and marketing stages, with only the final release pending. The project meets 4 out of 5 of the WP:NFF production guidelines. Sufficient information is available to justify an independent article, and it can be classified under the "2025 films, Upcoming films, Upcoming Malayalam-language films" category.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:35, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I believe there are no notability issues with this article, so it should be retained. From my review, the movie is scheduled for release in two months, and it’s not from a new production or featuring unknown actors. Thank you for your contribution. Arjusreenivas (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We have the typical general announcements, churnalism, NEWSORGINDIA, etc., but no significant coverage such as bylined reviews. Nothing notable about production. Draftify would be a good WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Yung-kyoo

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable and has GA potential as captain of the historic 1966 North Korean World Cup team, a recipient of the title People's Athlete (honoring the greatest North Korean sportspeople in history - [2] - satisfying WP:ANYBIO), being one of ~five players focused on in a full-length book in North Korea (ref 1), being considered a national sports hero (per The Game of Their Lives) and a very prominent member of the national team with freaking 97 caps. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Hannan Masud

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

Sources do not show in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 02:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Radwell

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are about his company, Canouflet, with few pass mentioned in some journals. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, China, Hong Kong, England, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lbjaja055,

Thank you for your careful review and dedication to Wikipedia’s standards. I do want to acknowledge this is my first attempt at creating a biography for a living person, so I may not be fully versed in all nuances of the guidelines. However, I’m committed to refining the page to meet the standards set by WP and would welcome any guidance on improvements. I do respectfully disagree with the proposed deletion and would like to clarify the sources used and their relevance.

The assertion that “most of the sources are about his company” is not entirely accurate. While there are a few references to his company, Camouflet, they represent a minority of the sources and were included primarily because they are recent publications. The majority of references come from reputable scientific journals and independent media outlets that focus on his personal contributions to the field, particularly his pioneering research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These sources highlight his impactful discoveries and advancements, which have had a verifiable influence on public health and scientific understanding during a critical time. His work meets the notability criteria outlined in WP

through these reliable, independent publications, which underscore his standing in the scientific community and the lasting significance of his contributions.

I hope this clarification provides a fuller picture of the subject’s notability, independent of his company, and trust it will support reconsideration of the deletion proposal. Thank you again for your commitment to maintaining Wikipedia's high standards. Stichodactyla (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 3 of the sources cited (3, 6, and 10) are basically press releases. Some of the others are either primary sources or more directly about the company, with only a passing mention of him. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian,

Thank you for your review and for bringing up these concerns. I've removed the majority of sources that seemed like press releases. There are, however, additional independent, reliable sources. I'm committed to editing, including re-evaluating cited sources and removing or reworking content that may appear overly promotional. Stichodactyla (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hewa S. Khalid

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

As far as I can see, there isn't a single secondary reliable source independent from the subject to count towards the subject's wikinotability (actually, most if not all of the sources were created by the subject). Can't find a passing criteria from WP:NACADEMIC nor any significant independent coverage for WP:GNG. Aintabli (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iraq. Aintabli (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also an apparent WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and it was previously tagged as such before its prompt removal by the article creator. Aintabli (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I do not believe that the subject meets WP:PROF at this time per GS profile,[3] though perhaps someone more familiar with Kurdish studies could comment. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:13, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Song-gun

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a prominent member of the national team with 27 games and seven goals. A search brings up a number of mentions of him in South Korean media from the time. I think one could certainly write at least a decent start-class article on him... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DesignTech Systems

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only 1 article links to this. A search for sources found company's involvement in a skill development scam but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and Maharashtra. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 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!} 01:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall James

(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) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as a former WDF World Championship runner-up and World Masters semi-finalist, there appears to be a great deal of significant coverage of the subject in Welsh (Llanelli Star, South Wales Echo) and other (Liverpool Echo, Aberdeen Evening Express) papers, but a lot of it is hidden behind a paywall. If I can get access to these papers later in the week I'll assess the coverage and update my vote; if anyone else has access to them it may be worth a look. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Registering a keep vote in light of the below comment, but will update further if I get granted access to the newspaper archive for the aforementioned articles. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage here and although my BNA access has expired, here's a story titled "Top of the World: Marshall James", which is almost certainly sigcov. He was second-best at the world championships! BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a six paragraph article that summarises a six year career really "significant coverage"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a 300+ word article on the then-second-best darts player in the world, as well as what appears to be a feature on 'Top of the World: Marshall James', count for notability? Of course it does. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. Are you seriously suggesting he was better than Phil Taylor? Two articles do not make significant coverage, especially when one of which you have admitted you have no idea what it even is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. – I'll admit I'm not super familiar with darts, but didn't James finish as the runner-up at the World Championships? Wouldn't being runner-up at the World Championships be second best in the world? And two articles can absolutely be significant coverage; the general notability guideline says that's all that's required for notability (two pieces of coverage). What do you think the odds are that a story titled, "Top of the World: Marshall James", is not significant coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He finished runner-up at a (not the) World Championship and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing of note ever again. Does a darts player from Llanelli having potentially one article in a Llanelli newspaper, and a six paragraph article on a darts website, really count for notability? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does having significant coverage from two independent outlets for a runner-up at a World Darts Championship count for notability? Absolutely if you go by GNG, which only requires two significant sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, to keep up-to-date. That's one "significant" source. And one source you freely admit you haven't read. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're allowed to use common sense. The odds that both the 'Top of the World' source is insignificant and that there's no further coverage of him anywhere is incredibly small, especially given that Ser! has found paywalled articles in four additional newspapers. That you're unable to answer whether you've done any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all for over one hundred darts articles you've rapidly nominated or proposed for deletion is concerning as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice personal attack there. Not content with doing it on my own talk page you now choose to do it here too! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that you've refused on three occasions to answer the basic question of whether or not you've done a BEFORE search is not a personal attack... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assuming that I haven't, and constantly repeating the claim, is a personal attack. What on earth makes you think I haven't? Because you found that the British library has an article in the Llanelli Post about him from 27 years ago? 🤣 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsKesha: What on earth makes you think I haven't? – because I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that the articles are old, and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that I need to AGF – and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you told me to get off your talk page – and then here you called it a personal attack, and when asked ... you responded that "What on earth makes you think I haven't? 🤣" – this absolute refusal to answer the question while nominating / proposing hundreds of articles for deletion is disruptive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the entirety of the BNA article, content on James bolded:
[D]arts ace Marshall James added another trophy to his impressive collection recently - after winning a world championship. Marshall was a member of the Wales short man squad that won the world championship in Perth, Sydney, recently. Another player from the area Eric Burden was also in the side with the others being Sean Palfrey of Newport and Martin Phillips from North Wales. With 35 countries taking part Wales beat a star studded England side in final by nine legs to six. Wales came away with three gold medals and one bronze. Marshall lost in the semi-final of the Embassy Gold Cup singles on Saturday to world number 1 Mervin King 2-1. Another Welsh player Shaun [sic] Palfrey went on to take the title beating King 2-0 in the final. Marshall was recognized for his achievement this week when he was chosen as winner of the Walter Hughes Cup, one of the Brin Isaac Memorial Fund awards.

I'm not convinced ~4 sentences in an un-bylined hyper-local blurb announcing his darts competition results for that week counts toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - My main concern here is that DartsNews is not obviously a reliable source and some work needs to be done to establish whether it is or isn't. My real sticking point on any bio article is "can we write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject", and if Dartsnews is reliable then probably we can. BeanieFan11 - any views on this? FOARP (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I really need to figure out how to get re-subscribed to the BNA; there appeared to be a decent bit of coverage there (highly likely enough to write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject, I'd say)... As for Dartsnews, they appear to have an editing staff. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Mostly just on AGF, give-keep-a-chance grounds. DartsNews gives sigcov but feels like a peripheral source even if it is a WP:NEWSORG. There is no BIO equivalent of WP:AUD and local coverage shouldn't be excluded entirely, so I see no reason to dismiss coverage just because it was in a Llanelli newspaper, but it is also borderline for WP:SIGCOV. The real question for me is "can we have an article that isn't just sports-stats", and we just about can. Since the internet archive is now working again (albeit slow) I did a little search there and I see that, except for mentioning him a couple of times when discussing other players, he isn't listed in this book about the top 50 darts players, so I think that safely answers the question of how great this guy was. FOARP (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How's that search for Welsh sources going? Anything further?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's a Welsh rugby player with the same name... I don't see anything about a darts player. The few sources given in the comments above aren't extensive coverage. I don't think we have enough to use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, a follow-up on these sources: I've found a good few articles about him in Welsh newspapers - South Wales Echo, Llanelli Star, longer piece in the Llanelli Star about subject, coverage of him being fined as a pub landlord - not really related to darts but it does describe him reaching "national fame" and it's hard to think a random unnotable would get this exact coverage, article in same paper about him getting a new manager, South Wales Evening Post covering a match he played in (more than WP:ROUTINE as it goes in more depth than just the results and interviews the subject), further coverage in same paper of his World Championship run, and then a few profiles/further mentions in the context of his time playing in the World Championships. Add to that the DartsNews article above and I think there's well enough coverage to justify us having an article on a former world championship runner up. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 09:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 Cut Hero

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

Failed WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria showing no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject other than passing mentions — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and South Korea. – The Grid (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rational. There are no sources or reviews of the book by reliable sources. Searched and all I found are book selling websites and unreliable review websites. Mekomo (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found various sources, including https://www.asiae.co.kr/article/2019050311144057058 https://isplus.com/article/view/isp202304030015 for example; if it is judged insufficient I would suggest a redirect and merge to Lezhin Comics (an article that needs expansion and sourcing) Mushy Yank (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not a passing mentions? Both are writing about their publisher entry to foreign markets in which 4 Cut Hero is basically written/promoted as part of like "here is some of their products". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A) my !vote indicates an alternative in case the majority of other users disagree B) "Is a passing mention"? Are passing mentions, you mean? Let's see (rough horrible translation, hope you don't mind)

#Godzilla-kun (pen name), the author of '4-Cut Hero' serialized in Lezhin Comics, is busy these days. This is because the long-running webtoon that has been serialized for six years since 2014 has recently succeeded in advancing into the US market, which means he has more work to do. On the Lezhin Comics application (app) that services Lezhin Comics comics, 4-Cut Hero is ranked in the top 10 in terms of US sales. Considering that the Lezhin Comics app is highly popular with American readers, 4-Cut Hero is also said to be well-received in the US market.

(Asiae. I consider this not a passing mention, but maybe I'm wrong)

'4-Cut Warrior' is a webtoon that began serialization in 2014, with approximately 78 million cumulative views and is currently serviced on 12 platforms in 5 countries. The diverse characters, dense plot, high-quality drawings, and gag codes at the right places, as well as the various elements that have been loved by readers for a long time, have become sufficient cornerstones for the production of an animation. The production was handled by the Chinese platform Bilibili.

(Isplus, I consider this not a passing mention and it's not, in my opinion, equivalent to basically writ[ing about]/promot[ing] [the subject] as part of like "here is some of their products"

But again, maybe I'm wrong; still, I am suggesting an ATD. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok noted, thanks for sharing your thoughts. However, even though I don't needed translation, IMO it's still passing mentions as 4 Cut Hero isn't the main topic for either reportings and my BEFORE before AfDing this article doesn't really shows otherwise. Regardless, I'm open to the alternative of just partial merging certain content if sourced rather than a full "cut-paste" as IMO it would be out-of-place for Lezhin Comics article. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of exoplanets detected by radial velocity

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

With the number of planets detected by radial velocity growing more and more every month, it will be very difficult to maintain this list. It barely get updates and views and has little utility, anyone searching for radial velocity planets could search the NASA Exoplanet Archive instead, which is far more complete than this list. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listing only notable entries (that is, with an article). I see no policy-driven deletion reason here. The maintainence argument, which is not a reason to delete, does not hold: if we have articles about these planets, we can include them on a list; the argument would maybe make sense if we needed to include every object discovered by radial velocity, but we don't. The existence of an external website listing such planets has no bearing at all on being the list appropriate for Wikipedia.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is this: we have a list that is forgotten and incomplete to the point of being unreliable. To resolve this, we either fill the list or delete it. I'll do what's easiest as the losses will be minimal. Lack of completeness can still be an argument for exclusion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue. Even if we are going to include notable discoveries only, at least 637 notable planets exist, this list has 354, so 284 planets to add, quite a lot. The effort to fix this list should be instead be directed to other activities, such as writing a new article or updating popular, widely-viewed ones. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: all concerns you bring up are valid, but they are to be met by editing, and in this case policy explicitly says we should not delete. We indeed have a huge amount of incomplete lists, which is only normal. It's not like we have a deadline. cyclopia ^speak! 10:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: from a practical standpoint, Wikipedia shouldn't try to replicate massive lists of objects that are better kept elsewhere (e.g. the Exoplanet archive). If we have a page, someone has to maintain it. Better to focus on things where wikipedia is a value add, instead of just trying to be a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from the reply to the same comment in the the other analogous AfD) Of course it shouldn't try to replicate the Exoplanet archive. But "the same information is elsewhere" is not a cogent argument: all information on Wikipedia is elsewhere almost by definition, since we collect information based on sources. We have different selection criteria to make the list relevant for Wikipedia as, for example, listing only notable entries. We are indeed not a directory, but that is why we have the selection criteria above. cyclopia ^speak! 10:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this list is potentially unbounded, we may want to consider segmenting the list by discovery date range. This will make it more manageable, since each date range can become a completed list. A precedent for this is the list of minor planets, since the numbering is approximately chronological by discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with User:Praemonitus. We could then edit this by segmenting the exoplanets' discovery dates, and it would not be misleading even if it were to be slightly not up to date, and thus buying us time to edit(of course, we would still have to update this list). As for the argument that the same information is found elsewhere, the fact is that you cannot just get to Wikipedia articles on exoplanets simply by clicking links on the Exoplanet Archive. Pygos (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of transiting exoplanets

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

Was a useful list in the past, but it became outdated and is hardly updated. The number of transiting exoplanets has grown massively, so it is nearly impossible to maintain this list. Just to fill up the missing entries it would take a huge effort of many people and months, and given that only 200 people see this list every month this effort would not be rewarded. The Exoplanet Archive already do the job to catalog these planets, making this list useless. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Normally the incompleteness of a list isn't a reason to get rid of it. We have some absurdly long lists in astronomy, and they will never be fully complete. That being said, sites like the Exoplanet Archive are going to be better at processing and maintaining this information. Why do we need to reproduce them? Praemonitus (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listing only notable entries (that is, with an article). I see no policy-driven deletion reason here. The maintainence argument, which is not a reason to delete, does not hold: if we have articles about these planets, we can include them on a list; the argument would maybe make sense if we needed to include every object discovered by transit, but we don't. The existence of an external website listing such planets has no bearing at all on being the list appropriate for Wikipedia.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (copying my comment from the RV deletion discussion) from a practical standpoint, Wikipedia shouldn't try to replicate massive lists of objects that are better kept elsewhere (e.g. the Exoplanet archive). If we have a page, someone has to maintain it. Better to focus on things where wikipedia is a value add, instead of just trying to be a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it shouldn't try to replicate the Exoplanet archive. But "the same information is elsewhere" is not a cogent argument: all information on Wikipedia is elsewhere almost by definition, since we collect information based on sources. We have different selection criteria to make the list relevant for Wikipedia as, for example, listing only notable entries. We are indeed not a directory, but that is why we have the selection criteria above. cyclopia ^speak! 09:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this list is potentially unbounded, we may want to consider segmenting the list by discovery date. This will make it more manageable, since each date range can become a completed list. A precedent for this is the list of minor planets, since the numbering is approximately chronological by discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with User:Praemonitus. We could then edit this by segmenting the exoplanets' discovery dates, and it would not be misleading even if it were to be slightly not up to date, and thus buying us time to edit(of course, we would still have to update this list). As for the argument that the same information is found elsewhere, the fact is that you cannot just get to Wikipedia articles on exoplanets simply by clicking links on the Exoplanet Archive. Pygos (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per multiple points of WP:NOT.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Catlin

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

WP:ROTM lawyer, and no-one knows what a "Blacksmith Mayor" is. This seems to be a soubriquet bestowed upon him by the creating editor, who created one or more walled gardens in and around Carmel-by-the-Sea, with distinctly useless hyperlocal referencing. WP:NOTINHERITED applies - look at the list of people he knew! Fails WP:V, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article on this former mayor and lawyer that is one of a series of articles written with a promotional tone of boosterism. The boosterism resulted in what some have called a "walled garden" surrounding the town and its inhabitants that connect the editor's articles with one another, usually through a hub like Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or the The Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel had a population of around 2,000 when he was in office for two years. He was a run-of-the-mill politician who does not meet WP notability criteria for politicians. As to his title, "Blacksmith Mayor", it's a mystery as mentioned in the nom, and may be a neologism fabricated by the creator. Hyper-local sourcing. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Editor Bearian has developed useful standards (not guideline or policy) for determining of attorneys HERE and mayors for HERE. (No ping because I do not want this to be perceived as canvassing.) Netherzone (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a case to be made for GNG, with a three-column feature in the Sacramento Bee and a full-column long story in the Oakland Tribune. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California: especially the part about the Forge (limit merge to a reasonable amount of content) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cannot access the new sources but I am sure they are good and therefore remove my !vote. For the sake of transparency, note that I’received a message inviting me to evaluate the new sources.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above in addition to this, this and this appear to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis W. Wynkoop

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

An entirely blanked article because it fails WP:NBIO and has WP:COI issues. Somehow, nobody thought about making a deletion discussion throughout all of this process. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there: delete. Athel cb (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something now@Athel cb:. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, California, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep: ~~and restore immediately the content!~~ This is not how things should be done. On top of this, Wynkoop is a notable architect. I understand the nominator has good intentions but this is a procedural keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I have restored the content. While BLARing and redirecting the page could have been acceptable (maybe not the best solution, but procedurally acceptable at least), the mere blanking of the page was disruptive, especially as the one !voter here does not seem to have looked at the history of the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ping @Left guide and @Arch2all to see what arguments they have. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redirect, because it linked to a page which is not directly related to Francis Wynkop. I haven't deleted the previous content. It is not an acceptable solution to create misleading redirects in this case. Keep the old content or delete the whole page, if no one can create acceptable content here. Arch2all (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wynkoop is with 2 Os; and the redirect (although I think the page should be kept) was not misleading. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per the edit summary argument which is still fully valid:
fails WP:NBIO, virtually all of the coverage available for this person is paid sources, passing mentions, and questionable sources that don't count towards notability
Also possibly the product of COI/UPE based on the banned article creator's history. Left guide (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure your general assessment of the sources as a whole is correct but WP:NPEOPLE indicates that persons meeting the following criterion may be considered notable: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here. Your redirect was not misleading (see above) but I consider it is not necessary.

Also, @TeapotsOfDoom pinging the 2 contributors who redirected/blanked the page respectively might be seen as inappropriate, although it was limited, open and neutral in its wording, as the audience might fall under the category "partisan". I am certain you did it in good faith and both users were not selected for their opinion on the subject but their opinion on the subject was obviously clear to you before you pinged them. Thank you all the same.

Anyway, despite strong indications of notability, I stand by my procedural SK !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment, I see no grounds for a speedy keep as BLAR is normal part of editing. Please focus on notability and not procedural issues. Star Mississippi 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I will focus on procedural issues, though. Please look at the history of the page and of this AfD. And please read my comment with more attention. "Blaring" is not an issue. Blanking a page, however, is not, I must insist, normal part of editing. At all. And nominating a blank page, even in good faith, is sufficient ground for SK in my view, at least for procedural keep. See first !vote and see nominator's rationale. So, as your comment is apparently made in quality of administrator and my input seems to be the only thing you notice here, please kindly read: Wikipedia:Page blanking. It's a guideline. As for the rest, I mentioned notabilty too, myself (twice), but AfDs are not always about notability only and when a procedural flaw is patent, it is relevant to mention it and it is permitted if not recommended, to !vote accordingly. Thank you for your time and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history is accessible and anyone participating in an AfD should look at the current and past state of an article when evaluating an AfD (Prod, MfD, etc.) for necessary information. There are no procedural grounds that invalidate the nomination. If Wynkoop is found to be notable, it will be retained. If not, it won't be. Neither instance requires a procedural restart to the discussion, which might be the case if there were Rev Del or other factors that impacted non admins from seeing the history. My comment is that of one admin, you're welcome to continue asking for others to weigh in. I think your (collectively) time would be best spent assessing notability. Drive by comments (not yours, the one you refer to) are regularly disregarded by closers. Star Mississippi 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if blanking is OK with you and nominating a blank page as such too, perfect, but you might want to change the guideline then. As I've already told you, I've already replied in regard to the notability issue with 2 comments, that you apparently haven't seen. But I'll do it one more time, although I think I am wasting my time with a completely irregular debate. Frank Wynkoop is a notable architect, creator of various very notable works, some listed on the page, with solid references, and he thus clearly, fairly and easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and in particular the criterion I quoted above, but let's go, I'll quote it again (if anyone mentions bludgeoning, I'll direct them to you, hope we agree on that): "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here: https://www.atomic-ranch.com/interior-design/designers-craftsmen/frank-wynkoop-the-butterfly-house/; Dramov, Alissandra, and Momboisse, Lynn A.. Historic Homes and Inns of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Arcadia Publishing Incorporated, p. 8 (quoted on the page and perfectly acceptable); https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/ad-goes-inside-carmels-iconic-butterfly-house; Papp, James. San Luis Obispo County Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, 2023.p.121 ; Engineering News-record. (1962). McGraw-Hill, p. 50; Landscape Architecture: Home landscape, Publication Board of the American Society of Landscape Architects, 1980, p. 164.; etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No concern with bludgeoning. You're making the case that he's notable - great. That's what the closer will need. It's not an irregular debate. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any reliable indept sourcing for any works apart from the Butterfly House? On a cursory look I've not seen any. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the Seaburst House did, but the source was on the Internet Archive so I don't have access to it at the moment. It does have at least one piece of SIGCOV here. The Centralia Fox Theatre has SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I've paged through newspaper hits for variations on his name & architect and found virtually nothing beyond he was the named architect on a number of schools. Best school coverage I noticed was Lakeside School was inspected by county groups (Modesto Bee And News Herald Newspaper Archives February 6, 1948 Page 17) which appears to have a few paras (can't read properly the scan quality is so poor). There's also a couple of Proquest hits mentioning his work renovating Bakersfield Hall of Records (Repository of county records celebrates 100 years of history. Shearer, Jenny. McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington. 24 Jan 2009. & Best buildings of downtown: Take the tour. Self, Jennifer. TCA Regional News; Chicago. 18 May 2016). I'd suggest the possibility of a merge with Butterfly House (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), including a para or so about his life and other projects. With architects very predominantly known for one building that usually seems the best approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sourcing points to the fact he was just a local, run of the mill architect, without any significant coverage of him that would go beyond routine local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I've looked through the sourcing here and in the article - the best sources basically say he designed a house in Carmel, but don't really elaborate on him at all. The article uses a lot of short, routine newspaper clippings such as paid obituaries and marriage licenses to pad it out, which don't count. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This architect designed a number of notable structures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which apart from Butterfly House? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the subject. Whether the current contents of the page are blank or not matters not a whit, as Star Mississippi pointed out. And once a valid view to delete has been entered, an improper nomination is no longer reason for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I changed my vote to a normal notability Keep; but I am not convinced by the validity of nominating a blank page because (see nom’s rationale) it is blank...AND, precisely, the 1st D !vote before my SK procedural !vote did not seem valid to me BECAUSE the page was blank. (See vote’s content).. ,,so that, according to your very comment, a procedural K vote seemed.... perfectly valid. ........ Anyway, I changed my vote to avoid long debates about now side issues...Mushy Yank (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Weak delete’’’ - he was clearly an accomplished and successful architect who designed at least two beautiful houses - the photos are lovely. The majority of the text is antiquarian chuff, but that could be pruned if there is a core of notability here. But none of the sources shows real notability. Llajwa (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse merging some of this content into the Butterfly House article, as another editor suggested. Llajwa (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know this is part of the Greg Henderson cleanup, but I think Wynkoop clearly passes WP:ARCHITECT criterion 3 as someone who created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work (i.e., the Butterfly House, which must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and passes that criterion with WP:SIGCOV in Architectural Digest, the Arizona Republic, the Wall Street Journal and other outlets. No prejudice against cleaning up or trimming the text. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 Is there a need for two articles, though? We have one on Butterfly House. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, because a biography of the architect isn't appropriate to include in an article on the building. This is not really an edge case; this is an unambiguous pass of criterion 3 of ARCHITECT/CREATIVE. This criterion doesn't provide only a presumption of notability; instead, such a person is notable (emphasis added). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not generally known for my deletionist tendencies, but WP:AUTHOR, which is the same guideline as WP:ARCHITECT, is almost universally held to require two books each with reviews, otherwise it defaults to an article on the book that briefly covers the biography. If an architect were known for a single, extremely major building that took decades to complete, perhaps... but Butterfly House is the architecture equivalent of a single novel. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is for multiple reviews, not for multiple works. (Wikipedia has lots of articles about authors who wrote a single book; see Kathryn Stockett for example.) NCREATIVE literally says a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. That's the literal reading of the text. Clearly we disagree about whether it applies, but I stand by the plain reading of the policy. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is even if WP:ARCHITECT is met, WP:GNG isn't. SportingFlyer T·C 01:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the architecture guidelines met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local architect that designed non-notable structures. We have confirmation of this, but architects all over the world design things. These buildings aren't on the National Register of Historic Places, nor do they seem to have any special association with any historical items. The Butterfly House was never nominated for any sort of award and it's not a registered historic structure. We have simply a architect that designed interesting buildings, neither of which is terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss You (film)

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

This is about an unreleased film which does not satisfy film notability. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself has received significant coverage by reliable sources. A review of the sources shows that they are all announcements or press releases about the film or its songs. The first five references, in four different media, are essentially identical, which is best explained that they are the same press releases to different media.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	The Hindu	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
2	cinemaexpress.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
3	thesouthfirst.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
4	www.business-standard.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
5	The Hindu	Same as 1	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
6	timesnownews.com	States that movie will be filmed.	Probably.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
7	Times of India	Passing mention of a song.	Maybe	No. Passing mention.	No	Yes
8	cinemaexpress.com	Press release about a song.	No.	No	Yes	Yes
9	cinemaexpress.com	Another press release about a song.	No.	No	Yes	Yes
10	news18.com	An announcement about the film.	Probably.	Not for this purpose.	Yes	Yes

There is also a draft; the draft and the article are by different authors. The information in this article and in the draft can be merged in the draft, and the draft can be submitted, with reviews and other quality sources, when the film has been released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because release is announced for late November, I would normally have suggested to keep this and I would have merged the draft into it .....but there are TWO drafts Draft:Miss You Movie (created yesterday, just before the article, same creator) and Draft:Miss You (film) by User:Gowthamaprabu (created 21. 10); the latter was declined by the nom. Read the following comment: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Miss You (film) instead.", said the nom of the present AfD when declining the page.....which, if I was the page creator, would make me think, the page discussed here is not concerned by deletion! Still as Gowthamaprabu's Draft was the first page to be created, I consider it should be the starting point so I suggest a merge of all three pages into Draft:Miss You (film). Premise is known, actors are notable, coverage for verification exists, so even if it's the other way around, I won't be shocked but declining the Draft and inviting its creator to expand a page and, an hour later or so, taking the said page to AfD is a bit confusing.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Robert McClenon and @Mushy Yank! Hope you're both doing well! I wanted to provide some context regarding the article Miss You (2024), which covers the upcoming film set for release at the end of November 2024. As mentioned transparently, I have been commissioned by the producers to edit and create content for this article, ensuring accurate representation of the movie. I’ve Confirmed that the official release date is November 29, 2024, though due to a lack of publicly available citations, I haven't specified the date in the article itself. I’ve included all available information with relevant citations, and I believe the content is accurate and complete as presented. If possible, I'd suggest we retain the article and continue to improve it together. We could even consider merging it with Draft: Miss You (Film) by User:Gowthamaprabu to consolidate information. Meena1998 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Draft:Miss You (film) since the film's release is near, let's wait. Once it hits theaters, it is expected to get more coverage and critical reviews. You can then update the page and publish it through the AFC route. For now, let's merge its content into the declined draft:).Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Attractions

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

No evidence of notability separate from Elvis Costello. Most information of importance already covered in Costello's page DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Costello. The key thing here is the album they released on their own, which despite the nominator's statement, isn't even mentioned in the Costello article. --Michig (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an album of any particular note. I'm not opposed to a merge but I don't think the Attractions doing an album without Costello is noteworthy for his page DeputyBeagle (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Costello. Note that not all of the article has to be merged, and most of the text in this article is merely a wordier version of history already discussed at Costello's article. A few band-specific events can be squeezed in over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did contribute some a bit to the article a few years ago, including adding the NF image and some sources. The only basis I'd argue the inclusion of notability would be the fact that the Attractions have been called one of the best backing bands in music history, but as the others have said, about 90% of their career is tied to EC. With that being said I think it would be fine to merge. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . This band were the backing group to a leading New Wave singer, which surely makes them notable. YTKJ (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if I understand the logic there. Nobody's denying Costello is notable, but they haven't done enough notable on their own to justify their own article. They need to have independent notability.

In the same way as how WP:BANDMEMBER doesn't give every member of a notable band its own, a backing band needs to be able to stand on their WP:BAND criteria seperately from Costello if they have their own article DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The E Street Band has a separate article even tho never being credited as such on any albums nor having released any album on their own. Attractions members sustained careers as session musicians, as did E Street Band members, and live backing musicians, which E Street Band members did to a lesser extent. 2600:E001:1AD:6400:79E4:6995:B836:A675 (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The E Street band have been inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame, and have lots of coverage and articles specifically about them.

The Attractions just don't have that level of notability in the same way DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, User: DeputyBeagle. Having looked at WP: BANDMEMBER and read the first item on the list of notability criteria under WP:BAND, I can say that I would not be opposed to a merge with or redirect to Elvis Costello. Just so long as the outcome of this discussion is not deletion - the band were too closely linked with Costello for that. YTKJ (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources show this is clearly notable!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

D- Aside:@Liz, hello, if the undue bold mentioned in a recent message concerned this page, I am afraid it was not my deed but an unvolontary consequence of an edit by@YTKJ (fixed) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable, and also a very reasonable way of organizing content surrounding Costello. yes, there are other ways it could be done, but this way makes sense.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Milowent. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This band's music separate from Costello may not be notable, but they can still demonstrate notability through the GNG. They have been called one of the best backing bands in rock history, backed up by three citations, alongside other sources like this, clearly show that the GNG has been met. Toadspike [Talk] 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of their significant coverage is about their relationship with Costello. We can add a section to Costello's page related to the band where there are points worthy of inclusion.

There's no point relying on WP:GNG when we have subject-specific guidelines in WP:BAND that show more specifically what the requirements are for a band to have their own article. They'd have to demonstrate that notability separate from their work with Costello DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DeputyBeagle I’m not strongly opposed to a merge, but there is never “no point relying on the GNG”. SNGs are an alternative route to demonstrating notability, alongside the GNG. You’ll notice that WP:BAND #1 is the GNG. And the band only has to meet one of these criteria, not all of them.

The question now is one of WP:PAGEDECIDE, whether we should keep or merge. I do not see anything at WP:BAND that helps us make that decision, so based on my own judgement I believe that there is more than enough sourced content for a standalone article. Merging would add more clutter to the already long article on Elvis Costello. But reasonable folk may disagree, and to me it’s no big deal either way.

Next time, when you’re not actually gunning for the deletion of an article, but simply want a merge, you should start a merge discussion (WP:MERGE) or BOLDly do it yourself rather than come to AfD. You might get less participation that way, but folks will spend much less time arguing about the GNG and NBAND (since deletion isn’t on the table), and much more time discussing which way of organizing the content is best for readers. You might even get no participation, in which case you can just do it! Toadspike [Talk] 08:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want a merge, I wanted a delete but I've accepted that a merge is more popular than a delete here, and I've no problem with a merge.

The GNG always applies yes, but the SNG gives more specific advice pertinent to this situation.

The short and the long of it is that there is no sigcov about the Attractions as a seperate body from Costello. There's only one article in the references that's specifically about the Attractions as opposed to being an article about Costello that references the Attractions. Even then it's about their work with Costello with no reference at all to Mad About the Wrong Boy, their only independent work. DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It is not important whether or not participants consider this subject notable or not. It depends on whether or not reliable sources can help establish notability. But I see only a little discussion here of the quality of the sourcing. Can we get a source analysis to see if there is enough SIGCOV to warrant a separate article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peruri 88

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

The article generally does not meet the WP:NBUILDING or WP:GNG guidelines. Had the building been constructed or been under construction, it might have qualified under these guidelines, as it would be the tallest building in Jakarta and likely attract substantial coverage. Unfortunately, it remains only a design proposal from 2012, and 12 years later, there have been no further updates or developments on this plan. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we had a look for sources at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia#Peruri 88. Also note that, at least for the coordinates of the purported site, very recent Google StreetView imagery shows no evidence of the site being cleared (there's still commercial and residential structures, apparently occupied), never mind construction. Ckfasdf has informed user:M R Karim Reza, the article's creator (who remains active on en.wikipedia), of the deletion.-- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finlay McWalter: This is the latest Google Street View image, dated August 2024, showing no signs of construction or site clearing. The proposed location is still in use by Peruri as their office and facility Ckfasdf (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a potential compilation of planned but either on-hold.., or otherwise never constructed projects in Jakarta, or something similar, rather than delete, there are probably a lot more there, waiting to join the list, and in a collection it would be adequately notable as a phenomenon, rather than in single sites as never started projects or stalled proposals.JarrahTree 11:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no evidence that this is anything more than an unfunded paper project. As such, there are no real independent sources and no substantial coverage. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 09:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If proposing a Merge or Redirect, please spell out the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Without a proposed target article, this article can not be Merged. Please identify one if this is your desired outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't see anything we can merge this too. It was expected to be finished by 2020, but here we are almost 5 years later and still nothing. Interesting bit of local trivial perhaps, but nothing we need an article about. Oaktree b (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Building projects as a rule shouldn't have articles until some actually starts digging, and all evidence is that this didn't happen. Mangoe (talk) 03:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Time (Doctor Who)

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

A box set that released various Doctor Who serials that had episodes missing. The article is predominantly uncited and contains almost entirely primary citations, and a brief BEFORE turns up very little outside of watch guides for missing episodes. I can see a redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes as an AtD, but overall this is a largely non-notable DVD box set release not separately notable from the concept of missing episodes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]