Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

17 October 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

< October 16	October 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Xuemin Lin

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

As the subject of this page, I respectfully request its removal. Given that Wikipedia allows anyone to edit content without my approval, I have concerns about potential inaccuracies or misrepresentations. Therefore, I prefer that my personal information not be displayed or managed in this way, and I hope this request can be granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aumuja (talk • contribs) 01:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vexxed

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, article is mostly nonsense Polygnotus (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of royal visits to Worthing

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

Fancruft and WP:OR, does not pass WP:GNG Polygnotus (talk) 10:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Royalty and nobility, Lists, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Plentifully sourced to reliable books... Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 11:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hassocks5489: But is the topic of those books "all royal visits to Worthing"? Polygnotus (talk) 11:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sibylle Eschapasse

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

The article is sourced to blogs and the UN's website. As far as I'm aware working for the UN does not form part of any alternative notability criteria and the primary sources cited here don't cover this subject in any significant depth and don't support WP:ANYBIO 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 10:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and France. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Marketing Group

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

There has been some coverage of this organisation's IPO in Reuters but it's essentially a first-hand account of the event and is therefore a primary source Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Farley (manners expert)

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

None of the references provide anything close to in-depth, independent, secondary coverage about Farley. Yes he has appeard on TV and has written for or been quoted in newspapers, but that's not what WP:NBIO calls for. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Television, and Social science. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Korea Life Insurance Association

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

No significant coverage; I managed to find occasional trivial mentions only. 美しい歌 (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liam Waite

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

His credits don't satisfy WP:NACTOR (a significant role in Ghosts of Mars and 12 episodes of some TV series called Flatland), and he can't inherit notability from his relationship with Natasha Henstridge. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Massachusetts. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 10 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!} 08:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled (podcast)

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

Reliability of sources is questionable, and otherwise unsuitable to be considered SIGCOV. Especially concerning given that this is sufficiently BLP-adjacent that the policy likely binds us. Even worse, the article text actually only bears the barest resemblance to the contents of the nearest footnotes, if even that, and the tone is such that even had we the sources to write a proper article, we may be best to start from scratch. The bluelinked hosts preclude A7, but perhaps G11 should be seriously considered. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Popular culture, Internet, and United States of America. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 10 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!} 08:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kwality Wall's

AfDs for this article:

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

doesn't have enough reliable sources to prove that the brand is significant or notable in the ice cream market Slarticlos (talk) 07:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already at AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Absolutely notable. Try reading this source for a name. It has gained WP:SIGCOV for ages. Lorstaking (talk) 05:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Highly notable and has gained widespread significant coverage as visible from here and here. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:37, 16 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!} 08:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karelian Bobtail

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

Cannot find any independent sigcov. The mentions I can find are so brief and vague I can't even be sure they've not just simply misspelt Kurilian Bobtail. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Russia. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the original editor for this article, I'm the one who added it to the list of cat breeds article. Karelian Bobtails are rare breed and mostly in rural villages. There are a handful of breeders in the Republic and Leningrad Oblast. Breeding is difficult because of the recessive gene. All original information online is in Russian, and a bit in Suvi. If you give me a couple weeks I can perhaps contact some people to see if they have the original research and documents from the 90s. I can't do this immediately though as I have field work for the next couple weeks.

-Red 90.251.92.149 (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the breed exists, just that there is not enough independent secondary coverage for a stand alone article. I do not mind waiting for you to look for sources but if they're original research and primary documents that aren't published they are not useful for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:19, 3 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!} 06:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I have no opposition to a redirect to List of cat breeds where the subject is also mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:49, 10 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!} 08:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2006 Kawasaki Frontale season

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

AFD’ing this because redirecting season articles to the club is not a thing we do, i.e. the redirect is not useful. The page was rightfully prodded by ViridianPenguin and Spiderone, as the page failed WP:NOTSTATS; a season page that barely had some information entered, no lead etc, so no reason to preserve the page history either. The creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 07:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Masayoshi Takayanagi

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

Huge failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played a couple of football matches. No usable sources in ja:wiki, is it apparent for everyone that they are exclusively WP:PRIMARY (or too short, as #1). Creator is globally locked. Geschichte (talk) 07:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Kame

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

Never played in Albania’s highest league, continued for a couple years in the semi-pro second tier. I did not find a single usable source in a WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Jet Rescue Air Ambulance Learjet 35 crash

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT: not notable under WP:EVENTCRIT #4, no WP:LASTING effects, no WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Mexico. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Mozilla Thunderbird

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

Significant violations of WP:NOTCHANGELOG, and I have reason to believe it also violates WP:UNDUE due to the article's documenting of all versions of Thunderbird, including every single beta version. Without the table, there is not enough content to justify the article's existence, at least currently. It also has longstanding issues, including a lack of reliable, high-quality, secondary sources as almost every single source is just a link to Mozilla's own release notes, which is in incredibly heavy primary source territory. I feel like so much focus has been put on filling out the table that it has been to the detriment of the article as a whole. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 07:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. - Evelyn Harthbrooke (leave a message · contributions) 07:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Public Health Association

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

lacks enough reliable information showing that it is important or significant Slarticlos (talk) 07:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is often hard to find in depth coverage of national professional associations because they operate in a quality controlled walled garden. They don’t generate much chatter in the mainstream press and they own the specialist outlets. They’re much larger than the UK’s Royal Society for Public Health and probably more active. Mccapra (talk) 19:23, 3 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!} 06:48, 10 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!} 06:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mazhanoolkkanavu

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

PROD removed with statement "Google/English language websearch is not good for Malayalam culture". If that is the case, why is it that Google Malayalam also yields nothing [1]. Changing the year parameter to today yields an unrelated music video of a similar name. Please find a review or two before keeping this. DareshMohan (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we can be sure this was released, with a solid source, I might support a redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2003 (or to Augustine's filmography?) because the cast is rather notable. But we have only IMDb and the other Db to prove it. Is that enough? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Fails significant coverage WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. If anyone can find secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage and two or more reviews from known critics, let me know and I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is impossible to just do a general search to find sources due to the way sources are archived. Best to check the Sify [2], Indiainfo [3], and Keralatalkies [4] reviews. A quick ctrl-f finds nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 06:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dogspot

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

Per WP:NSUSTAINED Brief bursts of news coverage may not sufficiently demonstrate notability. The coverage is centered on it receiving some investment from a notable Indian businessman in 2016. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. — hako9 (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and India. — hako9 (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Animal, Websites, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage in any of the cited sources. Ratnahastin (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There doesn't seem to be significant coverage. A majority of the sources are coverage from a single day about someone investing in the business, and that's all I can find. --Brocade River Poems (She/They) 08:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Research on tornadoes in 2024

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

This is a niche topic that fails WP:N and is likely WP:LISTCRUFT. Nothing is inherently notable about routine tornado research that requires a Wikipedia article to be written about it. United States Man (talk) 05:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge — Several RS articles written about tornadic research this year: [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28]. Several lists are similar to this one including 2024 in climate change. Key to note, this article is a split from a parent article, History of tornado research. The 2024 article is nearly half the size of the parent article. So no matter what, deletion should never have been proposed, given it is a split-off article from the parent article…a merge proposal would have been better either into the parent history article or Tornadoes of 2024, which has a research section linking to this article as the “main”. That said, I think it has clearly enough RS and peer-reviewed secondary sources to back up notability. If consensus was falling more in line with a merge or deletion, I would support a merge over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article looks like someone typed "tornado" into Web of Science, with "2024" as the publication year, and wrote a brief summary of the abstract of every single paper that came up. Completely indiscriminate collection of routine, incremental research findings that nowhere is discussed in the aggregate as a particularly notable topic. As for it being spun off from History of tornado research, it never should have been put in that article in the first place. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the world's knowledge, not archive the world's press releases and abstracts. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:LISTCRUFT. Sir MemeGod  12:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least I would support a merge into History of tornado research#2024. Procyon117 (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:WeatherWriter. I see no net benefit for the encyclopedia by deleting it. It could be trimmed and organized a bit, perhaps.--cyclopia ^speak! 14:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. 2024 at least deserves a section on History of tornado research. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There are very different opinions on what should happen with this article and its content so I'm giving this discussion more time in hopes of achieving a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moriah Aviation Training Centre

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

Fails GNG. 3 sources are distance calculators or google maps. The 5th source is its own website. Lacking third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Aviation, and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stanford Super Series

Not enoungh coverage on independent sources, Fails WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

same reason as well. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Caribbean. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 03:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it had it's own sub-category on The Guardian with 134 pages, plenty on Cricinfo, Cricbuzz and lengthy piece in Wisden. As it only ran for one year there may be an argument to merge the 2008 article into the main article. JP (Talk) 08:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do agree with the coverage for the parent article, but the 2008 one should be merged. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 08:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Egyptian bus accident

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

Lacks sustained coverage and had no lasting effects. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Egypt. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Good grief. Fails everything from WP:GNG to WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS and all points inbetween. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 55 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS: Whilst tragic, with the casualty count being high, significant or in-depth sustained continued coverage of the event seems to be lacking along with demonstrable lasting effects. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event also lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's a horrific thing to contemplate that a road accident killing 55 anywhere in the world wouldn't be notable. We've got little to go on, there are news reports but little ongoing coverage. That said, I don't read Arabic, it seems likely that there would be sustained non-English coverage. I'm going to say unsure in that I would hope that there was more than I'm seeing. JMWt (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rainbow Rumble episodes

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

Problematic list article. An English Wikipedia article should not be an indiscriminate list of episodes that have no lasting impact; as per one editor in this discussion thread I started regarding this list article, there are no dynamic narratives for episodes of game shows that can satisfy a separate article (game shows somehow fall under the WP:ROUTINE category of TV programming). On top of that, much of the sources used for this article are WP:NIS (like ABS-CBN Entertainment) and WP:SOCIALMEDIA (like Instagram, see WP:RSPINSTAGRAM).

List may also lean towards WP:FANCRUFT as the episodes overview section, with very-detailed info on the highest winning bracket of each contestant more fit on Philippine showbiz fandom websites than English Wikipedia. In short, unlikely encyclopedic in nature.

At the very least, it can be merged with Rainbow Rumble#Episodes but focusing on salient details: episode date, team name, contestants (in an inline enumerated list, not a bulleted, vertical list that unnecessarily consumes article page height), and the episode winner. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, and Philippines. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Borgenland (talk) 03:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We've had more than enough cringy fancruft here that needs abridging if not excising. Blake Gripling (talk) 04:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not every episode is significant or notable enough to be detailed on this scale; the list simply acts like an episode database for the show. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lavangsdalen bus accident

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

Lacks sustained coverage and had no lasting effects. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Norway. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was coverage a year after, and then some mentions here and there in years to come. Probably not very sustained. ~~I'm interested in repurposing the article to an article about the location, Lavangsdalen~~. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lavangsdalen. This is a valley known for one thing first and foremost: road accidents. I have created the article, chronicling the modern accidents and outlining the hundreds of millions that have subsequently been spent on hightened safety. The bus accident where 5 died was the largest one, but still part of a broader pattern of accidents. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Era, Indiana

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

Another Indiana rail-spot/post-office with nothing there. Not a notable place. Mangoe (talk) 02:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 10 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!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Neeley

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

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [29][30]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is this the same person: [31]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [32], [33], [34]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave". NPR.org. January 14, 2020.
2. Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.
3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 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!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Men Who Lost China

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

Similar to the recently deleted article on The World Without US by the same filmmaker, no signs of significant coverage. The article's current sourcing is not independent or significant, and I could not find any signs of further coverage after an online search (given that the film has less than 100,000 views on YouTube, I doubt that coverage exists). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Film. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

China's Century of Humiliation

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

Similar to the recently deleted article on The World Without US by the same filmmaker, no signs of significant coverage. The article's current sourcing is not independent or significant, and the best I found from a Google search is a forum review, which is not significant. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Film. RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Jones (physicist)

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

Massive conflict of interest issues with a good amount of the edits coming from the subject of the article himself. Some of the sources appear to be dead. Any other sources don't even mention him, focusing more on the actual companies he claimed to have some involvement in. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 01:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Computing, Italy, Florida, New Hampshire, and New Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article is bad; mostly unsourced and with promotional language. I can't access reference 7 (WSJ 1999/03/12) which might be non-trivial coverage of him, or might just be a mention of him while discussing his (and other) companies. The Wired reference ("Greetings from the Info Mesa") is only a trivial mention of him. According to a Google search, he was most recently affiliated with the Center for Complex Systems and Enterprises at Stevens Institute of Technology; he might have retired because I don't see a current faculty bio. If no additional sources are presented, this should be deleted. Walsh90210 (talk) 23:41, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and TNT. The list of issues are legion: created by an admitted paid marketer, edited by the subject, a BLP with whole sections unsourced, not inherited problems. Bearian (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd back in 2007 so not eligible for Soft Deletion. I'll just add that I don't see obvious signs that the subject edited this article and would be interested in knowing how the nominator came to this conclusion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Subject goes by @Complexica TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 05:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tasjil

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Tasjil

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

Not notable. No significant coverage. References only give a paragraph or so mentioning something similar, but only one uses the translation of tasjil. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 01:04, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed no coverage in most all reliable sources. Very obscure term.Smkolins (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly oppose as the creator. In contrast to the nominator's claim, there are three sources in the article that specifically use the word "Tasjil" (Amanat 2009, Naficy 2011 and Pirnazar 2019) and all of them are scholarly. The book Historical Dictionary of the Bahá'í Faith has an entry for the process under the title 'DECLARATION OF BELIEF OR ACCEPTANCE' (translating the word "Tasjil" to Acceptance) and another reliable source (Neusner 2003) dedicates almost two full pages to a detailed description of its stages (titled 'Who is considered a Baháʼí?'), while a certain case in Africa, Samuel Kima of Cameroon, is mentioned in several pages of an academic book published by the renowned Brill Publishers (Lee 2011). These are only a handful of sources and I believe this is a proof that this topic is notable. Khánum Gül (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there is a bahaipedia entry for this topic as well. Khánum Gül (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:GNG and WP:DICTIONARY. One problem is that you created the title in Arabic for a process that is not known in English by its Arabic name. The content is probably most suited for Baháʼí teaching plans#Baháʼí terminology with a section on "Declaration" or similar. Both of the other sections (Pioneering and Entry by troops) previously has their own articles and were consolidated into that page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your first objection concerns naming, which is not the focus of this discussion. I have no issue with a title like "Baháʼí Enrollment Process" (or something similar) and a mention of its name in the original scripture of the faith, "Tasjil," in the article's lead. However, I still disagree with your assertion that this topic is not notable, as it has been significantly covered by multiple academic sources in great detail. I have added another source (van den Hoonaard 1996), which provides an extensive discussion of the practice in Canada, examining various cases. Khánum Gül (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. SInce we have a difference of opinion here on the outcome of this AFD, a source review would be helpful to a closer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:09, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Katongole-Mbidde

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

Fails WP:BIO. 1 of the 2 supplied sources is primary. Could not find significant coverage of this individual. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Uganda. LibStar (talk) 01:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC. This article establishes him as the only oncologist at the Uganda Cancer Institute in 2004. And is now director of the UVRI. Both of which have close relationships with other high standing research institutions (e.g. World Health Org). I would say this falls under WP:NACADEMIC#C5. He also received a lifetime recognition award at a scientific conference giving support to other NACADEMIC points. He also has decent citations on papers based on a quick glance, particularly for someone working in a smaller country. I'll see what else I can pull up for sources. Cyanochic (talk) 03:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. SiniyaEdita (talk) 10:12, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Centre FORA

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

Non-notable organization. BEFORE search leads to nothing, failing GNG and NORG. Kline • talk • contribs 00:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Canada. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 01:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Felo Barkere

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

there's nothing that mentions Felo Barkere and Baunez Ridge together that isn't Eric Gilbertson related/sourced. This location doesn't appear to meet WP:NGEO. Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Africa, and Senegal. Graywalls (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles like Bikku Bitti have used peakbagger and summitpost blogs as a source, so what's the difference with this article? Any highest point of a sovereign nation should have its article on Wikipedia or at least be mentioned. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes people like Eric or Ginge are the only source of information on peaks like this. Allowing one highpointer's firsthand information (like Ginge on Bikku Bitti) but not allowing Eric's on Felo Barkere seems strange and inconsistent by WP policy. Also, peakbagger has extensively been used as a source for minor mountains (which Felo Barkere would fall under), so what is the sudden change against this? Also, peaks promoted to the main database on peakbagger are looked over and verified by administrators, so some "child sitting on his dad's shoulder" won't be messing up the measurement by 5-6 feet on a peak in the main database as much of the data comes from professionally done surveys. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 11:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herman Basudde