Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 11	December 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Scott Gendel

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

This article has been marked as unnotable since April 2017. After checking the revision history of this article, I noticed that there were no significant improvements. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America, New York, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep~~: Reference 10, plus this article: [1], should be enough to establish notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an article. It's an advertisement. In a shop. Selling his product. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:16, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You got me, I didn't realize that was a commercial site. Striking my Keep and going with weak delete (weak because I still stand by reference 10). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:SolxrgashiUnited, fails WP:GNG and WP:COMPOSER. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 04:11, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I did a Google search, and from what I can tell, his version of Barbara Allen makes him almost a one hit wonder. That's it. Bearian (talk) 04:07, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Zerban

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

Delete or Redirect. The first is that he was a member of the Kenosha County Board of Commissioners. Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or notable activity in office (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell), the latter of which is probably more a WP:CRIME who was also a politician. The second is his candidacies for Congress. I simply do not see the "historic significance" test being passed here given the last election was over ten years ago at this point. A clear failure of WP:POLITICIAN. Similar AfDs resulted in a delete/redirect in Andy Anderson, Bill Proctor, Veron Parker, and Steve Sarvi. Mpen320 (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails our threshold levels of WP:POLITICIAN. (Full disclosure: I may have donated some money to one or more of his Congressional races, since I despise his opponent.) --Orange Mike | Talk 21:52, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - arguably passes WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 16:45, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It is generally understood that routine mention or even interviews of unsuccessful candidates by local press does not really constitute significant coverage of the individual as an individual. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (unsuccessful candidate in the past)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Illinois, and Wisconsin. Skynxnex (talk) 00:03, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anson Tsang

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

Non-notable poker player. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hong Kong. UtherSRG (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. All coverage is sourced to poker stat databases and other poker news sites merely covering the events subject has taken part in. - Ratnahastin (talk) 00:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found this book titled I Am a Gambler: The 73rd Industry that Disrupts Your Traditional Views on Gambling (Chinese: 我是牌手──顛覆您對賭博傳統看法的第七十三行業) published by https://www.red-publish.com/ that profiles him on pages 107–116. I found a few paragraphs of coverage in this article from Card Player. The other sources I found were sponsored sources from natural8 like this Chinese-language article and this English-language article. I think the book is a reliable source. His notability hinges on whether Card Player is also a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 22:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cunard, Card Player looks reliable enough in that they separate editorial and sales, it doesn't look like coverage is obviously shaped by advertisers, and while the magazine might have a bias towards positivity they covered the use of laptop/consulting by Jonathan Tamayo at the WSOP[2] (if they cover the resulting rules change it will be in a December magazine). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tinychat

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

Articles about companies must meet WP:NCORP requirements. This one clearly fails them.

1. [3] Puff piece by WP:TECHCRUNCH, an outlet infamous for its COI articles

2. [4] Very brief and clearly promotional article, even including calls to action with a link to the website. Fails WP:ORGIND.

3. [5] non-independent interview article, doesn't say anything of substance about Tinychat.

4. [6] reads like a routine announcement, not deep enough coverage to satisfy ORGDEPTH.

5. [7] Reproduction of another WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece.

6. [8] Routine announcement, doesn't say anything about the company in any depth (WP:ORGDEPTH). Also relies on TechCrunch.

Other sources I found were PR articles and top 10 lists. This article was also created by an editor with the same name as a co-founder of this company [9]. Badbluebus (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Internet, and Websites. Badbluebus (talk) 23:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Couldn't find any good sources either. I found this article that alleges that two celebrity investors used the software to "flirt with underage girls", but the article states that these are merely "rumors". At best, this source is unreliable, and at worst, it's a violation of WP: BLP and should not be added to the article. I also found a book called "Introduction to Omegle" by Gilad James, PhD. I thought that this source would be reliable, but the author's LinkedIn profile indicates that their PhD was obtained from a "distance learning institution". This, regrettably, makes the book an unreliable source. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:35, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Gabrielle

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

Fails WP:NPERSON. Current references are all either primary sources or trivial mentions. Without any significant achievements I do not think that a naval aviation career is inherently notable (in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Women_United_States_Naval_Aviators other subjects achieved individual milestones in the history of the field or pass NPERSON outside of the profession), nor is being a news correspondent (does not appear to have reported significant stories or been referenced as notable in the field; ie, fails the WP:JOURNALIST subsection of NPERSON). Arguably secondary converage of appointment to US government position ([10]) but as I cannot find coverage of any accomplishments in said position I do not think this makes her notable independently of Global Engagement Center. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Military, and Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jajnagar Expedition of Firoz Shah Tughlaq

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

Full of OR and SYNTH mess, cited with poor sources that were being dealt with. At best a hoax fan PoV that should not have been in the mainspace at the first place. Garudam ^Talk! 22:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Bangladesh, India, Odisha, and West Bengal. Garudam ^Talk! 22:53, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Suppression of tumorigenicity 8 (ovarian)

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

This article appears to reference a gene that does not exist. Although a gene referred to as ST8 was initially identified, records referring to it have been discontinued and replaced in reliable databases. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/6765. As far as I can make out, the page was automatically created by a bot, followed by someone going through and adding unrelated information from articles referencing other genes. For example, the article references Am J Hum Genet. 1994 Jul;55(1):143-9, (PMID: 8023842) however, this journal article refers to the IFNA gene, which is on a completely different chromosome. I have been unable to identify reliable sources on pubmed referring to this gene. Unless someone else can find anything confirming its existence, I believe this article should be deleted as Unverifiable. Jared BioE (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and Medicine. Jared BioE (talk) 22:46, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional doomsday devices

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

Almost entirely an indiscriminate list, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTPLOT. There is a sentence or two of cited content, but this can be added to doomsday device#in fiction if necessary, which already has a much more organized prose treatment of the subject. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Military. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:NOTPLOT, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and ultimately failing WP:NLIST. However, this looks to be so much work down the drain. I should hope the authors use this in the fandom wiki where I would expect to see it. I will say this Wired source is at least a partial source, just not very significant. Conyo14 (talk) 23:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge those few reliable sources at the very end of this article to Doomsday device, and nothing else. As described in the nom and the preceding comment, the rest of the list fails multiple categories of WP:NOT and the notability guidelines. Rorshacma (talk) 00:33, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking for sources, American Science Fiction and the Cold War, p. 43-45+, has significant coverage. Like the Wired article it concentrates on American fiction, but as the vast majority of the content also concentrates on that, that should not be a problem with regard to notability. Science Fact and Science Fiction, p. 292 has a brief paragraph on the topic. Most importantly, Science Fiction and Futurism, p. 66-70+, has a multipage chapter on the topic with the majority of it being dedicated to depictions in fiction. So I see WP:LISTN as fullfilled after all, all other problems can be solved be normal editing rather than deletion. Specifically, WP:INDISCRIMINATE by sticking to examples appearing in secondary sources like those listed. The trimming is hopefully done after checking if the individual entries are treated in secondary sources. Daranios (talk) 11:54, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are passionate about saving the article, then I am willing to reconsider the AfD if a full rewrite is conducted. But nobody has cared to fix it for 20 years, so the argument that it "could" be solved by editing rings hollow. If the AfD results in the article being fixed, then it would be successful as well, but in this state it likely shouldn't exist. It may be easier to let this article go and start fresh with a prose article at Doomsday devices in fiction. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion, but I've let myself be drafted into working on articles which were not on my agenda quite a lot recently, after simply expressing my opinion in AfDs (Tralfamadore...). So, no, I do not plan to also take on this one myself, I have a backlog of previous stuff. If you are passionate about not liking the current state of the article, you are likewise invited to fix it. That's the course of action suggested by policy in a case where secondary sources establishing notability have been found, not deletion. Granted, 17 years is a long time, but "Nobody's working on it" is still an argument to avoid in a deletion discussion. (And there's of course the underlying problem that nominating an article for deletion is comparatively easy, but fixing things is not, and neither would be creating a more decent article from scratch.) Daranios (talk) 15:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge partially per Rorshacma. Once you clean-up the unreliable list, there are only a few sentences in reliable secondary literature. Re-creating this as doomsday devices in fiction is premature, and it's best to work on this at the main article until there is evidence we can write a significant and reliable article of its own. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Vancouver Whitecaps Women players

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NLIST due to a lack of third party coverage as a grouping. PROD in 2009 was removed so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and Canada. Let'srun (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again NLIST states that's "one accepted reason why," not the "only reason why." I have no other opinion on this yet. SportingFlyer T·C 22:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aryan Hasan

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Not enough notability to warrant a standalone article, at least not at this time. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 20:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable actor. The sources in the article say it all. Mekomo (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally Non-notable actor and singer, does not have any coverage in any reliable source. I have fixed the citations, it's only three. Actor played small roles in the notable films, that does not proves notability. Taabii (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reindorf Review

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

There is only one secondary source in this entire page that is even remotely about the subject. This appears to be mostly WP:PROMO mixed with a WP:COATRACK for various anti-trans grievances. Regardless this appears to fail WP:GNG as there is no WP:SIGCOV. Simonm223 (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Social science, and England. – The Grid (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are allegedly 10 sources on the page, but 4 are just from the review itself so ignoring those, I looked at the 6 remaining:
- Sex Matters [11] is certainly significant coverage, but looking at who they are, they call themselves a human rights charity, and the very name of the charity leads me to believe that this source is problematic because it is clearly advocacy. I am not sure exactly where this one falls down on GNG to be honest. It is independent, secondary and with significant coverage. I have no reason to say it is not reliable, but the advocacy is an issue. ?
- The Times [12] Lawyer demands inquiry into trans ‘gag’ by university is news reporting. A primary source. N
- The Guardian [13] is on topic generally but I cannot see any mention of this review or of Essex. N
- The Telegraph [14] As for the Guardian, no specific mention. N
- The Irish Examiner [15] And another one that doesn't mention it. N
- Impact [16] How can universities promote academic freedom? has significant coverage across two pages (23 and 24). It is independent, reliable and secondary. This one is very good. Y

So I broadly agree with the nom. that there is only one secondary source, but that first source, problematic as it is, still shows something. The Impact discussion lends quite a degree of credibility to the notability of the review, and the general subject is clearly notable. I would consider a suitable merge though. Although the review is at least marginally independently notable, the issue (as indicated by the newspapers that don't actually discuss the review) is wider than this specific review, and the review could be a case study in a larger article (as it is in Impact). Do we have a suitable article about academic freedom that this would belong in? If not, this should not be deleted. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Suissa and Sullivan article is a clearing house of "look at how important this anti-trans activist is" apologia. It should not be used to establish notability on an anti-trans topic. Simonm223 (talk) 12:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The topic, surely, is on academic freedom. Spinning this as anti-trans is an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. The source demonstrates notability whether we agree with it or not, because it is a secondary treatment, using this as a notable case study. Indeed, although I was concerned about the advocacy element of Sex Matters, I do not actually see what is wrong with that one either, as regards notability, unless we can show the source is unreliable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:53, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. One secondary rs shouldn't be used to make a whole article. Agree with sirfurboy that this belongs as part of a larger article instead of its own stand alone article. LunaHasArrived (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These references could easily be added to the article demonstrating its significance and notability: The Times: Stonewall ‘gave bad advice’ to university in free speech row (Archived) "Stonewall has been accused of misrepresenting the law in its advice to Essex University, which failed to uphold free speech when it dropped speakers accused of transphobia." and the Guardian: Essex University makes further apology in trans rights row "Vice-chancellor says sorry over independent report’s impact on trans and non-binary staff and students". The report has also been cited here and here in the House of Lords by Lord Willetts during the debate on the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Bill. I'm sure more could be found if necessary but this is clearly a significant page that needs to be kept. Zeno27 (talk) 11:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All four new links are useful links, but they are all also primary sources. For notability purposes we are looking for secondary sources. We have two, but the first is problematic. News reporting about the case is likely to be a primary source. However analysis about what the case tells us about, say, the application of such policies in UK universities would certainly be a secondary source. The Times article, for instance, is about a finding that the relationship between the University and Stonewall was flawed. That is reporting. The Guardian article reports their apology. Thus primary sources. The nature of what secondary sources are likely to look like (analysis of a situation of which this is a case study) does suggest to me that a merge somewhere appropriate would still be preferable to keep. We just need to find where (and if there isn't anywhere, we should probably keep this but recognise that a good development of this page would perhaps lead to a rename in the future). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Human Rights Quarterly: Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Higher Education in England 10.1353/hrq.2024.a926223 (pdf) "(ii) Incidents at Essex University Two incidents at Essex University attracted significant political and media attention and were the subject of an independent review by Akua Reindorf, a specialist employment law barrister."

Times Higher Education: Essex apologises to academics disinvited over gender views (Archived) "The university’s vice-chancellor, Anthony Forster, made the “open apology” after receiving the report of an external review he commissioned on the cases. “The report makes clear that we have made serious mistakes and we need to do our very best to learn from these and to ensure they are not repeated,” he writes in a blog published on the university’s website. Essex’s apology comes at an important political moment, with the Westminster government having confirmed plans to introduce legislation on campus free speech in England." Zeno27 (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
McGoldrick (2024) is just the kind of secondary source I was expecting, with the primary topic expressed in the title, Freedom of Speech and Academic Freedom in Higher Education in England. It is independent, reliable and secondary and has significant coverage across pages 8 and 9, beyond what you quote. This one is a Y, but I think it still begs a WP:PAGEDECIDE question. This review is not a subject in itself. There is a broader subject and this is a case study. The THES article is a very full one, covering all aspects of the case, including the relationship with Stonewall, but to me it is still a discursive primary source, reporting the apology. I would use it in an article, but I don't think it adds to the notability. However, I think we are already there on notability. The University website material is also clearly primary, as is the news about plans to introduce legislation. Again, this page should not be deleted, but I remain unconvinced that the review itself is really the primary subject. The THES and McGoldrick are really rather similar in what they say (although the THES adds a little regarding Stonewall). This is indicative of the fact that there is really not much more to say about this review. It is a case study. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bu Yu

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

Unnotable chinese politician. It cites 5 pubications from shady sites that are not adequate for notability. I found no significant coverage about him online. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 18:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, Adding sources is not a difficult task. Given that the individual is a Chinese, it is advisable to conduct a direct search for Chinese profiles. TinaLees-Jones (talk) 23:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Although TinaLees-Jones's comment above looks like WP:ILIKEIT, they have in fact expanded the article significantly since the nomination. Sources like [17] are far-and-away SIGCOV, and the subject's various positions mean they likely meet NPROF, NJOURNALIST, and NPOL (some more than others). Very clear Keep from me. Toadspike [Talk] 11:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the improved sources after nomination. The current sources meet at least WP:NBASIC. Mekomo (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Bevan

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

Non-notable RL player. Was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV at Trove, other than a few mentions of him being the father of his much more famous son. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 18:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy Keep~~. Nomination fails to raise a cas as to why this needs to be deleted when the obvious alternative of a Redirect to List of Sydney Roosters players is there. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed now that the is a delete comment below. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with a redirect, but why not simply recommend that rather than "speedy keep"? In any case, I would disagree that the above redirect target is obvious, when his bigger claim to fame is that he was Brian Bevan's father. J Mo 101 (talk) 11:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG, and notability not inherited. RLP gives the name as Eric Bevan, and a search for this gives only a few results on Trove, the most detailed on which, from 1950, just notes that Brian's father used to play and which teams he played for. I am not sure how useful a redirect to the list of players would be as there are only three other links to the article – on Brian Bevan, where the name is already preceded by a link to the club, the families list where he appears next to the link to Brian, and on the Richard Bevan dab page where his inclusion does not seem particularly relevant. EdwardUK (talk) 12:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:35, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EP Entertainment

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

Unnotable entertainment company. There is no significant coverage of it. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, California, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:32, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:MILL management division of bigger record company, and their one name artist moved on years ago. Nate • (chatter) 22:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable entertainment company. Mekomo (talk) 13:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who's Gonna Take the Weight?

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

I turned this page, formerly a redirect to a Luke Cage episode, into a disambiguation page, since several topics covered on the encyclopedia are named this. Gonnym noticed this, either because he added it to his watchlist after having previously added redirect categories to it or because User:Gonnym/sandbox/Outline MCU episodes links to it. Gonnym restored the redirect and reverted my revert of his action, and so to avoid an edit war I have started this discission. Count me as a Keep voter. Mach61 18:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors changing redirect pages should familiarize with how to correctly do so. Many redirect pages don't have active watchers and so when a page like this gets hijacked, a lot gets lost. In this case there were 3 links (not counting my own) to the redirect. Only one was moved, leaving the two file namespace links broken. Additionally, television episode redirects are valid redirects and per WP:NOTBROKEN should not be turned to plain links like was done in Mach61's only "fix".

So to recap:

The project lost a valid television episode redirect that was in use
Two links were left broken
One link was left worse off

And all for a disambiguation page that other than the television episode, does not even link to any anchor.

What should have been done, if the page really needs to be turned into a disambiguation page (the non-anchor links show that maybe this episode is the primary), is

move the page to Who's Gonna Take the Weight? (Luke Cage) per WP:NCTV
fix ALL incoming links, not just those in the article space
use the redirect link in the disambiguation page as norm

Gonnym (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym. I accept that not updating the links on the file pages was suboptimal (I deliberately avoided editing your sandbox, since many editors do not want others editing their user subpages under any circumstances). However, my not following 100% of the proper procedures does not justify you removing a valid disambiguation page, just as a valid article with typos in it shouldn't be deleted for that; WP:Wikipedia is a work in progress. You could have resolved this yourself without edit warring by copying the redirect to Who's Gonna Take the Weight (Luke Cage) with attribution. Mach61 18:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I could, but then what's to stop you from continuing doing this with other pages that I happen to not be watching? Why should I or anyone else need to do additional work just to get to the same spot we were before? Also, and this is the most relevant to the AFD itself, why does the dab page need to be at the primary and not at Who's Gonna Take the Weight? (disambiguation)? The fact that there aren't even links to the targets (just general links to articles that mention them) is one sign that it doesn't. Gonnym (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym

I could, but then what's to stop you from continuing doing this with other pages that I happen to not be watching? A note on my user talk page
Why should I or anyone else need to do additional work just to get to the same spot we were before? Because this is as collaborative project built on imperfect net-positive contribitons. If what I replaced the redirect with was a negative contribution (e.g. vandalism), than sure, revert that, but the disambiguation page was valid.
Why does the dab page need to be at the primary and not at Who's Gonna Take the Weight? (disambiguation)? This question can be answered with an WP:RM and is in fact irrelevant to this AFD.

Mach61 20:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Disambiguations. Mach61 19:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore previous redirect None of the subjects have articles of their own and I don't feel like a conversion to a dab for such a random phrase is really needed. Nate • (chatter) 22:15, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I'm not entirely sure this is the right venue for this. It seems to be better suited for WP:RFD. That being said restore previous redirect per above. Dab's are for navigational purposes in Wikipedia and that is not needed in this case. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to dab page and fix any incoming links which need to be fixed. All the dab page entries appear to be places where a redirect would be appropriate, and as there are multiple, with no indication which is the primary topic, a dab page is appropriate. PamD 08:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @MrSchimpf: @Esolo5002:, linking to pages that reference a topic with a specific name is allowed in dabs per WP:DABMENTION. Besides, the episode also does not have an article; if someone first created the redirect to one of the other subjects, I can't imagine any of you would defend retargeting it to the TV show page unilaterally. Mach61 16:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For four of them and all so unrelated and random (and without getting into the weeds, some of them just seem to be a cover of the same song)? That's not what DABMENTION is intended for. Nate • (chatter) 17:02, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Xêro Abbas

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

Semi-advertorialized ("on his return he kissed his land and this attitude of his was welcomed by the people with great enthusiasm and love") WP:BLP of a musician not properly sourced as passing WP:NMUSIC. As always, musicians are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show certain specific markers of achievement supported by reliable sourcing -- but this essentially just claims that he exists, expresses his significance in terms of flowery fluff like the quote I highlighted above rather than quantifiable achievements, and is referenced solely to a single unreliable source rather than any WP:GNG-worthy coverage. And the interlangs to the Arabic and Kurdish Wikipedias also don't feature any other reliable sourcing that could be pulled over to salvage this: the Kurdish one cites only the same unreliable source, while the Arabic one cites one different primary source and one circular citation to the Kurdish Wikipedia, neither of which are valid support for notability either.
As I can't read the Arabic or Kurdish languages, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody who can read those languages is able to find sufficient GNG-worthy coverage to salvage this and neutralize the advertorialism, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Syria. Bearcat (talk) 17:14, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2020–21 Afghanistan Premier League

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

Event that never happened as it was repeatedly postponed. Doesn't meet WP:GNG so an article just listing lots of postponements is not required. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Afghanistan. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elips

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

Article about unnotable armenian band without sources. I was unable to find any information about it on the internet. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:51, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BAND and WP:SIGCOV. I doubt there will be any significant coverage in the future, either. Beachweak (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG

Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 19:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unsourced since 2010 when it was created, and tagged for lack of sources since 2012, nothing has improved since then and there is nothing to improve it even now. Mekomo (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KCMR

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

Short article; no sources; notable only on local level. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Iowa. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 14:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ilene, Indiana

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

An obvious nothing-there rail spot, not a village. Mangoe (talk) 13:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:42, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paper doll (video games)

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

Fails WP:GNG. This is more of a thing for Glossary of video game terminology than its own article, IMO. Looking for SIGCOV, I only found articles about dress-up games, making it dubious whether this term even solely applies to this manner of character customization. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The term does not seem to be commonly used, based on Gbooks and Gsearch results. I can only see games where you actually put clothes on virtual dolls. Oaktree b (talk) 15:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is the first instance I've heard the term paper doll used in a video game setting, and I've not seen anything that shows this term in significant detail. It also doesn't help that there are games with similar titles to "Paper doll" in my searches. Conyo14 (talk) 23:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Till Thomsen

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

A german curler who appeared once in the 1996 World Men's Curling Championship. There is nothing notable about him SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CURLING for having played in the World Championships.-- Earl Andrew - talk 14:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 12:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Earl Andrew. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:19, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless an editor can furnish several references to reliable sources independent of Thomsen that devote significant coverage to Thomsen. According to WP:ATHLETE, The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. Meeting a special notability guideline indicates that a topic likely meets the GNG, but is not a guarantee that it does. So, now is the time to furnish the evidence or let the article be deleted. Cullen328 (talk)

Favour Agam

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

Not yet notable by WP:NMODEL, WP:BIO or WP:GNG. The only coverage I can find of him online is tame interviews like the sources currently cited, with no significant secondary coverage in reliable sources. Wikishovel (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Fashion, and Nigeria. Wikishovel (talk) 12:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. references dont seem in-depth and are just interviews. Not notable. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:20, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMODEL or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He started his "journey of discovery" in August 2023 [18], then has zero coverage until September 2024 [19]. A whole 5 hits in Gnews, 4 from September 2024. Very puffy articles, I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Skeletons (Wednesday 13 album)

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

Sources on page are no good, one being the artist's website and the other being an AllMusic page with no published review or rating. And I couldn't find any additional reliable coverage, not even the Kerrang! review which the article suggests exists (though I wouldn't doubt that it does and just isn't archived). But even so, Kerrang! alone would not save this article, and I haven't seen coverage which would. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 12:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I got incidentally involved with this while doing some work on the list of 2008 albums article. After I removed an unreliable source for this album there, the entry as a whole was challenged. A couple casual searches didn't find decent sourcing apart from a review by High Voltage Magazine (incidentally, HVM might be an AfD candidate), and my restoration was reverted, and I was referred to this AfD. I was thinking that this probably was a good AfD candidate, but after a more comprehensive search, I'd now say definitely keep. In addition to the possible Kerrang! review, there's reviews by Metal Hammer Germany [20], Metal.de [21], and (albeit less impressively) MetalFan.nl.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 12:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important to note that 3family6 added Metal.de to RSMUSIC without any prior discussion, but it was removed right after with a request that such a discussion be had first. 3family6 did start that discussion here, but it has not received any responses yet. There is a good case being made there, but I haven't looked into it myself and can't speak to the source beyond that. All this to say that source's reliability is still an open question, and if it were rejected then that would leave us at just (presumably, if someone can find the Kerrang! review) two reliable sources, which I think is too thin a margin to pass this. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 23:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's fair to disclose. I will make clear that I've used this source for years, as have many others, and it has never been challenged.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asad Ahmed

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

Reliable sources lack in-depth coverage of this subject, with only three cited in the article. Two of these are questionable and potentially unreliable, leading me to conclude that the subject does not satisfy WP:GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Pakistan. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep likely meets WP:GNG. Some of these should help: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]. Thank you. Gheus (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It’s quite obvious that you have marked this for deletion because you are jealous. Anyone who grew up in the 80s in Karachi will say that Asad was one of the pioneers of rock music in Pakistan. 2601:155:27F:FE40:69DD:37CD:EF82:703 (talk) 23:43, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Gheus. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:24, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Čapljina

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

The "Flow of the operation" section of this article, which concerns the actual subject of this article, is unsourced. The comprehensive CIA history of the Balkan conflicts of the 90s, Balkan Battlegrounds mentions this operation only in passing, in fact in a footnote, not even in the body text. Another article of dubious notability created by new accounts that have popped up in the last few months. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Another poorly sourced page by its creator. Mztourist (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Dubious topic, but a quorum would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:40, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mztourist and nom Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 12:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hearth Party

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

This political party has sources, but seems completely trivial within politics. Ran in the 2024 Turkish local elections and gathered 2000 of 46 million votes. When reaching such an incredibly low level of relevance in politics, it is of no encyclopedic interest which hand gestures they like or how they view Atatürk. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it should be marged and redirected, into a new 'Hearth Party' section on the Ottoman Hearths article as it is the 'political wing' of that group, both are stubs and there seems to be some considerable overlap already. I don't read turkish (and google translate struggles!) but most of the sources seem to talk about them together. JeffUK 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like PROMO for a low-polling party. Hand signals and how they see history is a good half of the article, which seems like fluffy padding added to bulk-up a otherwise thin article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TechNext

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

Just mere mentions in the press. Article creator blocked as SOCK. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources (at least the online ones) only contain passing mentions of the company; for example, source 2 literally just contains the phrase "The researchers have also launched a startup called Technext" and that's it. Others such as this source only give a small description of the company. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:ORGCRIT due to the lack of significant coverage. Beachweak (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – None of the sources contain significant coverage of the company itself with most of the mentions being trivial. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shugavybz

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

Yet another article on a musician who has done literally nothing notable to pass WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources from here and a cursory search suggests nothing useful. They're either interviews with the subject, or routine coverages that are entirely dependent on the subject. This is, as usual, a properly written article from the author on a non-notable musician to pretend notability. Also, the TurnTable Certification System of Nigeria is dubious in its entirety. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are either puff pieces that are meant to confer notability on him or interviews. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has written more than one major hit record, automatically meets WP:COMPOSER, just like a scriptwriter or director who has directed multiple award-winning movies. Even if he doesn't pass GNG, but passes WP:FILMS, he automatically establishes notability. Likewise he passes WP:ANYBIO, with a special recognition from The Recording Academy as a composer. One last thing, I would say the coverage for example [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], add up to a GNG pass, with an extensive list of production and songwriting credits from "No Girlfriend No Problem", "Away", "One Side", "Yawa No Dey End", "My Baby", and many more.--Afí-afeti (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus Capital Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRIT sources to prove notability. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Anne Glover (businesswoman) fpr the founder. Chipka (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED. This is about the firm not the founder. Imcdc Contact 04:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Polgar

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

Page`s notability might not meet Wikipedia's standards due to a potential lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An analysis of sources:

Can't access source 1, source 2 is unreliable, sources 3, 5, 7, 8 and 12 just have one or two videos from his channel without any mention of Polgar himself, source 4 is a self-published blog, source 6 is just a video, source 9 is his YouTube channel, source 10 is a...course(?), same with source 11, with just a link to his YouTube channel at the bottom, no idea what source 13 is but it's unreliable anyway, sources 14 and 16 are Amazon links, and source 18 is a duplicate of source 6. Sources 15 and 17 are the only ones that mention Polgar by name at all, with 17 being an interview and 15 just talking about his books on Amazon.

In other words, not a single reliable or significant source, aside from possibly 17. Procyon117 (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few more sources, please have a look. Herinalian (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:AUTHOR. His works are being used by the Open University,[40] The University of Manchester,[41] The Canadian Encyclopedia [42], the California Council on Economic Education.[43] etc. Herinalian (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding customs by country

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

Wedding customs by country is too unwieldy and too vague to be useful to anyone Drew Stanley (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed this nomination to use {{subst:afd2}}. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't actually have a problem with the subject-matter, because an overview of interesting wedding customs is very much an encyclopedic subject, and easily sourced. It is indeed unwieldy if each section becomes too detailed, but it can always have "Main article..." links to longer articles. But the current title is fundamentally wrong. It should be Wedding customs by culture or something like that. Taking one small country, that's part of a larger unit, namely "England", we have large communities who've lived here for generations but whose culture traces back to something else, and whose weddings have more in common with an Indian wedding (for example) than a horse-and-carriage pretty village church archetypical "English" wedding, and yet these people are as much part of England as I am and their customs are now as much a valid part of English life as mine. If the article must do it by country, it will certainly be way too unwieldy, because the "England" section alone will have to address almost every wedding custom seen in the world. Elemimele (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then it would still be better to delete and make a new article based on existing wedding customs-related articles; it would be better sourcesDrew Stanley (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the broader topic and grouping is clearly covered by cultural scholars--not just individually but as a comparative study between countries. While I understand OP's concerns, I don't actually believe this article is so bad we need to WP:TNT it. And for better or worse, when it comes to a lot of these cultures where we won't have the manpower to put together an entire article about their wedding culture, "by country" serves as a useful base divider. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article seems fine as a broad overview of the subject. It's fairly lengthy with some decent sourcing. I see no reason to delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason for deletion. Good sourced and interesting matter. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep gleep fleep flip florp glip glorp beeeeeeeep, etc, seems perfectly notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Rework the format. As is, this is a bit of a mess that is duplicating what is already out there elsewhere. Here's a solution: keep a lead introduction paragraph, and sort the rest into an orderly list. Set up a table format similar to Women in Guam History. The left-hand first column would link a country main article. Next to the column on the far right, no more than a sentence or two about each item . Use the far right-hand column for any reference. It might take a team to complete. But it would sure improve this mess. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hyperbolick, who I think is referring to WP:IAR. Who doesn't love a wedding? Normal editing processes can fix the issues that are in the article. Bearian (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Really just mean it's obviously WP:LISTN notable, though. No rule-ignoring required. Bleep bloop. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate of Banu Talis

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG: no English-language sources seem to mention this tribe or emirate at all, much less any indication of significance. At least some of the cited sources do not appear reliable, such as this webpage with no clear scholarly credentials, or the vague citations to an online transcription of Ibn Khaldun ([44]), a primary source. Much of the article is also poorly cited and may include WP:OR. If there's some alternate spelling of the name that yields accessible and reliable sources, you can mention it here; I've tried to search for a few other alternatives and still found nothing. R Prazeres (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a hoax and certainly existed. Of the sources provided, 2 and 5 are no use as they just link to Google book index pages and not to actual text pages, but the other refs all check out. In addition I found this and this. The ar.wiki article is a very short stub and this much longer article has many unsourced statements that could be trimmed out, but it needs editing, not deletion. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Libya. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiordland Trails Trust

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

WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Environment. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. There are multiple articles published in The Southland Times that describe the activities of the Fiordland Trails Trust over the past decade. I have listed a group of citations from The Southland Times on the article talk page Talk:Fiordland Trails Trust. I think the article warrants expansion rather than deletion._Marshelec (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have had second thoughts _Marshelec (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Marshelec lists some additional sources, but I don't think repeated mentions in the same regional paper constitute significant coverage. The only other mention I can find is here [45]https://www.odt.co.nz/southland/bit-more-help-needed-popular-fiordland-trail , and that's not really significant coverage either, and might be a re-publication of one of the Southland Times articles; I just don't think there's enough there for a whole article. I think the current content could be turned into a couple of extra sentences on the Manapouri and/or Te Anau articles at best. JeffUK 11:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Replace with alternative article The content in the existing article is unsourced and I cannot find adequate sources to back it up. On reflection I have realised that it would be more useful for readers of the encyclopedia to have an article about the trails than the organisation that has planned and created them. So I have created a new article. See: Lake2Lake Trail There is more work to do, but this is a start._Marshelec (talk)

Tick-Tack

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

No reliable source referring to "Tick-Tack" as a single; Most information stated derives from personal opinion instead of a reliable source (MOS:PUFFERY). George13lol2 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. George13lol2 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete the whole article though! just change that bit 161.116.133.70 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as per nom, in addition to failed WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV other than passing mention from I'll Like You-related reportings. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I'll Like You per standard protocol for album songs. No reason for an extreme solution like deletion here. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article to remove the MOS:PUFFERY issue, although the subject of the article itself is most likely not notable enough to deserve its own article. George13lol2 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you've removed the MOS:PUFFERY issue, the article will still most likely be redirected and the same thing happened months ago with ILLIT's song "Lucky Girl Syndrome", when it pertains to K-pop mostly, song articles are usually not as notable UNLESS they received significant attention. Eg. A pre-release single is usually notable but songs from albums that have already been released but receive a music video months later tend not to be. This0k (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The song has charted and although it is not a single can be kept as a song article. This0k (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is borderline, as most of the sources talk about the song in the context of the album. But the song charted, and a bit of media interest was raised with the Ava Max English version "Baby It's Both". Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SONG. I agree with Binksternet that it's borderline, but if the song charted then the article deserves a chance.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rankings of 99 and 140, after one week, are nigh unremarkable. Still think redirect for now is proper. Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True. Tick-Tack didn't do as well as Lucky Girl Syndrome, the other promoted non lead single from the album but it did have an English version which makes it a little bit more notable. This0k (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timōrātus

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

Sources are WP:QS and extremely bloggy and they don't adequately support WP:GNG. I suggest deleting it. Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Christianity, and Kentucky. Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the HM reference is good, and the Lloyd Harp IVM review would be pending on the outcome of the RFC regarding IVM. that's two sources, and we'd want three or four. I'm going to take a look before I make a decision.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other coverage I can find that would be RS is from The Metal Resource, and it's mostly reviews. I think for now notability is definitely questionable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Nobody is questioning the fact they exist. So the sources do reliably prove it exists. I'm satisfied with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. This0k (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vision of God Records

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

WP:NCORP failure. Signs of public relations editing also noted in edit history. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources. I managed to find this interview with Heaven's Metal, but the write-up is a small paragraph only and the rest is statements by the label owner in response to interview questions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seowon (singer)

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, WP:BANDMEMBER with no WP:SIGCOV for individual notability other than passing mentions from Unis-related reportings including but not limited to her "about"-type reporting as part of Unis's promotional debut-related reportings from WP:BEFORE. Suggesting a hard delete (a fresh redirect could be created again, if necessary, without history) since an exact Draft:Seowon (singer) created by the same editor already exists. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources are very poor. Also not notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParvatPrakash (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Jjpachano (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Harris (sprinter)

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, specifically "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject"; does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, to have been successful in a major competition, or won a significant honor, as described in WP:ATHLETE Stephen Hui (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Stephen Hui (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per these three sources. Left guide (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three sources clearly refer to a different Harris -- the Wikipedia article is about a sprinter, but the articles all refer to him as a middle distance runner. The Wikipedia article says he was born in 1956, but the second source says he was 31 in 1996 (i.e. born ca. 1965), and the third source says he was 21 in 1987 (so born ca. 1966). Not the same guy. Stephen Hui (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll take your word for it, struck my !vote accordingly. Left guide (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject tied the world record in the 4 × 220 yards relay and was an NCAA Division I champion, was covered in e.g. "Harris Looking For Better Times". The Daily Progress. 10 Apr 1977. p. 34. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Trackmen Ready For 1980". The Daily Progress. 4 Aug 1976. p. 13. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Rushed to Russia: Harris takes whirlwind trip". The Daily Advance. 21 Aug 1979. p. 22. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Sports Festival Was Not All Fun". The Daily Progress. 12 Aug 1979. p. 32. Retrieved 5 December 2024. I'll try to incorporate these into the article soon but wanted to get this out before everyone puts their !votes in. --Habst (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Does not meet NTRACK and unclear if that threshold could ever be met, but some of the information above could be placed into more notable articles, such as the NCAA Championship. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, subject actually does meet NTRACK prong 2 for his international Universiade gold medal. He also tied world records in both the 4 × 220 y and 4 × 200 m. Of course, whether he meets NTRACK doesn't really matter as long as he meets GNG which I think is demonstrated above. --Habst (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst: If someone can add that information to the article with references, I'd be happy to alter my opinion. I see there is that box there, but wondering why it's not mentioned beyond that. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, thanks, I expanded the article and added some context on that medal. --Habst (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, updating my opinion to Weak Keep Would like to see more expansion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, article greatly expanded. A source review would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject notable enough with multiple international accolades. ParvatPrakash (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Arega Bekele

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable businessman. All sources are PR, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Aviation, and Ethiopia. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the {{not a ballot}} template on top, seeing how the previous AfD was filled with socks and SPAs. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did my research and read the previous AfD as well. The issues raised in the previous AfD were addressed. I do not think it is right to say sources are PR. For instance, the source with https://aec.afdb.org/ is from African Economic Conference (the equivalent of World Economic Conference in Africa) of African Development Bank (the equivalent of World Bank in Africa). My judgement is that an institution of this nature cannot be regarded as PR Source. Again, from my research, one of the sources TimesKuwait has been in the media space since 1996 and another The African Times have been around since 1989. These are independent sources in their own right. Another source - https://aviationbusinessjournal.aero/ is an influential aviation magazine. Since the subject is a top airline business executive, the rest sources are travel and aviation magazines including one that is associated with Havard. So I think the claim questioning the reliability of the sources is wrong. Again, compare the first article and this article and you will see that all issues violated by the first editor were fixed in this new article. The subject is a notable african airline executive in Africa and North America and I think it should stay with subsequent improvements as with all wikipedia articles. Cheers ! Astra Los Angeles (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, it's not a puffy as last time, but the "group vice president for customer experience" is very much a mid-level business executive, just above the rank and file. Sourcing now is largely from trade magazines, so nothing has changed since last time. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The VP is not a mid-level executive. See this [46] Further research here [47] also shows that there are C, V, D and B level executives and the only category rated as mid level executives here are the B level [48]. VPs fall under the V-suite that are rated senior executives and their roles or level of power depends on the organization and the country. Let's refer to the company itself. The GVP is included in Ethiopian Airlines senior level leadership team as captured here [49] but debating whether VP is a notable position or not is not the main crux and we have to refer to the Wikipedia guidelines on notability here Wikipedia:Notability (people) to consider whether the subject meets the notability criteria. First, the sources are independent and sources like the African Development Bank and the African Business Club of Harvard Business School [50] both mentioned the subject's receipt of US Presidential Lifetime Award which recognizes his contributions. Ethiopian Airline is Africa's largest airline and the subject was its face in North America for two years. Even though the VP is a notable position, the subject is not listed here because he is a VP. He is listed here because he is covered by several independent sources (especially in the african aviation industry where he belongs), the role he played in the airline industry during the COVID pandemic as MD in Canada (that earned him the NCBN Business person of the year award in 2021) and the significant award he bagged in the U.S IN 2023 as contained in the sources. When you look at the profiles of many CEOs on wikipedia including the current CEO of ethiopian airlines, that of this subject has more weight. You can be an ordinary classroom teacher and do big things. In the african aviation industry, the subject has earned it. Astra Los Angeles (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Astra Los Angeles (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment: For perspective, he is (or was) one in a list of 179 similar people [51], so this is very much not a notable position. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is a yet to be updated website page. This is the current page for Ethiopian Airline corporate executive Team [52] - the apex leadership and management team of the company. The subject is listed there. Astra Los Angeles (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One from a group of 16 isn't really helping your argument; we aren't LinkedIn, where every person gets an article. Being listed on a corporate website does not in any way show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Non-notable businessperson, with shallow, limited coverage. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument. A source assessment would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: MILL. Don't gaslight or sealion us that a VP of an airline is automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not because the subject is a VP but a VP that is notable in the African airline industry and for the significant award he received. 105.112.17.178 (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snooze (Agust D song)

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

Do not believe this passes NSONG. Charting is almost certainly too little (Vietnam Hot 100 page doesn't even verify it's charting; this page does, but that the sourced page doesn't even go past the top 25 of the chart suggests non-notability of the peak position), and the rest of the sourcing is album reviews which all barely mention the song specifically and a database page. Redirect to D-Day (album). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and South Korea. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the song has charted on several national charts (Japan Oricon, Billboard Japan, Billboard Vietnam Hot 100, United States Billboard Digital Song Sales) which is a criteria for WP:NSONG. In addition, there is likely enough coverage in existence to expand the article to be more than the stub it is right now. RachelTensions (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced article, Top 20 in Japan, clearly meets WP:NSONG. 162 etc. (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album per NSONG: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." The only other sources being unimpressive appearances in chart statistics is a very low bar and should be ignored. Tag the redirect as having possibilities. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the WP:NSONG criteria is being met, as exemplified by RachelTensions. The article could also easily be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion of charting in NSONG is about establishing if a song might be notable, not that it is; charting itself is not not a criterion for being notable. WP:NALBUMS too outlines that charting is only an indication that a recording may be notable, not that it is. At this time, the article is two sentences, supported by three reviews of the song's parent album, and its genre stated in the infobox just failed verification in its source. @RachelTensions and Ïvana: you both talk about expanding the article to meet the actual criterion of NSONG; I'd like to see your proposed additions. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Few people are likely to do the work when the article might be deleted after they're done, nor are they obligated to do so. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't ask or suggest that anyone should do the work to expand the article now; you've read between the lines. I am asking for evidence that the article can be expanded to a satisfactory degree, as it doesn't appear obvious to me. Since this is supposed to be a discussion, and not a vote, I don't think my request is unreasonable. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NSONG. dxneo (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to D-Day (album) per nom and Fred Gandt. Charting in and of itself is not a criterion for passing WP:NSONGS. The other sources provided are in context of the album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the album. Charting could be notable, but there isn't enough sourcing for an article on the song alone. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to D-Day (album). Although this article cites reliable sources, their coverage of the song is trivial at best, so it does not meet the criteria for N:SONG. There also is not enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article about the subject.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before we get too carried away saying there isn't significant coverage...
Other sources significantly covering the song (outside of the context of just a review of the album) include:

Its inclusion in Time Out's "Best 23 Songs of 2023" list [53]

And significant coverage in articles at:

...and that's not even going into all the Japanese-language sources that I'm not familiar enough with to verify. Many sources cover the song as it was the final song completed by Japanese composer Ryuichi Sakamoto prior to his death, and, like I said prior, there's more than enough significant coverage here to put together a perfectly acceptable non-stub article (especially when combined with information on the song in sources that cover it within the broader scope an album review), and its charting coverage.

CC: @DesiMoore @Oaktree b @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars @Fred Gandt

RachelTensions (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- And you didn't feel like mentioning this at all when asked directly about it earlier? I'm no longer involved in this lack of discussion. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I’m sorry? I didn’t realize we were on a deadline here. If the discussion hasn’t been closed, I’ll present my research at my own leisure without being chastised for it. Thank you! RachelTensions (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just gonna chime in, We Got This Covered is not considered a reliable source. LoTrWiki (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, removed from the list. RachelTensions (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source analysis of recent sources brought into the discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IJEX Exchange

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

Non-notable crypto company. All sources online are PR. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:NCORP. No independent coverage found, reliable or otherwise. Not only does the coverage found online consist of press releases, but they are copies of the same two press releases and then some outright advertising. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing shows this company as passing inclusion criteria. All sources are not independent. Mekomo (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Fails NCORP. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, there are TWO hits in Gnews, both PR items. They've got coverage on the Big News Network (I wish I was making this up) [63], so we're a long, long way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clickwheel

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted before in 2006, still doesn't seem to meet GNG. Though I don't want this to be deleted either, I think this needs to be. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything about these guys online. Definitely falls under WP:NARTIST. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing in the article looks good. And, I am able to find plenty more sources online. Wired has covered this in 2008 at https://www.wired.com/2008/08/comic-books-on/ and in 2009 at https://www.wired.com/2009/05/the-premier-edition-of-the-geekdad-stack-comics-for-your-kids-you/ Meets WP:GNG. Asparagusstar (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced as is and per Asparagusstar newly found sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmalokam To Yamalokam Via Bhulokam

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

Fails WP:NFILM since the creation of this article [64]. A search in English or Telugu yield no reliable sources [65]. Only sources found were passing mentions: [66] [67] [68]. Webdunia production source(no link on Wikipedia) isn't enough to save the article. DareshMohan (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2010#July–December: but given the participation of notable film personalities, not opposed to Keep. -Mushy Yank. 07:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added two reviews from the sources available. Please check if it can suffice - Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- does not suffice. Both GreatAndhra and 123telugu are unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force. DareshMohan (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jónína Kristín Berg

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

Article lacks multiple sources with significant coverage (WP:BIO asks for multiple sources). The most substantial source is the first in the article, a short article in a newspaper.[69] Source 2 is a primary source listing higher-ups in a given organization.[70] Source 3 is a very short mention in a newspaper.[71] Source 4 is used to mention her role as an interim administrator, but with no other notable events occurring during the period. Source 5 is another primary source. A google search for more coverage yielded only social media. Wizmut (talk) 03:18, 12 December 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 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Women, Paganism, and Iceland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of any notability criterion. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A regional leader and one-time interim leader of a 5k-person neopagan sect is not enough for automatic notability; we need WP:GNG-based in-depth coverage in publications independent of her and of the sect. The first Morgunblaðið source may count towards that but the second has no depth of coverage of her and is in the same publication as the first. So basically I agree with the nominator that we do not have the necessary multiplicity of good enough sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ásatrúarfélagið#Third and fourth allsherjargoðar (2002–present), for the time being. Pretty sure I saw more sigcov of her in the past, either in Icelandic newspapers or some academic anthology, but I can't find it now. Ffranc (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ásatrúarfélagið#Third and fourth allsherjargoðar (2002–present). The Morgunblaðið article is SIGCOV but we need multiple sources of SIGCOV for it to pass WP:GNG. That said, I think a redirect is a better alternative to deletion. Alvaldi (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Savary

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

Non-notable figure skater; does not even come close to meeting the criteria of WP:NSKATE. Includes two local publications; I'll let the community decide whether that qualifies as "significant coverage." Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Delaware. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: It is important to keep in mind that more sources exist than are present in the articles. SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV JTtheOG (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An-Nibras

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

The article has been tagged for notability issues since 2018. A thorough review reveals no evidence to establish its notability, and no independent, reliable sources are available to verify its significance.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ādab wa-l-Fann (magazine)

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

The article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2018. Upon review, there is no evidence to demonstrate its notability. Furthermore, no independent and reliable sources exist to substantiate its significance.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and United Kingdom. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hadatha

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

The article was tagged for notability by Randykitty in 2021. A detailed review reveals an over-reliance on self-references and directory websites. There is no indication of notability, and no independent, reliable sources are available to support the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Lebanon. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finding third party coverage of academic journals in Arabic is not an easy task and I’m not sure the infrastructure even exists to query it as we could an English language journal. In the absence of a hard policy on notability for academic journals I would give considerable weight to its longevity and links with higher education, alongside the fact that it clearly isn’t pumping out pseudoscience or acting as a vehicle for cranks. In any case its important enough for Lebanon’s national news agency to announce the publication of each new issue (1 and 2) and for the news of each issue to be covered in the national press (3 and 4). Mccapra (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Bronx poisoning

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Not shown to have lasting significance, i.e., continued coverage beyond routine news reports at the time of the incident and at time of the federal criminal complaints, sentencing, etc., of connected people. Bridget (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Social science, and New York. Bridget (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not find any non-routine coverage of the poisoning. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While tragic, this fails WP:NEVENT and contravenes WP:NOTNEWS; every source I could see is routine coverage. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per #4 of WP:EVENTCRIT. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – These sources (which don't appear to be routine coverage), [72] [73] [74], already provide continued significant and in-depth coverage of the case. Lasting effects arising from this case are possible, but as of yet, haven't happened yet. Quoting from the first article linked: “I’m very sorry, but one of the things my child care inspectors are not trained to do is look for fentanyl,” Dr. Ashwin Vasan, the city’s health commissioner said. [...] “But maybe we need to start,” the commissioner added. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Wikipedia is not a news tabloid that redirects to Wikinews. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS states that Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories [as] Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. The sources above are secondary and are not first-hand reports on breaking news since they provide continued coverage, along with analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the case. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable enough event with SIGCOV. Andre🚐 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic example of Not News. There was significant coverage in New York metro media for two days. Then there was the usual coverage of the plea bargain. That's it. I feel sorry because I grew up in the area and taught over the course of four years in the Bronx. Bearian (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a sad and strange story but not a notable topic. There have been over 100,000 drug overdose deaths per year for quite a few years in the United States. The age of the victim does not make this single death notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Lives

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

Almost entirely primary sourced, some trivial mentions from reliable sources. Beyond that, no independent sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Ireland, United Kingdom, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Marmitons

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

No evidence of notability, although it's existed for nearly 2 decades, it's promotional in tone, and likely a copyright violation of [75]. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Organizations. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, article lacks notability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 06:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sink Cat Based on your rationale, I assume you meant to write "Delete" in bold, not "Support"? It is clearer when AfD !votes are for a specific outcome, rather than just supporting the nomination. The nominator could change their mind, for instance, or (like in this case) not specify the outcome they're seeking. Toadspike [Talk] 10:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes I had meant delete. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sourcing that could be used.[76][77][78] etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 13:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rolling. There are additional sources as well I found off a quick Google search [79] [80] [81]. It meets WP:GNG, but the article is in desperate need of inline sourcing and copyediting. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it meets GNG, given the sources identified above. But it certainly needs a significant rewrite. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Cottrill

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being C-suite at a company is not an inherent designator of notability, especially for a company that isn't even in the Global 2000. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE industry reporting of the movement of executives, not WP:SIGCOV of the subject himself. Other coverage is in relation to who his daughter is or is WP:PROMO. Longhornsg (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Advertising, and Golf. Longhornsg (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is pretty poor but there are several full-length articles about him in AdWeek, plus the one listed in the article in Forbes. There is definitely more reliable content that could be added to the article. Lamona (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article that can be improved and better sources would be preferable, but currently this article seems admissible to me, it appeared in Adweek and Forbes SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apt Records

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

References only one source and a google search does not yield much notability (i.e: a few questionable sources; Discogs, Rate Your Music, Both Sides Now Publications. Notability seems thin here. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, this is a discontinued label, so much of the info may be in newspapers from its era. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ABC Records: this was its parent label and Apt Records is mentioned there, making it a viable-enough alternative to deletion barring the emergence of more-substantial sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ABC Records. Completely agree with above. I think there's some useful information in the article that could be used within ABC Records, but not enough to warrant its own article. Beachweak (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ rather than redirect. This was just a sublabel for singles releases of ABC, but the label history is noteworthy enough to merit mention in the parent article. Chubbles (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or keep! based on below efforts. Chubbles (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage found at [82], [83], [84], [85], [86], Billboard January 30, 1965 page 4, the liner notes of this, [87] (I consider this a reliable source, it is curated and used by academic sources), 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for what it’s worth regarding nom statement, Discogs and Rate Your Music are not reliable. Both Sides Now is reliable, but what’s there regarding Apt isn’t significant coverage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at User_talk:OwenX#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apt_Records.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I think there's a potential editorial decision to be made as to whether this should be a stand-alone page - the Billboard coverage is clearly good coverage, I'm not entirely convinced liner notes and a list of releases get us to GNG but there's definitely sources we can use to write about the label. Whether a sub-label should be on the parent page or not isn't something I really care about, but the article as it reads currently is in pretty bad shape and if it's not significantly updated, a merge might be a better option. But while AfD can function as a merge discussion, my entire point is that there's enough sources that we don't need to delete this. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ABC Records - This is a company (or a subsidiary of one), so the appropriate guidelines are WP:NCORP. That means coverage must be at WP:CORPDEPTH in multiple independent reliable and secondary sources. The run of sources provided are mostly all from Billboard and count as a single source under the guidelines. The other two sources are definitely not at CORPDEPTH, but at least the first Billboard article is, telling us something about the proposed re-activated subsidiary and about a previous hit on the label. But these are also news reporting, which is a primary source. You are right that Billobaord would be curated and used by academic sources, but that word, curation, is key. Academics would be curating this primary source when producing their histories, analysis and synthesis. The academic sources are then the secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are tertiary, and should be written from the secondary sources, not the primary ones. We don't yet have any secondary sourcing. Under WP:SIRS there is not enough here for a standalone article. But, despite that, the first Billboard article is a good find. Used with care, it could be used to flesh out information on this subsidiary of ABC Records in that article. A secondary source would be better, but the primary source provides information that we could present without synthesis in a suitable small section. Although this !vote is for merge, much of the mergeable content is actually in this AfD and not on the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Captain Howdy & The Sunset Serenaders

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

Article for a likely non-notable band that appears to have been created by a member of the band. Based off a WP:BEFORE search, there is possibly significant coverage of the band, but only from a run-of-the-mill local news article and a site that exclusively covers local music from the band's hometown. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kansas. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keller Welton, a band member made it.This0k (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GoodMusicRadar doesn't have any author credits or seemingly that much info on the ownership, Earmilk appear to be a more professional operation and there was an article on it until literally a few days ago, the Cultr piece lists an author with no bio and I can find no info on the ownership on site (if anyone knows if its reliable, please tell) Iostn (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]