Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 10

Guide to deletion

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 03:37, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Vanessa Grellet

Vanessa Grellet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No significant coverage in secondary, independent sources outside of all the crypto churnalism. Accomplished businesswoman and executive, but there's nothing much of note (awards, research, influence, founding of a company). Mooonswimmer 16:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, France, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hello and thank you for your feedback.

I am quite surprised by this outcome, all the sources were found on Google, the most important ones in Google News. And I just found a new source on Forbes: https://www.forbes.fr/technologie/etat-des-lieux-des-nft-au-paris-blockchain-week-summit

Vanessa Grellet has appeared in 3 notable French media: La Tribune, BFM Business, and Le Monde Informatique, as well as in the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. She has also contributed to a paper for the World Economic Forum. I thought that these were notable primary and secondary independent sources. Your help would be appreciated in order to improve the article. Crystalcoin (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

The Forbes source you linked to has only one mention of Vanessa Grellet. Translated to English:

Between pure speculation and truly disruptive technology, NFTs appeal to a wide range of profiles. The “NFT Panel: How NFT funds are taking advantage of an emerging market” conference presented how NFT funds are approaching this market. Renowned panelists Julien Bouteloup, founder Blackpool Finance, James WO, CEO-founder DFG, Drew Austin, Redbeard Ventures and Vanessa Grellet, Coinfound explained their interest in these technologies.

Although it's a generally reliable source when the articles are written by Forbes staff, that is far from significant coverage, which is necessary to demonstrate the notability of a subject. It's a passing mention. It doesn't develop on why Grellet is a renowned panelist. Do you have any sources covering her or her work in-depth? That's what would help demonstrate that she is indeed notable. We'd need at least two or three sources. Mooonswimmer 22:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for your answer. Vanessa Grellet contributed to a World Economic Forum paper in 2021.

I don't think this organization would have invited her if she wasn't a renowned panelist.

https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Digital_Currency_Governance_Consortium_2021.pdf

She has two other interviews in the main economical medias in France: in La Tribune (https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/banques-finance/les-bourses-traditionnelles-vont-s-interesser-aux-crypto-actifs-et-vice-versa-vanessa-grellet-consensys-817978.html) and a video one at the Paris Blockchain Week with BFM TV (https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/replay-emissions/tech-and-co/vanessa-grellet-coinfund-coinfund-est-un-fonds-d-investissement-specialise-dans-le-web3-12-04_VN-202204120691.html), one of the biggest blockchain events in Europe. Those are not PR for sure, I can agree that the one on Le Monde Informatique looks more like a PR (https://www.lemondeinformatique.fr/actualites/lire-aglae-ventures-va-lancer-un-fonds-de-100-meteuro-dedie-au-web3-87642.html).

She is also mentioned in The Wall Street Journal :

https://www.wsj.com/articles/arche-capital-to-raise-100-million-debut-fund-amid-crypto-comeback-b7713428 Crystalcoin (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Source 2 is a RS, but it's an interview with this person where they give advice on financial subjects. Rest of the sourcing is PR items for this or that financial venture. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Just not enough coverage to show notability. A French Gsearch limited to .fr sites [1] only brings up PR items. There isn't enough to show notability. She's mentioned here [2], but it's only a brief paragraph discussing other things. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  French wiki article has been tagged for promotion and tagged for notability concerns, but they let it run for a year before discussing deletion (which is, strange, but their house, their rules). Sources in the French article are largely these PR items or similar to those used in the En wiki article. I do find it odd that there are no Fr sources used on the Fr wiki article, about a person from France. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Sorry but what you are saying is not true.

  In the French Google search, the first link is her profile on the French government's public investment bank called BPI (Banque Publique d'Investissement): https://big.bpifrance.fr/fr/speaker/65009755-7355-ef11-991a-6045bd954cb8/vanessa-grellet

  On page 2, there is also on page an official paper from the French Ministry of Economy in collaboration with the French Tech mentioning Vanessa Grellet: https://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/Articles/71361bf0-8d26-443c-9572-5c53955c1aa9/files/564c4897-e4b9-44f1-938a-93d7e3b016f2

  Again, why would the French Government ask a non-relevant person to talk about a specific subject? Crystalcoin (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  We need sources that talk about her; she is important but you need sourcing. Neither of these is about her, they just confirm she appeared at xyz event. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you for your answer, I've found a few reliable sources like Forbes and the Financial Times and I have edited the article. Let me know if you see any other improvement. Crystalcoin (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you asilvering,

Vanessa Grellet is an active actor in the sphere of crypto.

She has been interviewed by major economical media and she is an experienced panelist.

You will find in the sources:

- is in the top 100 most influential people in crypto in 2022, Cointelegraph

- has been interviewed by top French economical media: BFM Business and La Tribune

- is top speaker at blockchain conferences: Consensus and Paris Blockchain Week Summit, Forbes

- founded her own company, The Wall Street Journal, after managing the crypto fund of the world's "new" richest man, Financial Times

- co-founded with other S&P 500 companies the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, now a board member

- has collaborated with the World Economic Forum and The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Crystalcoin (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Kindly provide references for the claims and titles held so that they can be assessed for notability and SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. An apparently WP:PROMO bio from a single-purpose account. The sources do not support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Most are interviews (or other primary sources like official bios and event agendas) or trivial mentions. CoinTelegraph is of questionable reliablity per WP:RSN and this article is WP:SIGCOV of Consensys, not Grellet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. It doesn't appear that newly found sources meet the bar of providing any SIGCOV that would help establish notability for this article subject. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Makito Hatanaka

Makito Hatanaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Played some games in Japan's third league and 110 minutes in Singapore. I'm not very swayed by the status as a tall footballer. This is curious information that belongs in a list. Geschichte (talk) 11:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: ja.wiki article has additional references which have not been acknowledged, but should be per WP:NEXIST. Left guide (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment – The article on ja.wiki is actually much more consistent, perhaps it will be possible to establish WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. As all other articles on ja:wiki, it's completely useless, with every single one of the sources being WP:PRIMARY. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

  I looked more carefully here and in fact they are redirects to the clubs websites. Therefore, I vote do delete. Svartner (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep Massive WP:BEFORE fail. How did User:GiantSnowman and User:Geschichte miss these really easy to find references from over a period of several years? These are the first 3 that came up in a Google search, and all were good; suggesting there's a LOT more. 1, 2, 3. Nfitz (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment jsports - Hatanka tries volleyball, only coverage on him is "(former soccer J-Leaguer), who is 207 cm tall". gekisaka - some info on him. soccer-king.jp - one sentence on his promotion to the 1st team. Dougal18 (talk) 08:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

  Where is the SIGNIFICANT coverage? GiantSnowman 17:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Takahide Kishi

Takahide Kishi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Falls short of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, with a career lasting 501 minutes (not including amateur divisions). Deleted before. Geschichte (talk) 11:27, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: ja.wiki article has additional references which have not been acknowledged, but should be per WP:NEXIST. Left guide (talk) 12:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, I noticed the same thing, the sources in the Japanese article seem consistent. Svartner (talk) 12:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  "Consistent", what does that mean? The Ja:wiki have six sources, published by: Vissel Kobe, Vissel Kobe, FC Osaka, FC Osaka, Twitter, Vissel Kobe. Nothing even worth considering. Geschichte (talk) 08:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete - the only independent source that I can find on him is Gekisaka, which mentions him once. The ja.wiki sources don't impress me at all as they are not independent of Kishi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. Star Mississippi 18:58, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Linebet

Linebet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Still think this should be an A7, can't be bothered reverting the removal though. All coverage is ORGTRIV. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Cyprus. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: The article creator & CSD remover have placed their case to retain the article on the AfD Talk page, although in rather non-specific phrasing. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: The article text presents the company's license to trade and sponsorship deals, which fall under WP:CORPTRIV. A company going about its business, but I am not seeing evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of significant coverage, and, to be blunt, spam. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep The article should be kept as the company's importance has been confirmed in major media outlets in Bangladesh, South Africa and India, which attests to the fact that it is an international company. Ultimately, if these sources are not enough, I suggest adding the article to the WP:RSL Gordon Shane (talk) 08:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 12:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

RioSul Shopping

RioSul Shopping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources other than their own website. Appears to fail WP:ORG. Was going to look at the Portuguese Wiki for sources but it appears to have been deleted there. AusLondonder (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls, Companies, and Portugal. AusLondonder (talk) 11:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete This article has been nominated before and even last time it appears there was consensus to delete but was kept for some reason. Fails WP:NBUILD and WP:GNG. Would also support a redirect to Rio Sul Center, an unrelated but similarly named mall in Brazil that is the tallest building in Rio. cyberdog958^Talk 14:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete because it lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, which is required to demonstrate notability under Wikipedia's guidelines. --Moarnighar (talk) 08:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ORG. Soul source is primary. LibStar (talk) 03:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 06:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Cancelled (podcast)

Cancelled (podcast) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 merge‎ to Shehbaz Sharif. ✗plicit 12:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Shehbaz Speed

Shehbaz Speed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 10:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge with Shehbaz Sharif: This is PROMO. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge with Shehbaz Sharif: Just a mention in article should be enough. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 00:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Rostov-on-Don pre-trial detention center hostage crisis

Rostov-on-Don pre-trial detention center hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems to fail WP:NEVENT, specifically the lasting part. I cannot find any continued coverage of this event in English, or any secondary source for that matter. It is possible some exists in Russian or under a name different to the title. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Russia. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Keep haven't done too deep of a dive (i guess more of a week keep, I'm pretty sure this is notable though) but with a quick search I found this article from only 4 days ago, reflecting on the consequences of the hostage taking. There's definitely more but this shows continued coverage and consequences for NEVENT PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: per para, coverage seems sustained. Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 01:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 09:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per above Zach (talk to me) 09:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus‎. There is a fundamental disagreement here among participatns on whether or not the article subject passes WP:BASIC. I don't think that we will get a stronger consensus with an additional relisting so I'm closing this as No consensus. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Mark Kent

Mark Kent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:BASIC. Lacking "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Sole acceptable source is from BBC Scotland Business news reporting on his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association. Not sufficient to demonstrate notability as a "mention in passing (example given at BASIC is "John Smith at Big Company said..." or "Mary Jones was hired by My University")" AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Bilateral relations. AusLondonder (talk) 08:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. The CMG is a high honour which isn't handed out in cornflakes packets. Only about 30-40 awarded every year in a country of 67 million people. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  As we established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Shearman, honours, which are routine for British ambassadors to receive from their employer, do not eliminate the requirements for "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." AusLondonder (talk) 12:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  We established no such thing. Only a minority of diplomats or even ambassadors have high honours such as the CMG. You made a patently false claim by citing only very senior ambassadors who do have such honours and the AfD was closed before I could answer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  It's not false. A very large number of British ambassadors have received honours from their employer, many with fairly unremarkable careers. That doesn't override BASIC. AusLondonder (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  That sounds very much like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Who are you to state they've had unremarkable careers? A high honour would suggest otherwise. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  The only instance of IDONTLIKEIT is your approach to the requirement for significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. AusLondonder (talk) 13:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets WP:BASIC after adding references which were trivial to find: WP:BEFORE exists for a reason. Jonathan A Jones (talk)

The two most recent sources you've added are primary. I actually did see the government sources before nominating but I know that per BASIC "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." AusLondonder (talk) 20:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete. I'm seeing some routine announcements about his appointments, but nothing independent, secondary, and significant. And content following "According to the official biography" is obviously not independent or secondary. Receiving an award also doesn't mean the subject is exempt from notability requirements. JoelleJay (talk) 03:50, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. Appears to pass BASIC, see e.g. Buenos Aires Times (158 words), Nation Thailand (327 words), MercoPress (176 words), VietnamPlus (about some sort of award he received from the Vietnam government, 100 words), Press and Journal (287 words), Bangkok Post (1000+ words w/quotes), etc. Also, if everyone failing ANYBIO but meeting BASIC gets an article, and everyone meeting ANYBIO has to pass BASIC to get an article, that effectively means that ANYBIO is 100% wholly worthless. Or maybe, just maybe, there is a purpose in having such criteria, such as that categories of people winning major awards should be complete. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
  • A point I've made many times. If ANYBIO is routinely ignored then what on earth is the point of it? The point of it is to catch people who have had careers in unglamorous occupations but who have received high honours from their country, in recognition that, glamorous or not, they have made a significant contribution to the world. Wikipedia is not a reality TV talent contest, but a serious encyclopaedia that should cover such people. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

    Except WP:ANYBIO explicitly, unambiguously states "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." It does not in any sense override BASIC requirements. It's a guide that indicates a likelihood of notability, not a free pass. If you want that to change, feel free to propose it instead of bringing up reality television at every AfD. AusLondonder (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

As for the sources identified, I can't see them contributing to notability. Interviews are primary sources. A brief mention of his appointment to lead the Scotch Whisky Association is not an acceptable source as I pointed out in the nomination. AusLondonder (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Dismissing all of those sources, especially the Bangkok Post 1,300-word feature on 'The workaholic ambassador', which contains over 700 words on Kent that is not quotes, is ridiculous. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm well aware what it says. I'm pointing out that if it's sneered at whenever it's mentioned then it's utterly pointless, which suggests it's intended to be taken into consideration. What do you think it's there for precisely? Don't actually think I've mentioned reality television before! -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: Appears to meet WP:BASIC, per others. SirMemeGod  15:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:BASIC and WP:HEY and possibly even WP:GNG. Mark Kent was in the news in April 2023 because of his public row with an Argentine government minister Guillermo Carmona (whom he called a "shameless populist politician", strong words from a former British ambassador to Argentina), e.g. in the Daily Record. The 2021 feature article in Buenos Aires Times counts as WP:SIGCOV; there are several paragraphs of the editor-in-chief's own assessment of Kent's track record framing the Q&A interview. Ambassadors around the world come and go, often without much fanfare beyond their various public appearances, but this is an example of a former diplomat who has managed to generate coverage about himself even outside his new day job as a Scotch whisky spokesperson (which has seen him featured in articles like this one in the Sunday Post in Dundee which probably doesn't count toward notability in the Wikipedia sense). Thanks to Jonathan A Jones for making improvements to the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:12, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 13:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Akhtar Usman

Akhtar Usman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The BLP was created in the main namespace and later draftified by Maliner. The creator then submitted it for review, but later unilaterally moved the BLP back to the main namespace, to avoid AFC review process. So I feel compelled to take this to AFD so the community can decide whether it should remain or be deleted. IMO, it fails both GNG and NAUTHOR, as none of the works are notable enough. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Agreed per nom. Clearly fails GNG and NAUTHOR Wikibear47 (talk) 07:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

  Wikibear47, you need to see WP:ATA. Libraa2019 (talk) 07:06, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Likely to be contested, so let's get a more firm outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Although I couldn't find sources providing significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV, I did come across some sources that support the subject's notability, though not conclusively. These include 1, 2, 3, 4, and mentioned featured in BCC Urdu's poetic collection here. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 05:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • TheBirdsShedTears, Wikipedia:Existence does not prove notability. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 06:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep : Some links like Dawn and The News seems authentic.--Gul Butt (talk) 19:38, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Gul Butt, What do you mean by "authentic" ? The News coverage is an opinion piece while Dawn coverage isn't considered a SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 20:06, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:00, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• weak keep: The Dawn source is fine, I imagine there would be more in the several native languages mentioned. I found this [3] and [4], which seem fine. I couldn't find any reviews in Gscholar or Jstor. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Oaktree b, Why are you citing an opinion piece to establish GNG? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

    appears to be a critical review of his work Oaktree b (talk) 21:58, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

    Oaktree b, Whether it's critical or not isn't the point. What matters is if the source being used to establish GNG is RS and in this case, it isn't. It's just a column written by an unknown freelancer, which might be suitable for the BLP itself but does not adequately support the case for GNG. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 08:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

    Well, it's published in a RS and helps support the other good sources given, I suppose. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep per above. His book/work has been reviewed by Amjad Islam Amjad [5] and others [6], [7]. A few in-depth articles in Dawn are always helpful [8], [9]. Meets WP:NPOET. Gheus (talk) 09:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Sources like these DAWN, The News, DAWN, Dunya News, Express demonstrates notability. Libraa2019 (talk) 07:15, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Badiul Alam

Badiul Alam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

3sources, 2primary plus deadlink. main claim is a gold medal from American Biographical Institute, which is a paid for valueless vanity project according to ABI wikipage. otherwise non notable imo. lacks sigcov with a similarly named journalist dominating google. Canary757 (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Canary757 (talk) 07:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• keep The dead link has been repaired. The article still needs extensive clean up, offhand I would say to before the additions of COI editor Fahim-irfan-alam, but clean up doesn't require deletion. The main claim of notability is being the vice-chancellor of the University of Chittagong, which is a clear pass of the professor test criterion #6. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as per WP:PROF. Dead.rabbit (talk) 18:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:PROF Cyanochic (talk) 21:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep -- mess of an article (I took out an unsubstantiated major claim), but Chittagong qualifies as a major university by the WP:PROF standards, and the highest academic post at places of that level qualify as Criterion 6. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep as per Worldbruce. Mehedi Abedin 21:07, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 12:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Tom Brady's Patriots Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony

Tom Brady's Patriots Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Rejected draft(after two declines) moved into the encyclopedia against advice. This event is not notable as a distinct event. Brady's achievements are written in the article about Brady. Poorly sourced, the sources provided just document the occurrence of the ceremony, no sources that discuss it in depth and show its importance. The legacy section is entirely unsourced. Clearly a piece written by a Patriots/Brady fan, which we shouldn't be able to tell. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Awards, Events, American football, and Massachusetts. 331dot (talk) 07:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to Tom Brady. Not appropriate for a stand-alone article. I've searched and can't find another case where someone's induction into a hall of fame has its own stand-alone article -- not for the Pro Football Hall of Fame, the Baseball Hall of Fame, or the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. This is serious overkill. Cbl62 (talk) 11:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: So, it's an important event where people spoke? That's rather routine for induction ceremonies... Nothing out of the ordinary happened, no criminal events happened (no attempted shooting, no mass casualty event). This doesn't seem notable. Oaktree b (talk) 11:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: I'm a big Brady fan, but there's nothing particular that sets this event apart from the numerous other routine induction ceremonies for team halls or number retirements. There's nothing to indicate there's going to be lasting coverage of this event, and there's nothing that stands out about this event that would make it anything other than routine. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  One thing that set this apart is that it was the first Hall of Fame induction ceremony to be held at a stadium (Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts). This was a once-in-a-lifetime event. Abhiramakella (talk) 19:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Do you have sources that give coverage of that aspect? As noted above, we don't have standalone articles for induction ceremonies of other members of halls of fame(halls of far more prominence than a team HOF). It's usually covered in the article about the individual. 331dot (talk) 20:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  [10]Gillette Stadium Abhiramakella (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  You will need to find coverage from independent sources to back up your claim. Gillettestadium.com is most certainly not independent. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  How about this: New England Patriots website? Abhiramakella (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  A press release from the Patriots is not an independent source. 331dot (talk) 23:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Every such ceremony is "once in a lifetime". 331dot (talk) 20:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  That's for a team hall of fame @Abhiramakella. The Lions for example always hold a ceremony for new inductions into their team ring of honor (the Pride of the Lions) anytime they induct someone into it. Matt Ryan was also just inducted during halftime of a game to the Atlanta Falcons Ring of Honor. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:53, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Delete as a fail of WP:NEVENT: no lasting coverage with only routing reporting. Also sad to here josh is a Brady fan :( -1ctinus📝🗨 14:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

@1ctinus: I'm a fan of sports in general, and I LOVE seeing people at the peak of it. With that said... I still think Peyton Manning was a better QB who didn't have as good of a coaching staff ;) Brady however was more clutch in the playoffs, and will be recognized as the GOAT until Mahomes (hopefully) topples him! Also Matt Stafford will always be my boy and I'll always wear his jersey proudly :) Hey man im josh (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete (oppose redirect). Player inductions into teams halls of fame are common events. Nothing in this particular event was so remarkable to warrant an article. Frank Anchor 14:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete trivial event that lacks sustained coverage. The title as it currently stands is useless as a redirect because of the capitalization. Esolo5002 (talk) 23:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEVENT and lacking WP:SIGCOV. I'll also point out that Brady's induction could have had a lot of pomp, but I didn't see anything in my social feed either. Conyo14 (talk) 23:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: clearly fails WP:NEVENT. Left guide (talk) 11:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect‎ to Venomous Concept as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 18:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

John Cooke (musician)

John Cooke (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lots of passing mentions for the man and an interview but nothing else. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:04, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Venomous Concept, the one band for which he has been a consistent long-term member, and for which he is most often mentioned in the music media. Otherwise he is one of those pro working musicians who has filled in with various bands when needed and worked some session and solo projects, but remains little-covered in his own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 07:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Three of the sources are about him directly, I think that covers WP:SIGCOV. Mewhen123 (talk) 12:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Mewhen123: What three sources are there. Can you point them out please. scope_creep^Talk 13:20, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

• Stormark, Ella. "INTERVIEW: NAPALM DEATH'S JOHN COOKE". orangeamps. Retrieved 20 July 2024.
• Rigs of Death Metal (16 November 2021). Rig talk with John Cook of Napalm Death. Retrieved 20 July 2024 – via YouTube.
• Childers, Chad (4 October 2018). "Napalm Death's John Cooke on Journey From Driver to Guitarist". Loudwire. Retrieved 20 July 2024.
• Loudwire (3 October 2018). Napalm Death's John Cooke Plays His Favorite Riffs. Retrieved 20 July 2024 – via YouTube.

Here they are, in fact there are four. Mewhen123 (talk) 13:26, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Interviews can't establish notability as they are WP:PRIMARY and both non-social media websites. Social media can't be used in this manner to establish notability. Its not on. On the BLP policy page it states "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources". None of these are proper WP:SECONDARY sources that are needed for a WP:BLP. scope_creep^Talk 14:19, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or redirect. As explained above, interviews are primary sources and therefore not appropriate sources for articles. Sandstein 18:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect‎ to Tumbleweed Communications with the history preserved should there be a desire to merge. Star Mississippi 00:18, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Corvigo

Corvigo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There doesn't seem to be much coverage of this company outside of trade journals. The NYT article mentions the company a few times but does not address it directly in much if any detail. CNN is one single namedrop. I can't see any way of meeting all four criteria of WP:ORGCRIT with multiple sources, unfortunately. Previously deleted by PROD in 2006. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:00, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge with Tumbleweed Communications. DigitalIceAge (talk) 15:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I am not opposed to redirection as an ATD (and would have WP:BLARed had there not been a previous PROD) but I don't believe there is anything that is appropriate to merge. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:13, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Embassy of Turkey, Seoul

Embassy of Turkey, Seoul (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORG. One primary source. The history section is actually about relations with North Korea which should be in North Korea–Turkey relations. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South Korea, and Turkey. LibStar (talk) 15:46, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• delete per nom LefterDalaka (talk) 18:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Indo Gulf Fertilisers

Indo Gulf Fertilisers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

lack of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, which raises questions about its notability and relevance in the context of Wikipedia. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 14:26, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. 2 sources on the page. One is dead link and the other is news coverage about clearance of the proposed acquisition of Indo Gulf Fertilizers by Indorama India Private Ltd. There are no sources with significant coverage to pass notability. RangersRus (talk) 15:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 merge‎ to Aras Mountains. There seems to be a growing consensus that the target would be a better fit for the transliterated title and this content. Owen× ☎ 15:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Haykakan Par

Haykakan Par (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I struggled to find sources as firstly there seems to be a song or dance of the same name and secondly the article does not say what the Turkish name is. I found a couple of mentions in Google Scholar but not enough to show notability. I don’t know that part of Turkey so happy to be proved wrong if you know better Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Armenia, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep- Leaning towards keep because I believe this is more of a transliteration issue. The mountain range is easily confusable with the phrase "Armenian dance". The Armenian translation of Հայկական Պար Լեռներ did yield some results (129,000 on google). It may go by other names such as "Atsptkunq", "Sukavet" or "Bardoghi" according to this [11]. This source also refers to the mountains as "Atsptkunq" and has more precise geographic location confirming the mountain range is near the Araxes river. This source again mentions "Atsptkunq" and the fact that they were renamed "Aghre Dagh" by Turkish inhabitants. In any case, this mountain range does exist, its more so deciphering the correct name of it in Armenian and Turkish. If we can find some native speakers, I'm sure they could sift through the sources and improve the article. Archives908 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Archives908 I am not a native speaker of Turkish but are you sure that "Aghre Dagh" is the name in Turkish? Because I have not yet managed to find that on a map and surely if it was a range the second word would be “Dağlar” wouldn’t it? I don’t know what a ridge is in Turkish.

  I am a native speaker of English and if it was a ridge I would have thought it would be called “Something Ridge” in English. But is it a ridge do you know? Certainly we don’t call it “Atsptkunq” as we cannot pronounce that!

  Also the text is confusing because Mt Ararat is east of the source of the Aras River not west.

  I cannot understand the map in the second cite - are you able to link to a map which shows it? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  Ah I now suspect that the name in English is Aras Mountains, for which we already have an article. So perhaps this article should be merged into that one or redirected? @North8000: - why do you think they may be different? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  I'm not a native speaker of Turkish either. That's why I said in my comment above, "If we can find some native speakers, I'm sure they could sift through the sources and improve the article". Also, just because you may not be able to pronounce certain words, it does not mean that the range isn't called by that name. There are tens of thousands of articles on English Wikipedia with interesting names, most of which, may be hard to pronounce for native English speakers. But that is not justification enough to delete such articles. Unfortunately, I have nothing more to offer this conversation. I was able to find alternate names of the range, now its up to someone who speaks native Armenian and/or Turkish to help us verify the WP:RS we have. I still maintain my Keep vote on the basis that 1) the range exists 2) this is most likely a matter of transliteration 3) there are sources for these names out there, we just need help deciphering them. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  "Atsptkunq" is not merely hard to pronounce for a native English speaker, it is impossible! I just asked a native Turkish speaker and she had no idea how to pronounce it either. So I am sure that is not the name in English or Turkish. We already have an article for what you call Sukavet in Armenian namely Mount Kösedağ (Ağrı). We also have Mount Zor but that does not exist in other language Wikipedias so I don’t know what that is called in Armenian. I have asked for help from Wikiproject Mountains because as far as I know Wikiproject Turkey is not very active. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, your "friend who speaks Turkish" does not constitute WP:RS. Again, Atsptkunq is probably a transliteration of the Armenian or Turkish word. The English name may not even be 100% accurate if there was translations errors. I used Google translate, and I am unsure of the accuracy of it. However, I found about four names in total for this range. That is why we need editors who can read Armenian/Turkish fluently to sift through each of the English names AND their Armenian/Turkish translations to cross-check and verify the correct name of the range -or- to verify if the range already belongs to a another range (ideally, with RS to back it up). Since neither of us are fluent in these languages, its unwise for us to determine with certainty that this range does not exist by any of these names. Archives908 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

I was pinged presumably because I raised the concern about a possible duplicate article when doing the NPP review on Aras Mountains. I've been off the grid on a trip and now am only about 5% back on the grid for the next two days. I'd be happy to work on helping figure this this out from a geographic standpoint (and it seems like that should be possible) but could only do that starting 2 days from now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes that is why I pinged you. No rush as not a fast moving subject. I should also have pinged @Riehaiqu: who wrote that Aras Mountains and Haykakan Par are the same thing. If that is correct then an alternative to deletion would be to merge this article into Aras Mountains. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Merge into Aras Mountains. This is just me doing my best regarding suggesting what to do. If someone has more insight/knowledge than me on this and thinks otherwise I would defer to their judgement. I tried a deeper dive on this. The IMO the name Aras Mountains isn't on totally firm ground but taking it descriptively as a minimum it's a real area with mountains and ridges in it. I've found where Haykakan Par refers to some things / places in that area but nothing that refers to it as a mountain range or to the overall area encompassed by the Aras Mountains area. I used the word "merge" but the second half of the article is about some general/ cultural / political stuff for general eastern Turkey (not about the subject of the article) and it looks like nothing in the rest of the article is sourced. (including the selection of and the caption of the photo) and so IMO it's best not to bring any of the material over in a merge. Again, this is just me doing my best regarding suggesting what to do. If someone has more insight/knowledge than me on this and thinks otherwise I would defer to their judgement. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback! I am not opposed to a merge either, but I am still leaning on a Keep vote (temporarily). I believe rather than this article being nominated for deletion, it would have been better if the nominator brought this to the talk page where we could have taken the time to do a thorough review and potentially reach a WP:CON. Our dilemma here is, we need a native speaker of Turkish and Armenian in order to conduct a search of all 5 or 6 of the potential names of this ridge to better determine if 1) this is an independent geological formation of notability 2) if it is in fact a duplication of Aras Mountains or 3) if this is a transliteration issue and the ridge goes by a completely different Armenian or Turkish name that we all may be unaware of. I believe a deletion or even a merge may be premature considering we have been unsuccessful to determine this with absolute certainty. I don't think keeping this article (for now) and conducting more research would be a bad thing. It could always be re-nomed for deletion once we have more clarity. Regards, Archives908 (talk) 19:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect‎ to Rajshahi Cantonment. Sandstein 18:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Rajshahi Cantonment Board School And College

Rajshahi Cantonment Board School And College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article reliance on promotional content and local news also it does not fulfill WP:GNG. Nxcrypto Message 12:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Rajshahi Cantonment (the location of the institution) where it is listed, as an alternative to deletion. Inclusion in lists of various examination centers, a passing mention of the "a student of ..." sort, the school website, and indiscriminate databases are not the stuff that can demonstrate notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect‎ to Lalmonirhat Cantonment. Sandstein 18:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Lalmonirhat Cantonment Public School And College

Lalmonirhat Cantonment Public School And College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article lacks significant independent coverage and relies primarily on promotional material and local news sources. It fails to meet WP:GNG as there is absence of third-party references to substantiate its relevance. Nxcrypto Message 12:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:50, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to Lalmonirhat Cantonment (the location of the institution) where it is listed, as an alternative to deletion. A job circular, indiscriminate lists/databases (List of Army School and College, Masters Admission, Sohopathi), a brief mention as winner in a primary school dance contest, and the school website do not add up to the significant coverage in independent sources that would establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 12:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:13, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Ramu Cantonment Public School and College

Ramu Cantonment Public School and College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article lacks significant independent coverage and relies heavily on primary sources, primarily promotional material and local news. Without substantial third-party references, the article does not meet WP:GNG. Nxcrypto Message 11:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Schools, and Bangladesh. Skynxnex (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:49, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect‎ to List of cat breeds. ✗plicit 11:54, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Karelian Bobtail

Karelian Bobtail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 11:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Kwality Wall's

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Kwality Wall's
• Articles for deletion/Kwality Wall's (2nd nomination)

Kwality Wall's (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep Highly notable and has gained widespread significant coverage as visible from here and here. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Indian Public Health Association

Indian Public Health Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Simon Brazier

Simon Brazier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Senior executive positions at bluelinked companies preclude an A7, but I can find basically no coverage about the subject outside of routine announcements, certainly nothing with the requisite detail. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete Google news search yields rather routine coverage. But nothing indepth to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 06:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect‎ to List of Malayalam films of 2003. Malinaccier (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Mazhanoolkkanavu

Mazhanoolkkanavu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

PROD removed with statement "Google/English language websearch is not good for Malayalam culture". If that is the case, why is it that Google Malayalam also yields nothing [12]. Changing the year parameter to today yields an unrelated music video of a similar name. Please find a review or two before keeping this. DareshMohan (talk) 06:23, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Shellwood (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• If we can be sure this was released, with a solid source, I might support a redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2003 (or to Augustine's filmography?) because the cast is rather notable. But we have only IMDb and the other Db to prove it. Is that enough? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:NFILM. Fails significant coverage WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. If anyone can find secondary independent reliable sources with significant coverage and two or more reviews from known critics, let me know and I will reconsider my vote. RangersRus (talk) 13:39, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment. It is impossible to just do a general search to find sources due to the way sources are archived. Best to check the Sify [13], Indiainfo [14], and Keralatalkies [15] reviews. A quick ctrl-f finds nothing. DareshMohan (talk) 05:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

• Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2003: and add another source for verification (https://www.tvguide.com/movies/mazhanoolkkanavu/2030225744/) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Dogspot

Dogspot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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 merge‎ to History of tornado research. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:51, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Research on tornadoes in 2024

Research on tornadoes in 2024 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Keep or Merge — Several RS articles written about tornadic research this year: [16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Several lists are similar to this one including 2024 in climate change. Key to note, this article is a split from a parent article, History of tornado research. The 2024 article is nearly half the size of the parent article. So no matter what, deletion should never have been proposed, given it is a split-off article from the parent article…a merge proposal would have been better either into the parent history article or Tornadoes of 2024, which has a research section linking to this article as the “main”. That said, I think it has clearly enough RS and peer-reviewed secondary sources to back up notability. If consensus was falling more in line with a merge or deletion, I would support a merge over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 06:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: This article looks like someone typed "tornado" into Web of Science, with "2024" as the publication year, and wrote a brief summary of the abstract of every single paper that came up. Completely indiscriminate collection of routine, incremental research findings that nowhere is discussed in the aggregate as a particularly notable topic. As for it being spun off from History of tornado research, it never should have been put in that article in the first place. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize the world's knowledge, not archive the world's press releases and abstracts. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:18, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: WP:LISTCRUFT.

On second thought, I wouldn't mind a merge. SirMemeGod  13:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

• Merge to History of tornado research. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 15:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to History of tornado research. This article meets at least two criteria for WP:LISTCRUFT (#1 and #2). At best, it can be trimmed and some of the information merged into the other article. Keeping it would invite an article for 2025 and 2026 and 2027 ad infinitum. Such articles are not needed as WP:STANDALONE - expanding the original article will be enough. DesiMoore (talk) 15:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: As copyeditor, this article seems really useful to some (also per WeatherWriter). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 01:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still isn't a clear outcome from this discussion as of yet. I'm relisting this for perhaps more input into this discussion and a more clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 05:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge: An abridged version of this article should be included in History of tornado research. SirBrahms (talk) 06:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge to History of tornado research - I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG on its own. That is, we would need significant, independent coverage of tornado research in 2024. However, it's a perfectly valid page split; it should be merged back to History of tornado research where, if after considerations of WP:DUE (focusing on secondary coverage of research rather than primary research results), it could be split again in the future. Suriname0 (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Neutral/weak merge – Not really inclined to support deletion; probably going to stay out of this largely. But might weakly support a merge per above. Hurricane Clyde 🌀^{my talk page!} 17:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 keep‎. ✗plicit 12:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

List of movie theater chains

List of movie theater chains (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Huge unsourced, unverifiable list of mostly non-notable cinemas/movie theatres. Tagged for lack of secondary sources for 12 years. Fails WP:NLIST and WP:NOTDIRECTORY as "a Simple listing without contextual information showing encyclopedic merit." AusLondonder (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Lists. AusLondonder (talk) 05:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep 97 references. Category:Cinema and movie theatre chains by country shows plenty of valid entries for this list. Just needs a lot of pruning to remove anything without its own article or a reference. Dream Focus 07:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Each reference is for each list entry, many non-notable. Where are the references discussing the subject as a group? AusLondonder (talk) 07:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Read the second paragraph at WP:NLIST: Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability.

  Not sure why some get confused by this. Dream Focus 15:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  If you're referring to the lists for navigation purposes it states "If users have some general idea of what they are looking for but do not know the specific terminology, they could browse the lists of basic topics and more comprehensive lists of topics, which in turn lead to most if not all of Wikipedia's lists, which in turn lead to related articles." I don't think that applies here. AusLondonder (talk) 07:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: a reasonably notable topic for a list, that can be improved; added global/regional coverage (EL; LS). -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 11:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep for navigation purposes. Remove all the clutter (non notable entries). Ajf773 (talk) 23:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect‎ to Stove. There is disagreement over whether or not there is usable content in this article so I'm closing this as a Redirect. If editors are going to pursue a Merge, the content is still there in the page history. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Integrated stove

Integrated stove (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article doesn't meet the requirements of WP:V and WP:N. Frost 05:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. No case has been made why sourcing is insufficient. Cortador (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Claims like "the integrated design reduces gaps and corners" are unverified. Also, note the tone in the article, it's unencyclopedic. Frost 05:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP Cortador (talk) 06:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  There is no usable content in this article. Frost 07:00, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete or maybe a redirect to Stoves. There really isn't anything here that can be used. There are academic sources but they don't really add anything of real value to the article. If you google 集成灶 you'll get stoves. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:02, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Merge, probably with Stoves but open to other suggestions. The problem is that the words in English mean different things. It appears that there is a level of consistency in China, but I don't have the ability to read local language sources to determine overall whether it has specific meaning there. But there is certainly use in other parts of the world which mean different things - for example whilst we are told that in China is means several different kitchen appliances in one unit, in other places it might just mean that individual appliances are "built in" to the overall kitchen design. I think at this stage the best option is to merge until it is clear that there is specific meaning shown in the third party sources. JMWt (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah that was my problem as well. What I think it means, and this is a guess, is that it's a stove that also has an integrated vent. At least that's what I see when I google "集成灶" and go to images. Dr vulpes (Talk) 17:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:54, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:44, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 11:50, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge with Stove: seems like the best option (or whatever the "Stoves" articles above refer to). I can't find anything that describes this at length. Oaktree b (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

GEMO (Skin Care Device)

GEMO (Skin Care Device) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The company website, press releases, and industry award web pages are not sources from which the notability of a product can be determined. —Alalch E. 15:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and China. —Alalch E. 15:07, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - It has considerable popularity in this niche market in China. [40] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iuliusnanus (talk • contribs) 20:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Iuliusnanus (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.

  Promotional content. As a paid editor, you should be especially discerning of promotional and unusable sources. I presume that you are paid to write articles that will be kept, not deleted. If you cannot distinguish between usable and unusable sources, the articles you create will be deleted, and your clients will not be satisfied. —Alalch E. 21:44, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Delete based on the following source assessment:

1. Official website.
2. Extremely promotional news article.
3. Press release.
4. Some sort of design description written by this product's makers.
5. Extremely short description similar to above.
6. Another non-independent description of the product.

None of these meet the requirements of the GNG. The link added by Iuliusnanus above is sigcov (independence unclear), but one source alone is not enough to demonstrate notability. Toadspike [Talk] 18:37, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per the lack of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. In my searches for sources and review of the sources in the article, I could find only unreliable sources, press releases, and reprints of press releases. GEMO does not pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 07:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Ibrahim Agha (Algeria)

Ibrahim Agha (Algeria) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article sounds more like a book than a Wikipedia article. Henry (talk) 00:35, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Algeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• Keep the subject is plainly notable. Some of the article needs to be rewritten and looks to me like a cooyvio anyway, though I can’t get the source to load. Mccapra (talk) 03:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

  The "Hussein's reaction" section was translated directly from this page: https://web.archive.org/web/20130612123908/https://www.algerie-ancienne.com/Salon/Galib/8France/01expedit/17staoueli.htm I also checked the "Early life" section but did not find copying there. Other sections may also have copyright violations or close paraphrasing, but it's unlikely the entire article has been copied or translated directly here, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:56, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect‎ to Christian Bale#Personal life. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Sibi Blazic

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Sibi Blazic
• Articles for deletion/Sibi Blazic (2nd nomination)

Sibi Blazic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No independent notability outside of as actor Christian Bale's wife. Does not meet WP:BIO. KyleJoan^talk 05:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Illinois. Shellwood (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Christian_Bale#Personal_life: mentioned there; see nominator's rationale. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Christian_Bale#Personal_life.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Karine Babajanyan

Karine Babajanyan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lacks inline citations. Sources listed mostly lack independence from the subject. Not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Armenia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:02, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - musician who has toured widely in major soprano roles. The article needs work, but it’s not so bad it needs to be Re-created from scratch. Bearian (talk) 19:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per above rationale. Archives908 (talk) 15:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments on the available source material would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Gary Lefkowith

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Gary Lefkowith (2nd nomination)
• Articles for deletion/Gary Lefkowith (3rd nomination)

Gary Lefkowith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Lots of passing mentions for BLP. Potentially notable.Fails WP:SIGCOV.WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 20:51, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
• I don’t see how being connected to India is a valid reason to delete. Please clarify. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bearian: I'm not sure really, three days ago. Ignore. scope_creep^Talk 19:15, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - I see plenty of good sources and no specific problems. Bearian (talk) 05:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep I agree, good sources. Lib-trans-free (talk) 01:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 02:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Tormach

Tormach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable manufacturing company fails WP:NCORP. All the coverage available consists of press releases (WP:PRSOURCE), niche WP:TRADES publications not contributing to notability, and WP:ORGTRIV news -- there's no WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS and thus no pass of NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Wisconsin. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Added new references from different publications and sites about the company and its products. Please Review. Chiffre01 (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

I see a single independent, reliable, secondary source with WP:SIGCOV that counts toward WP:NCORP (Wired) and we need multiple. Most of these sources are WP:TRADES, which don't contribute to notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 23:29, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep This is one of those CORP articles where it isn't clear if the article is about a product or the company, since they essentially are both called Tormach. I think there is plenty about the product (using current cite numbering): these are short but probably reliable - 2, 6, 9. These are long and presumably reliable: 7, 11. These could be useful for article content: 10, 12. As for WP:TRADES, I don't think we should toss out all trades articles - it looks like the source Design World is much broader than just the kinds of machine tools that this company makes; and Hackaday is even broader than that. Best 3? Wired, Design World, Hackaday. Lamona (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Lamona: The Aerospace Manufacturing and Design (2) is definitely a niche WP:TRADES publication, and the article itself is WP:ORGTRIV, routine coverage of new location(s). The Today's Medical Developments article (6) is a barely regurgitated press release from the company. The MakerWorks article (7) is a blog post by a company that services Tormach controllers and is not really secondary coverage. As for DesignWorld (11), it looks like a trade, but even if it's a broader publication, I don't think we can say it's reliable, since it has a supposedly bylined piece that is simply a verbatim reprinted press release from Tormach. You can find it in all sorts of other publications, virtually unaltered: [41], [42], [43], [44]. As for Hackaday, there are inconclusive RSN discussions on it (here, here); I would invite comments from @Graywalls, @Buidhe and @Slatersteven, independent participants in those discussions, on whether it's an appropriate source. The Wired article (9) I agree with you counts, but it's the only one that unambiguously counts toward WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:00, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  The MakerWorks does not claim to be wedded to Tormach, but claims to provide a wide variety of tools. I'm not sure what you mean by "service Tormach controllers". Yes, we can drop anything that has just copied a press release - thanks for finding that. However, I don't see the press release that is the copy for the DesignWorld piece - could you link to that? I couldn't find it on the Tormach site. Lamona (talk) 21:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  @Lamona I don't see the press release on the Tormach website, but the identical text is posted on the sites I linked above, including this one where it is labeled a "press release", and this one where it is labeled "news from our sponsors". As for Maker Works, I may have misunderstood it, but it appears to be a blog from a local nonprofit maker space that has a Tormach mill. There is nothing here that suggests it is an editorially independent reliable source, particularly given the more stringent sourcing requirements of WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I have done some editing of the document, removing some of the press releases and adding some hacker/maker spaces that have information about their use. I feel like we need an analysis of the remaining sources, and I will try to get to that. Lamona (talk) 19:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I've done an initial source assessment on what's currently in the article. I still don't see a WP:NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?	Overall value toward ORGCRIT
Industrial Machinery Digest	Written by Tormach. "At Tormach, our mission is and has always been to ‘empower people who make things’."			Written by Tormach
Aerospace Manufacturing and Design	WP:TRADES publication; of limited value for notability		WP:ORGTRIV, coverage of new location opening
The Robot Report	Sponsor content from Tormach. "Sponsored by Tormach" in lead sentence			Written by Tormach
AdvancedManufacturing.org	WP:TRADES publication; of limited value for notability	Unbylined feature; unclear whether sponsored or not
Today's Medical Developments	Regurgitated press release from Tormach (see example of same release published elsewhere)	Press release		Written by Tormach
MakerWorks Michigan blog		Blog published by nonprofit local makerspace with no evidence of editorial processes
Wired			Review of one of Tormach's products, not necessarily SIGCOV of company
Modern Machine Shop	WP:TRADES publication; of limited value for notability		Review of one of Tormach's products, not necessarily SIGCOV of company
Duke Innovation CoLab		Unknown editorial process	Limited discussion of Tormach as company or product. Most of this source is advice about how to use a CNC mill.
Dallas MakerSpace forum		Web forum; WP:USERGENERATED content
Hackaday		Inconclusive discussions at RSN here, here.	Mention of one of Tormach's products, not necessarily SIGCOV of company

• Delete. I'm not really seeing anything beyond what's already in the source assessment table (other than brief name checks anyway), and I'd agree that the current souring is insufficient to retain. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. Star Mississippi 02:29, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati

Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The subject of this BLP does not meet WP:NBIO, WP:NAUTHOR, nor the WP:GNG. The article was drafted by someone who has a suspect COI but the author has been banned for sockpuppetry, notably for removing maintenance tags. An IP user on my talk page has acknowledged that there isn't even very much published information on the subject. Combined with my BEFORE, I'm not seeing anything that meets our notability requirements for this article that appears to be masquerading as an advertisement. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Hinduism. Bobby Cohn (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Psychology, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:10, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I’d like to add my voice in favor of keeping Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati’s page. Her influence spans across continents, and her teachings on Vedanta have touched the lives of so many people, myself included. While the page might need some edits (and we are working on that), the information is valuable and represents someone who is genuinely notable in the spiritual community. A lot of us are actively contributing to improve the page to meet Wikipedia’s standards, and removing it now would erase a key resource that many find helpful in discovering a true Vedanta guru. I hope this article can be preserved and refined, not deleted. [added this earlier in the talk section] 212.138.196.2 (talk) 16:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

This person is notable for her scholarly research in the field of psychology. She is at the forefront identifying similarities/dissimilarities between Western psychology and psychological principles and psychology inherent in classic Indian texts such as the Bhagavad Gita. Her soon to be published PhD dissertation addresses this topic in a unique way. A similar person who does have a Wikipedia page is Professor Rambachan. It is important for Wikipedia to present balanced opinions on major topics such as psychology.Leaving her page in place will allow for contrasting views and opinions from the dominant existing framework.Eoddleifson (talk) 14:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC) — Eoddleifson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I respectfully oppose the deletion of this page for the following reasons:

Notability: Swamini Brahmaprajnananda Saraswati holds a significant position in the spiritual community and has made contributions that are noteworthy within her field. She is a respected figure in the Parampara, and her work, including published writings and teachings, is relevant to a wide audience. Her influence goes beyond individual students and impacts the larger community of spiritual seekers in India and internationally.

Presence of Reliable Sources: While the page may need further citations, there are multiple reliable sources that can validate her notability. These sources include books, publications, and notable mentions in relevant forums. Her contributions to spiritual teachings and involvement in community services have been acknowledged in respected publications. We will continue improving the citations to comply with Wikipedia's verifiability and notability guidelines.

As an example, her work can be seen in comparison with other Swamis and Swaminis in the Parampara who have established Wikipedia pages (e.g., Swamini Atmaprajnananda Saraswati).

Additionally, published materials such as her books and teachings, and references to her in newspapers and online platforms, validate her presence and importance in the field of spiritual education.

Ongoing Efforts to Improve the Page: The page has already been edited to align with Wikipedia's guidelines, including improvements made to ensure neutrality and adherence to notability criteria. We are open to further editing to meet any specific concerns raised by editors. This includes adding more reliable secondary sources and ensuring that the content follows a neutral point of view.

I request that this page be given more time for improvements and not be deleted hastily. I believe that with the support of the community, we can ensure that this page meets Wikipedia’s standards. 50.245.102.135 (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments actually based in policy would be quite helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Dear, strongly vote to keep the page. On the notability criterion

a. She has additions to research on psychology and Vedanta. Her papers are are published in various offline and online journals. Link - https://www.academia.edu/38993865

b. Her authored and published book on Vedanta has helped multiple students/seekers with raving reviews. Book link - https://amzn.in/d/5V1rdGC

c. She recently was honoured with a doctorate degree (PhD) and her study research thesis is up for publication into a book.

d. She was recently invited by Rick Archer as well for a freewheeling conversation at the acclaimed BATGAP podcast where only select spirituality awakened people are invited. Link - https://youtube.com/watch?v=pgVMzyIpVfQ

Strongly advise to keep the page for many people who benefit from her works. 2.48.241.175 (talk) 06:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: I don't find anything in Gscholar, this person doesn't pass academic notability. There are some mentions in GBooks by they talk about the teachings than about the individual... The only green source per Source Highlighter is 16 in the Hindu. Beyond that, there isn't much left for sourcing in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 merge‎ to List of traffic collisions (2000–present). as an ATD. I didn't find the Keep arguments terribly strong but this content could be Merged to a related article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

2008 Egyptian bus accident

2008 Egyptian bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

• It's a horrific thing to contemplate that a road accident killing 55 anywhere in the world wouldn't be notable. We've got little to go on, there are news reports but little ongoing coverage. That said, I don't read Arabic, it seems likely that there would be sustained non-English coverage. I'm going to say unsure in that I would hope that there was more than I'm seeing. JMWt (talk) 09:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete – (Revised vote) – Borderline in my opinion. I've found some "detailed" coverage dating back to 2008 plus one in 2013, however, the lack of actual sustained continued coverage post-2009, and the lack of demonstrable lasting effects are enough for me to vote delete, albeit a weak one. As WP:EVENTCRIT#4 says, routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event also lacks. Sources found: Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Tails Wx 04:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Draftify: The article obviously needs some work, but could meet criteria if sufficiently sourced and expanded. SirBrahms (talk) 07:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  Just out of interest, what work would you suggest (or, indeed, perform yourself)? Did you look at any available sources or evaluate the current sourcing of the article? Would you recommend any sources to add to it? And if so, what sources would you recommend for consideration? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

•Keep As said above by @SirBrahms Article does need some work, but 55 fatalities is notable and should stay as an article even if there are no reliable or good sources. I'm sure this article could be saved and increased to a good grade if we put in some work. @Thebiguglyalien Lolzer3k 17:09, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

AS per my comment above, what 'work' would you put in to increase this article to a 'good grade'??? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Source retrieval and expansion. This article is a WP:STUB that cites no sources. there is indefinetly atleast one or many sources that could help enlarge this article. @Alexandermcnabb Lolzer3k 17:48, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The quality of sourcing for a single event with no enduring influence does not address WP:LASTING "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." and therefore we have a report of a single incident which is where we fail WP:NOTNEWS. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of traffic collisions (2000–present) per WP:ATD and WP:CHEAP. The notability has been established above and I would have definitely supported a keep if the article was long enough. It isn't. In it's CURRENT form this is an unjustified SPINOFF. We do not need an article on each accident. Only if these are notable enough (✅) and we happen to write enough on the accident (❌). No objection to draftication, if someone wants to work on this later. Do ping me if expanded before this AfD ends! gidonb (talk) 04:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Merge to List of traffic collisions (2000–present) - I'm not seeing lasting coverage here, but if there's coverage in the future it can be split from the list. Suriname0 (talk) 19:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC).

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.

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. Star Mississippi 02:28, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Dera Ghazi Khan bus-truck collision

Dera Ghazi Khan bus-truck collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Pakistan. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: per nom. While this incident was unfortunate, road accidents are quite common in Pakistan as stated at Traffic collisions in Pakistan, and this one does not appear significant enough to warrant a standalone article. It clearly fails to meet the NEVENT. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 07:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep. Just imagine if an accident that killed 30 people that happened in the UK or USA was nominated for deletion! Clearly WP:SYSTEMIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Necrothesp, So we’re just going to keep articles based on WP:BIAS even if they don’t meet GNG? Sounds like a solid plan! — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:39, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    • No, we should also keep them per WP:COMMONSENSE, which is a very good plan! Dogma is rarely the best way forwards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
      • Necrothesp, Sorry, but if we start keeping articles based on WP:COMMONSENSE, we’ll be setting a bad precedent. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 11:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
        • Pfah, common sense, eh! What use is that? -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Frankly, there aren't that many of this nature that happen in the US or the UK. Perhaps they have better safety standards? We had a bus accident in Canada a few years ago that killed most members of a junior hockey team. Since then, they've made changes to laws, requiring seat belts on them. The driver of the vehicle that hit the bus was still in the news recently facing deportation... This is the kind of continued coverage we're looking for, helps to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete – Per WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS: Whilst tragic, significant or in-depth sustained continued coverage of the event seems to be lacking along with demonstrable lasting effects. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event also lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: A traffic accident more than 2 yrs ago, with three sources and barely two lines of text, doesn't seem this has gained much traction in the years since. I can only see routine mentions of the accident, and nothing since. It's not biased to want to delete an article when local media don't even cover the event 3 years later. Nothing significant came of it (no changes in laws, court cases), while tragic, it's not notable for our purposes. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete: Sad event but doesn't justify its own article. Wikibear47 (talk) 06:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 merge‎ to Lavangsdalen. Star Mississippi 02:09, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Lavangsdalen bus accident

Lavangsdalen bus accident (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

• Merge to Lavangsdalen seems sensible as it puts this accident into context. Rupples (talk) 01:07, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

New Era, Indiana

New Era, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. A whole lot of nothing. Even the railroad is gone now. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. After reading through this discussion, I see a consensus to Delete, that the existing souces do not establish notability as judged by Wikipedia guidelines. However, I just wanted to note that this could change in the future depending on the direction of her career. A future article would have to be started in Draft space and go through AFC. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Liz Neeley

Liz Neeley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [45][46]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Removing "weak" from my delete, as I find the delete votes below more compelling than the keep votes. For GNG, I still find the one NPR piece to contribute somewhat to notability, but the rest seems to me like passing mentions, and I don't think it is enough. No sign whatsoever of NAUTHOR notability, minimal (and arrested) progress towards NPROF. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Is this the same person: [47]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [48], [49], [50]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  1. Maddie Sofia (January 14, 2020). "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave" (Podcast). NPR. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
  2. Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.
  3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
  4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
  5. Sirois, Cheri (April 25, 2024). "Creating connections when we talk about science". Cell (Interview). 187 (9). Cell Press: 2120–2123. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.043. (added to list Oct 21)
• Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

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

@Bpuddin, what is the secondary independent coverage that is in that interview? GNG requires multiple SIGCOV IRS sources, so even a single SIGCOV source (the NPR interviews count as one source) would not be sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment/update: I've struck the Science blogging book ref in my list for notability above as it is a primary source. I was reading sentences in a Google link to the book that mislead me into thinking there was a section about Neeley - once I got ahold of the book I realized there was no secondary coverage. Regarding the other three references, the NPR ones could be considered one source as they both refer to the Short Wave podcast. By my reading of WP:INTERVIEWS#Notability, I believe they provide significant coverage as the host does synthesis of Neeley's background and credentials and presents it in her own words, thereby making it secondary coverage. As noted above, there is some coverage of Neeley in the WaPo reference - more than passing mention but it could argued not significant coverage. Also added another reference to article I found in the journal Cell which is also an interview but has a mix of primary/secondary coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The Cell interview definitely does not have "a mix of primary/secondary coverage" -- the only secondary coverage is less than a sentence in the intro: science communicator Liz Neeley, founding partner of Liminal and cofounder of Solving for Science. That's nowhere near SIGCOV...

I also just noticed that the WaPo article is an opinion piece, which is explicitly disallowed from counting towards notability as it's a primary source.

So even if either of the NPR interviews contained IRS SIGCOV (which they do not), we would still need multiple sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Note that the WaPo piece is not an opinion piece by Neeley (which would be primary), but she and her work are cited and discussed within it to support the Auchenbach's commentary. (In full, it's an excerpt from a National Geographic feature story "The Age of Disbelief" (March 2015), though most of the Neeley quote and commentary there is as it is in the Post piece.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

No, opinion pieces are considered primary regardless of what they're covering or who they're by. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Except based on the content, the Auchenbach piece isn't an opinion piece. It's from 2015 when the current "Opinions" section was called "Outlook" and ran book reviews, along with opinion pieces, commentary, and analysis. This piece, despite the current "Opinion" label from the Post's website, is clearly secondary in nature, providing analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of research into the ways people process (and deny) scientific evidence. Neeley is quoted and her work referenced as part of that. If the Post's opinion label on an excerpt makes it primary in your mind, then look to the original article: Achenbach, Joel (March 2015) "The Age of Disbelief", National Geographic, 277(3):30–47... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I mean, I said the source was to too far from SIGCOV to count towards GNG even before seeing it was labeled an opinion piece, so this doesn't change anything for me. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

The Cell interview is in a reliable source and shows a depth of preparation by the interviewer. In the opening the interviewer notes: You trained in marine biology and conservation, but you also have wide experience in communicating a range of ideas, from neuroscience to the COVID-19 pandemic. From there the interviewer notes the subject's “theory and practice of sensemaking" and asks her to expand on it in the context of telling complicated science-themed stories. The proceeding questions ask the subject to unpack how to write for a general audience and differences between technical writing versus scientific storytelling. The interviewer is synthesizing what the subject says, which I consider secondary, before proceeding on to the next question. Nnev66 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The interviewer just says You’ve said in the past that you’re focused on the “theory and practice of sensemaking.” That has zero secondary content, it's just repeating what the subject has said about themselves. None of the subsequent questions have anything more than that.

Interviewer questions that suggest a "depth of preparation" are still not coverage unless they actually contain secondary analysis of the subject. Otherwise every interview with a couple pointed questions would be considered SIGCOV. And someone's live reactions to another person's statements are exactly what our policy on primary encompasses: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied [...] They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." The interviewer is a participant in the interview. This is consistent with longstanding practical consensus on interviews at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

• Delete. The sources are perhaps reliable enough to support the claims in the article, but none of them contributes to WP:GNG; they are not simultaneously in-depth, independent, and reliably published. Among Nnev's selection, the first NPR link and Cell are interviews (most content non-independent). The crossed-off book source is a chapter by the subject about self-promotion (a bit of a red flag). The second NPR link and the WaPo piece name-drop her for some quotes but have no depth of coverage about her. And I didn't see much else. That leaves WP:PROF#C1, and her citation record [51], where she was a minor coauthor in a middle position on one well-cited publication on a subject totally unrelated to her science communication work. I don't think we can base an article, especially this article, on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a no consensus, which is still my read, but following a request I have decided to relist it because consensus is preferable to kicking this down the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. Not looked into rest of evidence but I agree with David Eppstein that there is not a pass of PROF by citation profile here. Looking at the alphabetisation of the list of Nature paper authors Neeley does not seem to be more than a very minor contributor, and the other moderately cited papers do not meet my expectations. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete. The subject does not meet the criteria of WP:NPROF, and there is no significant of her or her work that would satisfy WP:GNG. The accumulation of several quotes as an expert in good outlets is a start, but I don't see it as being enough to overcome the lack of other significant sources. Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time's a charm?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete UzbukUdash (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

UzbukUdash, AFDs aren't a vote, please present an argument to support your opinion, based on policy and your assessment of the sources. Otherwise, your opinion is likely to be dismissed by the discussion closer. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom, the subject fails WP:NACADEMIC. There isn't any WP:SIGCOV and many of the sources are WP:PRIMARY. The NPR podcasts fall into the category of WP:PRIMARY and thus do not contribute to WP:GNG. DesiMoore (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Pak Myong-song

Pak Myong-song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 18:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 redirect‎ to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Pak Kyong-won (footballer)

Pak Kyong-won (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:16, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect to Football at the 1976 Summer Olympics – Men's team squads#North Korea where he is mentioned. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Redirect as above. GiantSnowman 18:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Roger Jones (physicist)

Roger Jones (physicist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete per Bearian's rationale, pretty much. XOR'easter (talk) 03:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 01:58, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Tasjil

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Tasjil

Tasjil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Agreed no coverage in most all reliable sources. Very obscure term.Smkolins (talk) 06:37, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• I strongly oppose as the creator. In contrast to the nominator's claim, there are three sources in the article that specifically use the word "Tasjil" (Amanat 2009, Naficy 2011 and Pirnazar 2019) and all of them are scholarly. The book Historical Dictionary of the Bahá'í Faith has an entry for the process under the title 'DECLARATION OF BELIEF OR ACCEPTANCE' (translating the word "Tasjil" to Acceptance) and another reliable source (Neusner 2003) dedicates almost two full pages to a detailed description of its stages (titled 'Who is considered a Baháʼí?'), while a certain case in Africa, Samuel Kima of Cameroon, is mentioned in several pages of an academic book published by the renowned Brill Publishers (Lee 2011). These are only a handful of sources and I believe this is a proof that this topic is notable. Khánum Gül (talk) 13:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Please note that there is a bahaipedia entry for this topic as well. Khánum Gül (talk) 15:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Please see WP:GNG and WP:DICTIONARY. One problem is that you created the title in Arabic for a process that is not known in English by its Arabic name. The content is probably most suited for Baháʼí teaching plans#Baháʼí terminology with a section on "Declaration" or similar. Both of the other sections (Pioneering and Entry by troops) previously has their own articles and were consolidated into that page. Cuñado ☼ - Talk 16:58, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Your first objection concerns naming, which is not the focus of this discussion. I have no issue with a title like "Baháʼí Enrollment Process" (or something similar) and a mention of its name in the original scripture of the faith, "Tasjil," in the article's lead. However, I still disagree with your assertion that this topic is not notable, as it has been significantly covered by multiple academic sources in great detail. I have added another source (van den Hoonaard 1996), which provides an extensive discussion of the practice in Canada, examining various cases. Khánum Gül (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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.

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 speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn, no support for deletion. (non-admin closure) C F A 💬 00:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Milton tornado outbreak

Hurricane Milton tornado outbreak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON. Also, article is extremely basic and has dubious facts. With the facts right now, it is too soon to split. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Florida. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Article already draftified. I'd suggest just withdrawing this. SirMemeGod  00:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Several actions were preformed at a similar time as this nomination. Withdrawing. ✶Quxyz✶ 00:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

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.

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:07, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Land of Memories

Land of Memories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline. Cfls (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Zhu, Jianhua 朱建华 (2023-10-19). "清华教授用AI创作的科幻作品，参赛并获奖" [Tsinghua Professor's AI-Created Sci-Fi Work Competes and Wins an Award]. Wuhan Evening News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10.

     The article notes: "前后对话66次，清华大学新闻与传播学院教授沈阳利用AI平台创作的科幻作品《机忆之地》（参评时署名“@硅禅”），在第五届江苏省青年科普科幻作品大赛评选中获评二等奖。10月18日中午，本报记者联系上江苏省科普作家协会科幻专委会主任付昌义，他表示，在他的印象中，之前还没有利用AI创作的科幻作品参加比赛并获奖，这是第一次。"

     From Google Translate: "After 66 exchanges of dialogue, Professor Shen Yang from Tsinghua University's School of Journalism and Communication used an AI platform to create the sci-fi work 'Memory Land' (submitted under the name ‘@Silicon Zen’), which won second prize in the fifth Jiangsu Province Youth Science Popularization and Sci-Fi Work Competition. On the afternoon of 18 October, our reporter contacted Fu Changyi, the director of the Sci-Fi Committee of the Jiangsu Provincial Association of Science Writers. He stated that, to his knowledge, this is the first time a sci-fi work created using AI has participated in a competition and won an award."

  2. Shen, Zhao 沈昭 (2023-10-22). "AI作家@硅禅的科幻小说得奖了 它是怎么写出的获奖作品《机忆之地》？" [AI writer @ Silicon Zen’s science fiction novel won an award. How did it write the award-winning work "The Place of Memories"?]. Yangtse Evening Post (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10.

     The article notes: "《机忆之地》是清华大学沈阳教授团队使用AICG（人工智能创意生成）创作而成的，小说的标题、配图等内容均由AI生成，在最初提交的时候并没有特意标注出自人工智能之手，和其他人类作者的作品经过层层筛选送到了六位终审评委的面前。这篇小说讲述了一名元宇宙探险家李晓寻找记忆的故事，李晓曾经是一名神经工程师，在一次实验中失去了关于家人的记忆，她对“机忆之地”的传说有了浓厚的兴趣，希望借此找回自己遗失的记忆。"

     From Google Translate: ""The Land of Machine Memories" was created by a team of professors from Shenyang, Tsinghua University, using AICG (artificial intelligence creative generation). The title, illustrations and other content of the novel were all generated by AI. When it was initially submitted, it was not specifically marked as being produced by artificial intelligence. The works of other human authors were screened and sent to the six final judges. This novel tells the story of Li Xiao, a metaverse explorer who searches for memories. Li Xiao was once a neuroengineer who lost the memory of her family during an experiment. She became familiar with the legend of the "Land of Machine Memories". I have a strong interest in it, hoping to retrieve my lost memory."

  3. Wang, Tingsu 王亭苏 (2023-10-24). He, Rui 何睿 (ed.). "AI小说获科幻奖，人工智能时代文学如何自处？" [AI novel wins science fiction award. How should literature fare in the era of artificial intelligence?]. The Beijing News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10 – via Sohu.

     The article notes: "据报道，一本名为《机忆之地》的小说，于近日在江苏青年科普科幻作品大赛中获得了二等奖。随后，清华大学新闻学院教授沈阳在其个人社交账号上发布消息，称这篇小说从笔名、标题、正文到配图，“100%的内容都是AI写的”。"

     From Google Translate: "According to reports, a novel titled "The Land of Machine Memories" recently won the second prize in the Jiangsu Youth Popular Science Science Fiction Competition. Subsequently, Shen Yang, a professor at the School of Journalism at Tsinghua University, posted on his personal social account that "100% of the content of this novel was written by AI" from the pen name, title, text to illustrations."

  4. Lalonde, Catherine (2024-01-08). "A literary prize for an artificial writer". Le Devoir. Archived from the original on 2024-10-10. Retrieved 2024-10-10.

     The article notes: "“At the edge of the metaverse lies the Land of Memories, a forbidden realm from which humans are excluded.” So begins The Land of Memories , a prize-winning short story at the fifth Jiangsu Science Fiction Literary Competition. The text was generated by Shen Yang, professor emeritus at the School of Journalism at Tsinghua University in Beijing, using artificial intelligence (AI). ... Mr. Shen worked with the AI ​​for three hours, giving it 66 commands, to get a rough draft of 43,000 characters. The professor then cut, sculpted and refined this first draft, to arrive at a manuscript of some 6,000 Chinese characters, Land of Memories ( also translated by some media as Land of Machine Memory )."

  5. Chik, Holly (2023-12-20). "A Chinese professor used AI to write a science fiction novel. Then it was a winner in a national competition". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2023-12-22. Retrieved 2024-10-10.

     The article notes: "When a professor at Beijing’s Tsinghua University set out to write a science fiction novel about the metaverse and humanoid robots, he turned to artificial intelligence for inspiration. The AI ended up generating his entire book – which then took out a national science fiction award honour. The nearly 6,000-character Chinese-language novel Land of Memories, by Shen Yang, a professor at the university’s school of journalism and communication, was among the winners of the Jiangsu Youth Popular Science Science Fiction Competition, Jinan Times, a newspaper in Shandong province reported. ... The story centres on a metaverse explorer named Li Xiao, who used to be a neural engineer in the real world. After accidentally losing all memories of her family during an experiment, she becomes interested in the legend of the Land of Memories, and hopes that her lost memories can be retrieved in the metaverse."

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Land of Memories (simplified Chinese: 机忆之地; traditional Chinese: 機憶之地) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: Pinging Piotrus (talk · contribs), who created the article but was not notified of the AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks. That might warrant a procedural keep, but certainly it warrants regular one given sources you found. So, anyway, Keep for me, of course. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

  Added. First time making a deletion of article proposal. Not too familiar with the procedure. Thanks for reminding. Cfls (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

• Keep: The novel has received sufficient news coverage. Toughpigs (talk) 14:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Keep: The Devoir and South China Morning Post reviews are solid, unsure about the reliability of the Chinese sources, but put together, it should pass notability for literary works. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
• Comment: For a book or novel it is very short, almost the length of a long essay. Vacosea (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

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.