Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

23 October 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Creating deletion discussion for The Pacific War and Contingent Victory

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 22	October 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Dolichodouglas

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

No pubmed hits for this term [1], no english language hits on google books, only 4 french language textbooks (2 of which old), majority of google search hits are wikipedia pages or sites which duplicate wp content. Not sure this is a common enough term in English language? Moribundum (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Moribundum (talk) 18:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only english language scientific source I can find: [2], which is an abstract about a surgical video at a convention in 2020. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moribundum (talk • contribs) 06:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vahanas used in Goan temples

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

No sign this article isn't just WP:SYNTH. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Goa. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Pacific War and Contingent Victory

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

Irresponsible, misleading and of the nature of personal attack.

This is a very poorly written book review and shows every sign that the author of the Wikipedia article consulted other book reviews and relied on them, rather than reading The Pacific War and Contingent Victory itself.

The section “Premise” is misnamed. In this section, the author attempts to present the thesis of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory through a brief summary of the argument. By calling the section “Premise” the author implies that the book does not contain an argument but is rather a mere assertion or proposition, which is incorrect. The book contains a fully formed argument, complete with premises and conclusion.

In the first sentence, the author writes, “In The Pacific War and Contingent Victory, Myers argues against the dominant belief that the economic and industrial superiority of the United States made Japan's defeat in World War II an inevitability.” This statement is basically correct, but the author fails to mention that the view that Japan’s defeat was inevitable is contested. Jeremy Yellen, for example, in his review of a book chapter by Myers, argues that contemporary Japanese scholars do not hold the inevitability view. See Jeremy A. Yellen, Social Science Japan Journal, Volume 25, Issue 1, Winter 2022, Pages 157–160. The author should unpack what “dominant belief” means in this context. It could mean that immediate postwar historiography and recent writing alike hold inevitable defeat as the predominant view.

The next sentence, “The book proposes an invasion of Australia and Hawaii, or the United States negotiating a peace settlement due to war exhaustion as two scenarios that could have allowed Japan to avoid defeat in the war” is incorrect and reflects neither the book itself nor the review that the author uses as a source. The Pacific War and Contingent Victory never proposes an invasion of Australia. It does not propose “scenarios” at all but rather gives evidence from Japanese sources of Japan’s plan to isolate Australia by invading Fiji, Samoa and New Caledonia, the so-called FS Operation. Japan did made plans to invade the Hawaiian Islands. The Pacific War and Contingent Victory concludes that these plans were rational plans in the context of 1942 Japanese strategic decision-making. It never argues that Japan ought to have adopted one or both plans in order to avoid defeat.

The thesis of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory is thus misstated; the argument of the book is completely neglected.

The Section “Reception” does not address positive and negative criticism of the book in a way that the reader can use to form a judgment about the relative merits or shortcomings of the book. Rather, the author collects various generalized remarks in a haphazard and irresponsible way. In the positive comments, the author does not tell, for example, why the book is useful or worthy of study, or how it is well-researched. The negative comments reflect the worst subjective judgments but are adduced as if they are valid conclusions. Bernstein’s comments really amount to nothing more than personal attacks on the author of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory with such judgments as that the book is “greatly flawed” and the author engages in “wishful thinking” and is “ignorant.” It’s irresponsible to repeat these in a book review where the argument of the book itself is not discussed in detail.

The author writes of Bernstein, “He suggested that the opportunities given by Myers were not realistic, as Japan's failure to occupy either Port Moresby or the Battle of Coral forcibly put them on the defensive. Bernstein went on to suggest that ‘the author fundamentally misunderstands the nature of maritime warfare’, and that he ‘places too much emphasis on armies’, who Bernstein argued have no strategic use without proper aerial and naval support.” Both these criticisms are beside the point. The first one is not grammatical as one cannot occupy a battle. The Pacific War and Contingent Victory does discuss Japan’s failure to occupy Port Moresby and the outcome of the Battle of Coral Sea, but in the context of the FS operation and the end of Japanese expansion. The charge that the author of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory “fundamentally misunderstands the nature of maritime warfare” because he does not believe the inevitability thesis is a non sequitur. Nowhere does the author of The Contingent War and Pacific Victory argue that armies need not have aerial and naval support. The author of the Wikipedia review has chosen an irresponsible review and repeated it with glad abandon.

Finally, the summary of Bob Seal’s review is revealing of the lack of understanding of the thesis of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory by both Seals and the author who here quotes him. Of course, all warfare can be described as contingent. That is exactly the point. The problematic set out by The Pacific War and Contingent Victory is, Why is all warfare considered contingent yet the Pacific War is not?

The book review of The Pacific War and Contingent Victory is irresponsible and poorly written. It contains unwarranted personal attacks. The entire article should be deleted from Wikipedia. Nidrsta (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles should not be deleted just because they are poorly written, see Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Any issues can be settled by editing the article itself. The main reason why an article should be deleted is that it is not notable as defined by Wikipedia. The Wikipedia article is not an original book review. Wikipedia articles should summarize other book reviews, instead of writing an original review, as this would violate Wikipedia:No original research. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Criteron #3, "No accurate deletion rationale has been provided". Nomination misunderstands the deletion policy and wrongly claims that the article is an original book review. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:Notability (books). To Nidrsta, your claim that "the author of the Wikipedia article consulted other book reviews and relied on them" is especially relevant, because that is exactly the point of Wikipedia as a website. It's not our job to engage in WP:Original research and write our own reviews or argumentation of books we've read. Loafiewa (talk) 20:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion is that the article is irresponsible, misleading and of the nature of personal attack. I do not request deletion "just because" it is poorly written. You may review the reasons and the citation of evidence in support of them. Wikipedia reviews should summarize other reviews, but having read the original book and being familiar with its contents does not constitute original research. It constitutes responsibility in speaking about one's topic. Cherry picking other people's reviews for their emotive power, giving falsehoods about the argument of the book, and passing along ad hominem arguments is grounds for deletion rather than editing, because the entire article is irredeemable as written. Nidrsta (talk) 20:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a connection to this book? If you do, you should disclose it per Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, Military, Japan, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I slightly re-arranged the nomination statement to have it follow norms. Skynxnex (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Per above. None of these rationales are valid. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Stanislavjevic

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

Not notable boxer. Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Boxing and Canada. Lost in Quebec (talk) 19:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List most reviewed places in ASEAN

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

Fails WP:LISTN, no evidence that being one of the "most reviewed places" on Google Maps in the ASEAN region is a notable grouping of characteristics, no reliable sources about this combination. Fram (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and Asia. Fram (talk) 18:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Most reviews on Google Maps" is not the same as "most reviewed", nor is it a notable topic. Looks like Indonesians particularly enjoy using this site to review their shopping malls and attractions, but I'm not sure why anyone is supposed to care about this presentation of data. Reywas92^Talk 19:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No evidence this specific criterion for this specific grouping of countries meets LISTN, especially with nearly no secondary coverage. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 19:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Turkish films of 1972

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

Almost all redlinks and tagged uncited for years. Either I have misunderstood the Wayback Machine or the cite on the Turkish article only goes as far as B Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:45, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep: a perfectly standard list and an obviously notable topic anyway. I am absolutely opposed to the deletion of this. The number of red links is a mere cleanup issue, as is the lack of references. The fact that some articles about films (look at the number of blue links on the Turkish corresponding list, that goes to Zulüm (blue there)) have not been created yet is rather a good reason to keep this! "In 1972, Turkey was the third-largest film producer in the world with 300 feature films..." (Gronemeyer, Andrea, Film, Barron's, 1998, p. 147) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we assume that this message implies that the nominator feels their concerns have been reasonably addressed? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 16:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I know very little about the subject it would be good to wait for a third opinion I think Chidgk1 (talk) 16:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 23:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination. From no references to 17 it now shows reliable sources coverage that shows that the subject of the list is clearly notable as per WP:NLIST, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actions in support of Azerbaijan in Iran (2020)

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

A poorly sourced, heavily POVish, irredentist, COI looking, non-notable article, basically meant to portray Armenia, the Republic of Artsakh and Iran as the "big bad", a common rhetoric spewed by the Aliyev-ruled regime in Azerbaijan (see Azerbaijani nationalism, Anti-Iranian sentiment in Azerbaijan, Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan, all well sourced and which go into more depth). Refers the Republic of Artsakh as a "separatist regime in Karabakh", not even referring to it by name [3], not very neutral.

Poor sources include Brenda Shaffer, under Aliyevs paycheck [4], the racist and irredentist GünAz TV [5], and more poor websites, the majority written in Azerbaijani. Uses the irredentist term "Southern Azerbaijan(is)" as well [6]. If this is so notable, I'm sure high-quality WP:RS in English can be found about this, but there isn't. The Azerbaijani, Russian and Turkish versions of this article was also written by the same person, who was amongst the many people mentioned in this pretty large COI thread about several Azerbaijani wiki users [7]. HistoryofIran (talk) 17:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Iran, Armenia, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nomination. The article is filled with bias and unscholarly sources. Not to mention the major WP:UNDUE, WP:BALANCE, and WP:PROPORTION violations. Archives908 (talk) 19:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batman Arena

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

No refs on the page for more than 4 years. I don't speak Turkish but there are no useful sources on tr.wiki. I'm not seeing notability outside of Batman Petrolspor JMWt (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, and Turkey. JMWt (talk) 17:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Hadachek

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

As a non U.S., non American football editor I’m perplexed by this article. I find it hard to imagine that someone who has spent most of their career as a school coach, with a brief stint as a university coach, could genuinely be notable. They clearly have coverage in local press but this article is essentially a stub with some team stats tacked on. There may be a case for redirecting but I’m not sure where, and overall, deletion seems the best course to me, but perhaps others will have a different view. Mccapra (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and United States of America. Mccapra (talk) 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the locality of the coverage has no bearing on his notability and the current state of the article is not grounds for deletion (WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP). The Sioux City Journal article is WP:SIGCOV in my opinion. Alvaldi (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Psychohistory (fictional science)

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

Mostly unsourced or sourced to the author himself. This appears to be a split of the Foundation universe and describes similar subject matter with less references. It could be a useful redirect but there is otherwise very little sourced material to WP:PRESERVE. Jontesta (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Either trim down ruthlessly or delete; this article has become massively overgrown, and its material belongs in either the Foundation universe article or the articles about the individual books. — The Anome (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Jontesta: There seem to be quite a few hits in secondary sources on first glance. Could you please comment on the results of the WP:BEFORE search? Or was there a main reason other than notability for the deletion nomination? Daranios (talk) 19:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of whether this is notable, the current contents—being almost entirely (excessively detailed) in-universe information—do not warrant a stand-alone article as opposed to covering the relevant bits in related articles on the works themselves, as suggested above. If the article is not expanded with other kinds of content during the course of this discussion, it would seem like a pretty clear WP:NOPAGE situation at the moment. I would also question whether the extremely lengthy excerpts/quotes in the "Asimov on psychohistory" are okay from a copyright perspective. TompaDompa (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Warfare 2: Ghost

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

Tie-in promotional comic series that fails the general notability guidelines, with practically no sourcing outside of "look, this exists!" and trivial mentions in my WP:BEFORE searches. There is no critical reception, or significant coverage to speak of. Even if it was notable, I'm pretty sure that it fails NOPAGE as it's near entirely unsourced plot summary. I tried to redirect it to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 a while ago, but it got undone recently for being a "poor excuse" and an "unreasonable deletion". I suggest restoring that redirect. λ NegativeMP1 16:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Comics and animation. λ NegativeMP1 16:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Per nom to the game's page. Appears to fail GNG. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - IGN seems to be the only site that has reviewed the comic: [8], other sources show only announcements, lacking any meaningful analysis and so don't qualify as significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Laiba Khan

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

I draftified this BLP, but the creator Gopikakaa (talk · contribs) reverted my draftification and bypassed the AFC review. I asked on their talk page if this was a WP:UPE, but they haven’t responded. But their editing suggests it may be UPE, as they’re trying to create a BLP for a ROTM actress who clearly fails GNG and has only had minor roles in a few TV dramas, which means she doesn’t meet NACTOR either. The BLP relies on unreliable sources and this is Gopikakaa's only article. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 16:20, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Women. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tralfamadore

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

Concept without significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. Article is basically unsourced with nothing to WP:PRESERVE, and WP:BEFORE does not show enough reliable sources to build this article essentially from scratch. Jontesta (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Jontesta: What about "Tralfamadore is America: Cultural History in Slaughterhouse - Five" and the chapter dedicated to Tralfamadore in The Vonnegut Encyclopedia as secondary sources? Daranios (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A quick look at the first source would seem to indicate that it's not really about Tralfamadore as such but about themes in Slaughterhouse-Five? I can only see part of the second source, but it seems to mainly contain in-universe information and notes that it is not consistently portrayed across works. Maybe there's something I'm missing as I haven't taken a close or in-depth look at either source, but they do not strike me as obviously useful for a stand-alone article on Tralfamadore. What's more, if our article is correct in stating that Tralfamadore is the name of several fictional planets in the novels of Kurt Vonnegut, then it's very questionable if this is even a single topic in a meaningful sense in the first place. TompaDompa (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Planet X637Z-43

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

A brief and non-notable hoax. Barely mentioned in any reliable sources. Jontesta (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep: I will do a more thorough look soon, but I think this meets GNG. Cremastra (u — c) 19:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vasculaghju

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

No refs on the page for many years. There appears to be another archaeological site in Corsica called Vasculacciu which could be an alternative spelling, but I'm unable to confirm it is the same place, and therefore cannot add any of the sources which refer to it. JMWt (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 16:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Heisner

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

Biography of a Christian pastor and martial arts practitioner. While he was without any doubt an very worthy person who did good things for his community, I do not think he meets any notability criteria, neither WP:GNG/WP:BASIC nor WP:NATHLETE. The many sources are either primary and non-independent, non-reliable per WP:RS, or brief mentions in local newspapers. Taken together, these do not constitute significant coverage. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Martial arts, and New York. bonadea contributions talk 15:18, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The many sources are either primary and non-independent, non-reliable"

My response: How are ~60 newspaper articles not reliable? How are newspaper articles not secondary sources. Heisner did not own any of the newspapers. How is Robert Heisner's involvement in giving the key to the city of Niagara Falls, NY to Shihan Hironori Otsuka (founder of Wado Kai) not notable?

How can one Wikipedia editor can override other editors who have already approved the article? Bushido77 (talk) 15:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You misread the nomination rationale. The sources are a) primary and non-independent or b) non-reliable or c) brief mentions in local newspapers. Taken together, these do not constitute significant coverage. You may also have missed the part where I referred to the specific notability criteria that must be met. Being involved in giving the key to a city to a notable individual is not grounds for notability. (I will not bludgeon the discussion by responding to everything, but I thought the misunderstanding should be cleared up.) --bonadea contributions talk 15:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "The sources are a) primary and non-independent or b) non-reliable or c) brief mentions in local newspapers."

My response: I don't misunderstand. ~60 newspaper articles and mentions is definitely notable. Newspapers are secondary and reliable sources (at least as I read the Wikipedia policies.)

How can one Wikipedia editor can override other editors who have already approved the article? Bushido77 (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heisner was not just a martial arts practitioner. He developed a new style combining seven different martial arts in which he was black belt ranked and instructor certified. He also launched a Christian martial arts ministry. Bushido77 (talk) 15:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While he may have had a positive local impact, the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines WP:GNG. Most of the sources are either brief mentions or affiliated with Heisner, failing to provide the significant, independent coverage required. Most of them are mentions of him doing a performance in a local area. One sentence per article is not what we are looking for. Additionally, the tone of the article is not neutral WP:NPOV and reads more like a tribute than an encyclopedia entry. User:Bushido77, who has openly stated they were a student of Heisner for over 40 years, has a conflict of interest WP:COI, further compromising the article’s neutrality and reliability. This article contains unencyclopedic content with excessive detail, violating WP:UNDUE, and relies on primary sources, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability WP:RS. For these reasons, I believe this article should be deleted. Ktkvtsh (talk) 16:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - the majority is NOT always right.

Absolutely! I admitted right from the beginning (as a Christian I am an honest person.) Even though I admitted it, I worked hard to make it neutral and the article was approved.

So, the majority will remove a valuable article from Wikipedia. The Heisner page has had more than 800 visitors in the last 30 days, which is more than many other martial artists pages on this platform. Bushido77 (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You said "Most of the sources are either brief mentions or affiliated with Heisner..."

My response: none of the newspapers are "affiliated with Heisner". He did not own or work for any of the newspapers.

You said "Additionally, the tone of the article is not neutral..."

My response: I worked on that to the point that the article was approved. Wouldn't the proper thing to do be to continue working on the tone, rather than deleting the article?

You said "who has openly stated they were a student of Heisner for over 40 years, has a conflict of interest "

My response: I honestly admitted that from the very onset of the article. I read the documents you cited and none of them forbade creating the article. It was encouraged against, but not forbidden. I am one of very few who knows the details of the founding of the karate system better than nearly all others. Someone should have told me I could not write the article, rather than let me waste 4 or 5 months working on it and getting past 5 or 6 rejections before it was finally accepted.

You said "This article contains unencyclopedic content with excessive detail..."

My response: in this case, would the proper response be to rewrite the article rather than delete it?

You said "and relies on primary sources, which do not meet Wikipedia’s standards for reliability"

My response: there are very few primary sources in the article, and there are many secondary sources that validate the few primary sources.

All in all, deleting the article is the wrong course of action. Improving the article is the appropriate steps to take. Bushido77 (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bushido77, We all appreciate the effort you’ve put into the article. Wikipedia’s standards focus on notability and reliable sourcing, not personal impact or page views. Yes, you disclosed your connection to Heisner. Even with good intentions, that connection can affect the article’s neutrality WP:NPOV. We recommend that editors with close ties to a subject let others take the lead to maintain impartiality WP:COI. I believe the best course is to let this article go. Ktkvtsh (talk) 19:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said - " Even with good intentions, that connection can affect the article’s neutrality..."

My response - I am not even suggesting that the article is completely neutral. I said I worked hard to make it neutral and the article was accepted.

You said - "I believe the best course is to let this article go"

My response - I completely disagree and your approach seems contradictory to Wikipedia editor guidelines. Somewhere I read (I have to find it) that the first response from editors should be to improve the article. But in this case the first response is to try to delete the article. Bushido77 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bushido77, honestly, this whole discussion feels like it’s veered off track. It seems like you’re more interested in debating every point than actually finding a productive path forward. At the end of the day, the purpose here isn’t to win an argument—it’s to determine if the article belongs on Wikipedia based on clear policies, not personal feelings or effort spent.

We get it—you’ve worked hard on this, and that’s commendable. But dragging out this discussion with repetitive justifications isn’t going to change the reality that articles need to meet notability and sourcing standards, and this one just doesn’t. No one is out to get you, and this isn’t personal. It's about maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia, and every editor here is trying to do that in good faith.

If you’re serious about contributing to Wikipedia in a meaningful way, maybe it’s time to step back, look at the broader picture, and accept that not every subject fits. There’s no shame in that—what matters is learning from this process and applying it to future contributions. But we’re not going to make progress if this stays stuck in a loop of defensiveness. Let’s keep it civil and focused on the task at hand, or we’ll just waste more time going in circles. Ktkvtsh (talk) 20:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said - "It seems like you’re more interested in debating every point than actually finding a productive path forward"

My response - a productive path forward does not include deleting a good article, about a notable individual, about a notable individual who contributed heavily to the martial arts, his community, Christianity, and via himself and others he impacted, the world.

If you have a productive path forward I will listen. So far all I have heard are self-justifications to delete (not go forward with) the article.

____________

You said - "Let’s keep it civil and focused on the task at hand, or we’ll just waste more time going in circles"

My response - I am all for it. But civil is not deleting an article based on what I believe are biased conclusions. Give me a constructive path forward... not a path to the trash heap.

I am listening. Bushido77 (talk) 20:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Aside from the things mentioned above about him not meeting notability, the article was created by someone with a declared conflict of interest Nswix (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said "Aside from the things mentioned above about him not meeting notability, the article was created by someone with a declared conflict of interest"

My response: where do Wikipedia rules forbid someone who knows the subject from writing an article? i wish someone would have told me that it was forbidden before I put 4 or 5 months of work into writing the article. Bushido77 (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article. Deleting it appears to be a wrong response to some issues that can be corrected with rewrites and positive edits. Bushido77 (talk) 17:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77, please remove the bold from one of your "keeps". You are not permitted to !vote twice. (I strongly recommend moving bold text from your discussion except for your single !vote, since it makes the discussion hard to follow. Italics can be used to express emphasis.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am new to Wikipedia and have no idea how to edit or delete a comment. Is there a way? Bushido77 (talk) 18:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bushido77 just press edit and change your text. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I only see "edit source" no edit. I use the visual editor. :-(

I am really sorry that I tried Wikipedia. It seems very biased. Bushido77 (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I reviewed each of the very many sources, and the vast majority of these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in WP:RSSM and other outlets. There is very little evidence that Heisner was discussed with WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. However, three sources do appear to get close to WP:SIGCOV, although one is short and it and another seem to be based solely on an interview with Heisner. They are two articles in the Buffalo News (here, here) and one article in the Niagara Falls Gazette. I am truly on the fence so I'd submit these for Bonadea, Ktkvtsh, Nswix and other editors' consideration as to whether they qualify toward WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Even if the outcome is ultimately "keep" or "no consensus," this article will still need to be WP:TNT'd because the vast majority of it is WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said "and the vast majority of these are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES "

My response: not possible. Heisner did not write those newspaper articles. He did not work for any of those papers.

You said "and one article in the Niagara Falls Gazette"

My response: there are several (I count 18 links) articles in the Niagara Falls Gazette.

As for blowing it up and starting again, that is unlikely. I spent 4 or 5 months writing, correcting, making it more neutral, etc. It was rejected 5 or 6 times before it was finally accepted. It is unlikely that I will be spending more time in what seems to me to be a biased atmosphere.

Why did the other editors accept the article?

I am all for improving the article, but deleting it after it has been published and after over 1,000 page views in such a short time, seems to me to be short-sighted and a biased (non-neutral) decision. Bushido77 (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, please stop once and for all using bold text in the visual editor. It is disruptive formatting in a deletion discussion. The vast majority of the news stories you added are trivial mentions--a single quote from Heisner or a mention in a community section that he was going to teach a class at the YMCA. Often the mentions were his own ads, which yes, are primary sources, as are all the links to websites associated with him. There was only one Gazette article that got close to "significant coverage," which is what is required for a source to count toward a notability guideline. Finally, this is a rather counterproductive response to the only editor in this discussion thus far who has identified any sources that might support a "keep" decision. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said - " Often the mentions were his own ads"

My response - Not true! His ads comprise three or four of the 60 newspapers and that was only to establish his schools under Park Jong-soo. One of those articles was put in the Toronto Yellow Pages by Master Park Jong-soo, not by Robert Heisner. Thus a secondary source, and one of the 12 original tae kwon do leaders.

I am not desiring to be counter-productive, but one of your comments was blow it up and start again. That is not the right approach. Bushido77 (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your view of what constitutes a primary source is significantly out of alignment with Wikipedia's. I don't have any more to say on this. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You said - "Your view of what constitutes a primary source is significantly out of alignment with Wikipedia's"

Copied from Wikipedia about primary sources:

"In the study of history as an academic discipline, a primary source (also called an original source) is an artifact, document, diary, manuscript, autobiography, recording, or any other source of information that was created at the time under study."

My response - almost nothing in the Robert Heisner article is a primary source (the only exception that comes to mind is the book we wrote and a couple of advertisements he placed in local newspapers.)

Artifacts - possibly Master Park Jong Soo's 1970's Toronto Yellow Pages article

Nothing else appears to fall into the primary source category (that I can think of.) Bushido77 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Dclemens1971! I truly appreciate the work you did – I still don't think the sourcing is at all sufficient, though. As you say, one of the Buffalo News pieces is primary, so that's no good; the other one and the Niagara Falls Gazette are only slightly more substantial than all the trivial mentions in other papers. Added to the fact that both papers are hyper-local, I just can't see it. I'm not sure if I should go ahead and remove all the stuff that would have to be removed if the article were to be kept, just so we can get a better idea – as Ktkvtsh also pointed out above, there's tons of unencyclopedic detail in there. Am a little hesitant to put more time into an article I don't believe meets any notability criteria, though.

Bushido77, you say above that you are not sure how to remove the bold formatting from your comments. Would it be OK if I or some other participant went ahead and did that for you (except for one "keep")? --bonadea contributions talk 19:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign state, municipal, sub-state, and local officials endorsements

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

It's perhaps because I am not an American, but what is the point of an endless list of Republican politicians who support the candidacy of the sole remaining Republican candidate for president? Isn't it completely trivial that the "Prosecutor of Macomb County", a Republican, supports Trump? Seems like excessive detail about an election which is very important and gets lots of attention (and articles), but where not every bit of completely predictable minutiae needs to be recorded for posterity on Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, Politics, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep we just discussed split because the old article was far too long, now deleting the subpages would just revert it back to one mega-article Braganza (talk) 14:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or one could just not include this anywhere on Wikipedia of course. Fram (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i don't think the americans would approve this, there are always very long endorsement pages Braganza (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What information do they actually convey? Hundreds of Republican officials endorse the Republican presidential candidate (or Democrats for Democrats of course), in what way is that informative? What would be lost by not having this page? Fram (talk) 15:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

same with Democrats, its tradition Braganza (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to just "state and local officials endorsements". Municipal is considered local so I don't know why this is duplicative. Reywas92^Talk 15:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i wouldn't mind renaming it Braganza (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid page split. The information is verifiable and would be appropriate on the main endorsement page. But, since the size of the endorsement page is high, a page split is appropriate. Name change would make sense too, but that is an editing decision. --Enos733 (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Republicans supporting a Republican isn't notable. Obi2canibe (talk) 19:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: inconsequential subject. Not notable. Even if "tradition" (tradition where? Wikipedia? The American-verse internet?) is in favour of keeping this list, Wikipedia policy is not. Cremastra (u — c) 19:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cremastra: List of Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign state and territorial political endorsements is pretty much the same and it was included in List of Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign endorsements, until we agreed to split it and now suddenly its a problem and not notable Braganza (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1998 Bank of America robbery

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

There are one or two stories in addition to the one cited, not counting multiple reprints of the same AP story. No evidence of lasting coverage, law or process changes. I don't see merit in a merger to BofA or One World Trade. I guess a redirect to List_of_bank_robbers_and_robberies#United_States would be fine, but doesn't seem particularly helpful. Star Mississippi 13:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Finance, and New York. Star Mississippi 13:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Lessard

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

Fails WP:NMUSICBIO, nearly all of the coverage that can be found in a WP:BEFORE search and on the article itself is articles about Dave Matthews Band, passing mentions, and primary interviews. Only standalone coverage is about a house fire, and that is insufficient as far as establishing independent notability. The article also contains swaths of unsourced information about the subject, a living person, so there are BLP issues at play here as well. No independent notability outside of the group, and should be redirected to Dave Matthews Band accordingly. JeffSpaceman (talk) 12:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Darryl Andrews

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

I searched extensively but couldn't find much information. Although I have released some songs, they haven't gained much attention. As a result, they don't meet Wikipedia's general criteria (WP:GNG)or the specific criteria for its music category (WP:ENT). Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and South Africa. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gates Corner, Indiana

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

Another short-lived rural post office elevated to a settlement. There's nothing there and I find no mentions of it. Mangoe (talk) 12:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retarget to Delaware County, Indiana. The unincorporated town was already merged into the county. Ahri Boy (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Academies

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

no intro, details just a table UzbukUdash (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. UzbukUdash (talk) 11:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This list is not about academics or educators.

The intention is that it pulls together an up to date and easy to navigate list of national academies such as those listed (poorly) on National Academy. With the intention that this list could be removed from National Academy once this list has been created.

If you're really unhappy. Can we at least move it to draft space so that I can add the other national academies? TheResilientEngineer (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It should also pull together those listed on the academy of sciences page as well. Again cleaning up both of these pages and creating a single listed resource which both pages can link to. TheResilientEngineer (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete this sort-of shared name agglomeration. Mangoe (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and Lists. Skynxnex (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National academy and Academy of sciences or draftify. I think this should be worked on in the main articles and split later when appropriate. I agree with cleaning them up but right now it's just duplicative and making this separate page first doesn't do that. Reywas92^Talk 15:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to national academy, an existing and far more complete article that provides a similar listing. Incidentally, I removed the listing of this AfD from "list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions" because that deletion sorting list is for biographies of professors. The nominated article is not a biography of a professor. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't currently have a strong opinion on merge, redirect, or draftify. There's also the National Academies category [9] to help in the goals here. Regardless of the outcome, I would also really appreciate this information being listed together somewhere as TheResilientEngineer added. I am currently working on updating scientists elected to the American NAS, but in the long term and I hope to move onto other academies after this. Cyanochic (talk) 18:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reforj

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

Lack of Detail writing UzbukUdash (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. UzbukUdash (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and classify as stub. Article from what I can tell reaches notability criteria. Mockapedia (talk) 12:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific about which notability guideline you believe it meets @Mockapedia? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Got a flurry of coverage, none of it substantial. Classic WP:TOOSOON article for a game that will probably be notable some years from now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Slide Insurance

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

lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to demonstrate its notability, relying primarily on routine announcements Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Florida, and South Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: The article needs to be significantly expanded to demonstrate notability. More reliable sources needed. SirBrahms (talk) 11:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mold-Tek Packaging

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

Should be deleted due to insufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources, failing to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for companies. Additionally, the content appears promotional and lacks critical analysis, making it better suited for consolidation within a broader article Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:12, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat Urja Vikas Nigam

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

lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources to establish its notability, relying primarily on routine or primary references. Additionally, the content may not warrant a standalone article, as it could be more appropriately covered within broader topics related to Gujarat's energy sector Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jiaoriballisse (talk) 09:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lil JoJo

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of previously deleted article, lacks WP:MUSICBIO, WP:BASIC and WP:NOTABILITY. Darrion N. Brown 🙂 (my talk page / my sandbox) 08:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has dozens and dozens of independent sources and a variety of such. Proves notability by showing how his death and influence caused major effects in the gang war in Chicago. RowanJ LP (talk) 13:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm personally undecided but will point out that the article might be viable if reconstructed around his murder and his status as the victim, because that received a lot of reliable coverage in Chicago news as a symptom of gang violence. That might require re-titling the article as Murder of Joseph J. Coleman or something similar. His musicial achievements as Lil JoJo are minimal and not notable enough for a musician-based article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Avivah Wittenberg-Cox

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Ref-bombed and Dishonestly sourced largely with primary sources. Lacks coverage about her in independent reliable sources. Comments from her are not coverage about her. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, especially considering the lack of good sources (and the fact that the article is an orphan) SirBrahms (talk) 08:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, England, Canada, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have added in multiple reviews of her 2008 book, and note that the article is not an orphan. That being said, it is rather promotional and I have started remove some of the duplicate citations. DaffodilOcean (talk) 15:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The article now lists three reviews of her book Why Women Mean Business, a promising start. But I didn't find any reviews of her other books listed in the selected works section. They appear self-published but it's the reviews more than the publisher that concerns me. One more reliably published review of a different book (not in Chautauquan Daily, her go-to publicity outlet) would push me over to a weak keep per WP:AUTHOR, but I don't think we should pass that criterion based on only one book. I don't think the other sources provide in-depth and independent coverage of her suitable for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PlayHT

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

Non notable product. Spam that smells of UPE. Lacks independent coverage about it. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley Neal

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

Non notable individual. Spam that smells of UPE. Claimed Emmy is only regional and fails verification. Lacks independent coverage about her. Wikipedia is not a PR platform. duffbeerforme (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Women, Radio, Television, California, Massachusetts, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARY Zindagi

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

Outside of a few announcements of its launch, the only other sources I am finding are from ARY itself. Nothing that could be significant coverage, only verification that it exists. A good WP:ATD would be a redirect to ARY Digital Network. CNMall41 (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zainal Arifin Mochtar

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

No significant coverage that shows notability. I realize that the sources are non-English but doing my best through Google Translate I think this is likely the best source which looks more like a reprint of a bio. CNMall41 (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Law, Politics, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giant Records (independent)

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, United States of America, and New York. toweli (talk) 12:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am a new editor and still finding my feet, so please don’t be mean if anything I say here is not pertinent for an AfD discussion. As part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles I added the single reference to this article – I would say that the source is probably not the most solid, but I have done a bunch of searching for other sources, without turning up anything that is very reliable, like toweli. That said, my sense is that there probably are decent sources sufficient to establish the record label’s notability, but they will likely be in print format from 30+ years ago and therefore less easy to find. Particularly if, like me, editors are not familiar with the area. I am pinging a few users who contributed to both sides in previous deletion discussions according to the edit history: Chubbles Hoponpop69 Tikiwont Hello Control. The creating editor is no longer on Wikipedia. As alternatives to deletion, one might consider:

1. Merging the content into Homestead Records, maybe as a sister label or some such.
2. Creating a new article for the umbrella distributor Dutch East India Trading, and merging this article and that for Homestead Records into that.

-- SunloungerFrog (talk) 08:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of stars and planets in fiction

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

We actually already had this discussion once before, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stars and planetary systems in fiction. This is a recreation of the list version of the article that was rejected at AfD in favour of covering the topic(s) in prose form. As such, it meets the spirit of WP:G4 even if not the letter (as the article itself technically wasn't deleted, just the entirety of the contents). The issues that led to the decision to scrap this version still apply, of course.

Keeping the article in its current state is a complete non-starter. It contains blatant WP:OR, improper use of primary sources, misrepresentations of sources, and outright WP:PLAGIARISM. As I said last time: It's not like we cannot have high-quality articles on topics like this—Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction, and Sun in fiction are all WP:Featured articles—but the bulk of the nearly 400 kB here consists of a TV Tropes-style list with absolutely atrocious sourcing. The article has become a dumping ground for garbage "In popular culture" content to keep it out of the articles on the stars themselves. Another way of putting it is that the article consists of an indiscriminate collection of WP:RAWDATA (the 2008 essay WP:CARGO explains rather well how and why this is a problem for articles like this), and doesn't even source it properly. Something needs to be done, because the current state of affairs is not acceptable (the article has already correctly been tagged with several maintenance tags, and there are many more that could be added—{{In popular culture}}, {{Primary sources}}, and {{More citations needed}} come to mind).

So what are our options here? Well, ordinarily I would suggest fixing the article, but of course we already did that once and don't need to do it all over again. What's more, when we look at the relevant sources—as I did six months ago—we find that this isn't even a topic, but rather several distinct but related ones. Hence, the former stars and planetary systems in fiction article was split extrasolar planets in fiction and stars in fiction. This is to say that we cannot fix this article without fundamentally turning it into something different.

Someone might propose WP:DRAFTIFYing this to bring it up to acceptable standards outside of mainspace; I would note that such an attempt was made a few years ago before being abandoned (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&page=Draft:List_of_planetary_systems_in_fiction). In other words, it has been tried before and didn't work. Moreover, moving this to draftspace would do nothing to resolve the fundamental flaws with the article that are inherent in its design, such as combining what is per the sources different topics. An entirely different approach would be needed to turn this into any kind of proper article, and it would in the end not be a different version of this one but an entirely different article altogether.

We could perhaps redirect this somewhere, but it does not really seem like a plausible search term, and there is no reason to do so in order to WP:PRESERVE any content—even if there were anything worth preserving, it can already be found in the edit history for extrasolar planets in fiction.

In summary, keeping this in its current state is not a viable option (as it wasn't six months ago), it could not be improved to an acceptable state without fundamentally turning it into something entirely different, the process of improving it by turning it into something entirely different has already been undertaken and does not need to be repeated, and we would not even lose anything by deleting the article as its contents remain in the article history from which it was copied.

Pinging the participants of the previous AfD: @Piotrus, Randy Kryn, QuicoleJR, Rorshacma, Clarityfiend, Shooterwalker, Zxcvbnm, Cakelot1, and Herostratus:. TompaDompa (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Popular culture, and Lists. TompaDompa (talk) 06:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete when an article is kept because of a WP:HEY, recreating the previous problematic WP:INDISCRIMINATE list, with no noticeable improvement, doesn't seem like the best idea. We already have a WP:NAVIGATIONAL list of Extrasolar planets in the original article (Extrasolar planets in fiction#List), so nothing here will be lost a part from a bunch of WP:OR, that was already rightly done away with. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 07:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, WP:TNT absolutely applies here. The article has too much baggage and requires a rewrite. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although it does need trimming.

It was right to slice this material out of Extrasolar planets in fiction, so that could be an article on the subject. It should have been done by splitting the article, as the list has value on its own.

We can be pious about Wikipedia being for serious topics like this one, but this is a list of interest. We have, for good reason, articles on Mars in fiction, Venus in fiction etc: this is the same theme. It avoids endless articles like 'Alpha Centauri in fiction'.

There is relevance in noting that some star systems appear more often than others in science fiction: Alpha Ceti is famously used in Star Trek and may have inspired other writers to use it. Others flagged up by astronomers have as a result started appearing in fiction. If certain star systems pop up more frequently, that is of interest.

Trimming: when I recovered the list I consciously cut out the redlinks and the long footnotes with plot points and 'OR' observations. More of that can come out. References in fan fiction and online games are of little value in my opinion (but I may be a snob). Best guesses about where entirely fictional planets may be are best kept in an article on fictional planets. Where science fiction literature though chooses to use genuine stars as locations, it is worthy of note.

Hogweard (talk) 10:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is worthy of note IFF it is mentioned in independent sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Having written the entirety of the roughly 8,000-word-long Mars in fiction WP:Featured article, I agree that we have such an article for good reason, and I believe I am in a unique position to comment upon it: the good reason that we do have such an article, which you'll note is a prose article and not an indiscriminate list of WP:RAWDATA examples absent meaningful context, is that there are high-quality sources on that topic, such as Robert Crossley [Wikidata]'s book Imagining Mars: A Literary History (2011). I have done the legwork of looking for sources on the topic of extrasolar planets in fiction as well as stars in fiction, and it turns out that sources (at least the ones I've discovered—feel free to point out any important ones I may have missed) don't really cover the topic of real stars appearing as locations in fiction in the way that would be required for an article like this one to be valid.

It's interesting that Alpha Centauri in fiction was chosen as an example, because that's one of only two stars for which I've been able to find sources discussing its specific depiction in fiction. The other one is Tau Ceti in fiction, and both of those are covered (briefly) at Stars in fiction#Real stars. Other than that, sources don't appear to be that interested in whether authors name a real star or not (and if they do, which one) in their stories—indeed, a 2024 article in the Journal of Science Communication about planets in science fiction found an absence of influence of whether or not the planet setting is in a real star system on other worldbuilding characteristics. Based on that, I would have to say that (barring the previously-mentioned exceptions) the assertion that Where science fiction literature though chooses to use genuine stars as locations, it is worthy of note. is, well, wrong.

I agree that the list needs trimming. Of course, trimming needs to be done based on the sources, not our own opinions on what is important and not (in other words it doesn't really matter whether References in fan fiction and online games are of little value in my opinion, what matter is whether the relevant sources find them to be of value or not). I did actually do that back in late 2021 (it's a long story), and the result was that almost every single entry ended up being removed. When we follow the sources, as we always must, what we end up with bears little to no resemlance to the present mess—it turns into Stars in fiction and Extrasolar planets in fiction. There is no benefit to keeping this article around with the intention of improving (or perhaps more accurately, fixing) it when we already have the post-improvement version at a different title. TompaDompa (talk) 12:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article in its current state desperately needs a TNT. Also, we already discussed this and decided against including this list. My opinions on this list's merits have not changed since that previous discussion. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The original AFD resulted in a Keep only because it was completely rewritten and many initial Delete advocates, including my own, struck their initial recommendation because of WP:HEY. Recreating the original list not only seems like an attempt to circumvent that consensus, but means that all of the original arguments for deletion (and there are many of them) apply to it. Rorshacma (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and Rorshacma, the result of the original discussion was "keep," so there's no reason to duplicate the information in list form. DesiMoore (talk) 15:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The past AFD already covered this. Nothing fundamental has changed to justify this article. Jontesta (talk) 16:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good arguments made above aside, this should just be a category, not an article. On a side note, I find it a bit odd how how a list of "planets of fiction" doesn't feature Tatooine, Giedi Prime, or Romulus. Cortador (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SureCash

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

Outside of the usual WP:CORPROUTINE, I could not find any coverage of this company. The Bengali name (শিওরক্যাশ) returned similar results, for example, about seeking partnership and closing. Unlikely to have enough sources to write a proper article. Would not object to finding a suitable redirect target, but my mind is blank on that so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and Bangladesh. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:34, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Santhosh Suvarna

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable individual, all coverage is just routine information about updates/events from poker news sites. Fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Games, and Karnataka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would like to read proper reliable sources that have provided him with the necessary biographical coverage. I don't see them right now. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 06:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about Nagaland Post, APN News, and sportskeeda. To me they seems sufficient. PsychoticIncall (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of them reported only about the same event where he won the title. WP:GNG requires more than that. Ratnahastin (talk) 10:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep His lone multimillion score is well-documented (for an additional two sources see 1 and 2) and does succeed WP:BLP1E. PsychoticIncall (talk) 13:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Allen (bridge)

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

I can find no significant or independent coverage of this bridge player, which is demanded by WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The NYT source is not significant coverage, just a mention, and likewise the bridgewinners.com source. And the bulletin published by the American Contract Bridge League is not independent. Geschichte (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my own searching for additional sourcing. The sources currently in the article are not sufficient for GNG, particularly for a BLP. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:32, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

El Uvito

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

Fails WP:GNG; all 1 references are census data Pitille02 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Panama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:53, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Vũ Minh

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

This page was deleted under the title Mai Vu Minh (log). The statement "In 2016 he was elected as a people's deputy to the National Assembly of Vietnam and served in the economics committee" in this article is not correct, this name does not appear in the list of deputies elected to the National Assembly of Vietnam in 2016. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Vietnam. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Duggan

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

Fails GNG as they have only ever competed in entry-level categories and one obscure international category where they did not make a notable impact. Page history indicates the page was either self-created or COI, although an attempt has been made by an IP to clean it up, and the sources are mainly social media or primary. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luxor Records

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

After doing a preliminary WP:BEFORE search, I've come up with no lead on being able to satisfy WP:ORGCRIT. Graywalls (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Business, Companies, and California. Graywalls (talk) 02:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a few sentence worth's of information to As They Sleep, the band that runs the label. Mach61 03:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:55, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reji Joseph Pulluthuruthiyil

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

He has only won one notable award but I think more is needed to meet fails WP:JOURNALIST. A search for sources in google news under his full name, Reji Pulluthuruthiyil and Joseph Pulluthuruthiyil did not yield anything. so fails WP:BIO more generally. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, India, and Kerala. LibStar (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The journalist has won a notable award, which is significant. However, more comprehensive coverage on their work and achievements is needed, as it is currently lacking. Jannatulbaqi (talk) 12:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page is around WP:BLP1E, an award won by subject but fails WP:SIGCOV on the subject. RangersRus (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heat diner scene

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

This entire article can be and is covered in the article for the film itself: Heat (1995 film). There is no encyclopedic value in spinning this off into it's own article. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 02:24, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect to Heat (1995 film) or keep. The reason for keep is per WP:NEXIST since this scene in the movie has been the main topic in the suitable amount of reliable references used in the article. The Film Creator (talk) 11:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would also like to cite WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV as further reasoning why the article can be kept. At the same time, I am neutral enough to agree per MOS:TRIVIA why some would choose to vote delete. Either way, I’m humble whatever the result is. The Film Creator (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Jacob

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

No inherent notability in the highest position attained, deputy Inspector General. The police medal may add to notability but it appears to be only covered in primary sources. His swimming achievements do not meet WP:ATHLETE. An orphan article. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Police, and Kerala. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was G11 speedy deleted‎. (non-admin closure) Procyon117 (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

S32 Technologies

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP or credibly indicate its importance. No secondary sources. Speedy deletion nomination contested by page creator. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and re-add tag. Article is clearly promotional and is elegible for deletion under G11. @PARAKANYAA: Article creators almost always complain about someone adding CSD tags to their articles, and this doesn't mean that we shouldn't tag them for deletion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:56, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CycloneYoris I was more confused by their response that by requesting deletion I was covering up for some sort of grand mass surveillance scheme. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Technology, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoping the speedy deletion tag will work. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 05:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Monal (software)

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

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any coverage for this chat client at all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing, Internet, and Software. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nedd Brockmann

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

Contested redirect to List of people who have run across Australia, which is what it was originally created as. Sourcing present and via BEFORE does not establish notability for Brockmann as a businessman or athlete so bringing it here for discussion Star Mississippi 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Sportspeople, and Australia. Star Mississippi 02:02, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that Nedd has notability for the charity work he is doing, the following article lists a number of his accomplishments over the last 2 years. https://www.foxsports.com.au/more-sports/its-just-pain-australian-cult-hero-nedd-brockmann-chases-1000mile-record-two-years-after-crosscountry-run/news-story/a2ab5b36dce447aa5fd3d3e42495fac0 He is currently attempting a 1000 Mile 10 day challenge that at the time of writing has raised over AU$800,000 https://www.neddsuncomfortablechallenge.com/donate?fbclid=PAZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAaZp9BUhSfSoAwtHkA614j4edKE2jy3QNvWiBomLMEbQrUp4AaCubWFUu_U_aem_cGZvq4c65wTGynCbFYeQfQ Campbell.jr.Smith (talk) 07:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
— Campbell.jr.Smith (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 18:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a section about his charity runs and fundraising efforts. Stoowartjay (talk) 03:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Seeking more participation in this discussion and an evaluation of sources would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Google his name and you will realise he needs an article.. 210.84.50.88 (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added nomination for NSW Young Australian of the Year Stoowartjay (talk) 04:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Was a BEFORE done? This came up as the first hits [10], [11], with a video [12]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:17, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The new sources added in the article, combined with the sources noted above, pretty much establishes notability of Brockmann and thus passes WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC. Noting for the record that there's another The Guardian source, another Canadian Running Magazine reference, and other sources that can be found in a BEFORE search. With this, Brockmann passes notability guidelines with flying colors. ~ Tails Wx 03:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

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

Fails WP:GNG due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Events, Sexuality and gender, and Belgium. Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found coverage in French: https://www.moustique.be/tendances/2019/03/19/ete-au-festival-de-erotisme-de-bruxelles-176446 ; https://www.dhnet.be/actu/sexualite/2014/03/06/on-etait-au-salon-de-lerotisme-video-YUCJW544NBCEPKHBAJJMCGKTIY/ and so on (and apparently sources exist in German and Dutch); if that is not enough, redirect to List_of_festivals_in_Europe#Belgium or to another target. Needs cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to generally notable as er sources provided above.Cortador (talk) 17:38, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Johnson (actor)

AfDs for this article:

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

Couldn't find any SIGCOV, and while prolific, doesn't seem to be particularly notable. Unsourced BLP. GraziePrego (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, Television, Video games, Advertising, California, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of significant coverage and existing for 10 years as an unreferenced biographical article about a living person. I think Boleyn correctly nominated this article; the past AfD had minimal participation. I did a couple of Google searches and found scant support for notability: this interview, some self- or fan-created sources, Amazon, IMDB, etc. Bearian (talk) 10:05, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Letters to God where he has a significant role. duffbeerforme (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Harrison (author)

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

As much as I think Harrison's writing about Wikipedia is insightful, I simply don't think he passes WP:NJOURNALIST. He's not really been the subject of significant coverage. I don't think interviews or reviews of his books in student newspapers (Student Life) are sigcov. The Fix interview might be significant coverage, but I am unfamiliar with the publication. 1A is a podcast interview, which I don't think counts for notability. The Salon, Slate and HuffPost links are just to his journalism and obviously don't count. The New America link is the description of an event that Harrison was participating in, and I don't think its sigcov either. The WashU entry is a "look what one of our alumni is up to" post and therefore it's not independent or sigcov. The Yahoo interview is part of the Yahoo for Creators program, which has an unclear level of editorial control from Yahoo itself, and may be published with little editorial oversight like WP:FORBESCON, but I'm not sure, and I think its status as significant coverage is questionable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Technology, Internet, and Texas. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:49, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find much beyond articles he's penned. Seems notable, but I don't find any sourcing we can use. Article now is mostly sourced to author profiles. Oaktree b (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: With the publication of The Editors, Harrison satisfies #3 under creative professionals. I also just added two more sources, including an ABC affiliate WFAA and NBC Bay Area. 1A (radio program) is not a podcast, it's a radio program. - Wil540 art (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Editors hasn't even received a proper book review by a professional outlet so I hardly see how it passes the part of #3 that says such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. The book was notably also deleted when taken to AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Editors (novel). I hardly see how being a guest on a radio or local television program is enough to pass GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you haven't looked at it already, something from [13] might be of use. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to see more input before making up my mind. Bearian (talk) 10:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I mostly agree with Oaktree above. Simply having published a book is definitely not enough to meet point 3 of WP:NCREATIVE, especially when that book's coverage has been pretty minimal. Going through the article's sources - author pages don't establish anything, the Yahoo article is misleading as it's aggregated from a Substack, and I would not consider alumni magazines to be sufficiently WP:INDEPENDENT. There may eventually be enough coverage for an article on his book, but it doesn't seem like there's enough here for an article on him. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 02:34, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably (I think he's one of best WP-journalists around) I can't disagree. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This [14] might be considered a partial GNG-point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:ATD as it's possibly just a bit WP:TOOSOON. Continue adding coverage to the article as it is published, such as book reviews and author profiles. If no one updates for six months, it will get deleted. But if sufficient sources are added, it can get moved back into mainspace. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for Draftification since we have an editor willing to work on improving this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Djot

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

This article is only sourced from primary sources and the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG. I was unable to find significant secondary coverage in news articles, papers, or books. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 01:04, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Voice: Neon Dreams

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

Very limited coverage for an event that didn't even happen. Not exactly LASTING, is it? May not oppose a merger into The Voice (American TV series), but for an article that size I worry it may be undue to give it its own section, and I'm not sure where among the existing sections it would fit if anywhere. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Television, Events, and Nevada. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:31, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge per nom. Whatever is viable to do in this case. Noorullah (talk) 15:26, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Hard Rock Hotel and Casino (Las Vegas) § Brookfield ownership which has a brief mention of the event Mach61 17:25, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mutual Love Secondary School