Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

27 December 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 26	December 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

PKHeX

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

Non-notable utility for Pokemon games. On current sourcing, this is entirely sourced from user-generated content or the repo itself. However, doing a search, there is some minor reliable coverage on its use in Polygon, Kotaku, VG247 and eSports.net on (1) it being the main way people get hacked pokemon; (2) use of the tool briefly caused a save bug; and (3) its use turns up in eSports cheating [1][2][3][4]. That said, given the current state of the article, and taking the sum of the coverage as a whole, there still is not a lot of significant coverage about what the tool is and sustained interest in its significance. As ever, happy to repudiate this AfD if more reliable sourcing comes up. Thanks! ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David

AfDs for this article:

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

This page was already deleted in June 2024 as it failed to meet WP:GNG. Somebody has recreated it in November 2024. Edit: having read the new sources, I am not convinced there is sufficient coverage to meet GNG. The Spectator source seems to be the only one with a focus on him, and it’s reliability seems questionable. Other editors may like to evaluate. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, News media, and Entertainment. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was passed through the WP:AFC process[5] and WP:G4 presumably doesn't apply. This doesn't mean a guaranteed keep, but it does mean that the nomination should be closed as Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT#3 (unless Zenomonoz can update their nom with an proper rationale ref WP:DEL-REASON before someone gets to it) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - struck. Pinging AFC reviewer Grahaml35 for comment. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Snowman304 for comment, who rejected Avaldcast's initial draft for this article. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please reiterate what the problem with the article is again?

Notability and source reliability (original issue) was addressed after it went article creation process and was approved.

Is the issue that it was deleted, improved and then re-approved? Avaldcast (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Avaldcast, it's quite hard for editors to evaluate the article when you were inserting reliable sources that do not even mention Patrick Bet-David. Zenomonoz (talk) 09:55, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same as the last two AfD, non-notable business person with passing mentions in sources. Being a podcaster isn't notable in 2024. I'd SALT at this point, three times in AfD is more than enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was claims that the sources were not reliable but as this individual has become more notable, more reliable sources have been published. Therefore being approved despite being deleted. Avaldcast (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Patrick Bet-David played a notable role in the 2024 presidential election discourse by hosting significant figures such as Donald Trump on his podcast tour. His platform, Valuetainment, served as a space for Trump to engage with his base and discuss campaign messaging, drawing millions of views and contributing to public conversations about the election. Bet-David’s interviews with Trump and other political figures have been widely covered in reliable sources like Vanity Fair and The Spectator, highlighting his influence in political media. This demonstrates that Bet-David is a public figure of notability, with substantial impact on contemporary political dialogue. Avaldcast (talk) 02:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:01, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Avaldcast. ChopinAficionado (talk) 21:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Please see my comments in the last AfD for source evaluation. Nothing has changed none of this new coverage is specifically about David, but only mentions him in passing, and the majority of sourcing is from self-published sources like podcasts which are not indicative of notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article was approved when new articles from reputable sources were published since he interviewed President Trump and Crown Prince of Iran and other politicians and notable guests. Avaldcast (talk) 14:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Thanks for pinging me, Hydronium Hydroxide. I approved this article and moved to it to mainspace because of the sources that were added to the aricle with the the Vanity Fair one added very in depth coverage. With the other sources of CNBC and RealClearPolitics I felt that it passed WP:GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 05:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've had a brief look over some of the sources added by avaldcast, and they did not verify much of the content added to the article. See: Talk:Patrick Bet-David#Editing by Avaldcast. I've done tidy up, but might be helpful if other users considering this AfD could briefly check others before they decide. Zenomonoz (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please just delete lol you have a personal issue with this person. Avaldcast (talk) 23:42, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References in RealClearPolitics, ABC News, and Vanity Fair among others. Fernweh0 (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fernweh0, brief mentions in RCP and ABC do not establish notability. Bet-David is not the focus of those articles. I just removed the ABC one because it didn't confirm the sentence it was cited against. The RCP source is simply a transcript of a Fox News interview, not reporting from RCP. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can his interview on Fox News establish notability? I don't fully understand the notability rules. Fernweh0 (talk) 14:04, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Fernweh0: interviews are generally considered to be not independent because the subject is talking about themselves. So the interview on Fox News would not contribute to notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 20:42, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source analyst would be helpful at this point. User:NebulaDrift, I assume you didn't mean it when you asked for the article to be deleted. AFD discussions are a give and take between editors who hold different opinions, getting to a consensus is part of the process.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:48, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep I think its a keep because of the sources already mentioned above because as per my experience experts often say that even if its one article in a reliable source it should be good. NatalieTT (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I really don't know why this is even at AFD. Plasticwonder (talk) 18:02, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the cited sources are nearly all from contributing writers not staff writers and many of these sources are listed at WP:RSP as being marginally reliable. For instance, the WP:SPECTATOR article is written by someone who is not even listed on the masthead. Many of the other sources are interviews with Bet-David or in some cases written by Bet-David himself, which do not contribute to his notability because they are not independent sources. TipsyElephant (talk) 08:50, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good points. Take a look at the RCP source for example. It's not even secondary source reporting from RCP. It's just a transcript of a Fox News interview? Zenomonoz (talk) 02:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to being a transcript of an interview from another source, the author of the RCP source is not even listed as a staff writer on the RCP website (not sure what exactly he even wrote though, did he transcribe the interview himself?). TipsyElephant (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Regardless of how any of us may feel about the article itself or the subject, his notoriety makes him more than worthy of having a Wikipedia page. Frankly there are people in his field with far less subscribers and views and name recognition who've had profiles here for quite some time and without any arguments. If there are issues with the quality of the article, they can and should be addressed, but deleting the article would be foolish. Johnny Rose 11 (talk) 19:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnny Rose 11: would you mind linking to reliable sources that you believe demonstrate notability? Having subscribers and views and name recognition does not equal notability. TipsyElephant (talk) 19:30, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have you people taken a look at Wikipedia lately? The "hawk tuah" girl has a Wikipedia page. Everybody with subscribers and views has a Wikipedia page. You people need to get a reality check. 118.149.67.235 (talk) 03:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to discuss the notability of Hawk Tuah feel free to do so at Talk:Hawk tuah. This page is for discussing the notability of Patrick Bet-David. TipsyElephant (talk) 11:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I still don't see a consensus. Some editors arguing to Keep are focusing on factors like subscriber numbers of podcast guests which have nothing to do with establishing notability. While they are fewer in number, editors advocating Deletion are focusing in on sources which is how we primarily determine notability in AFD discussions. An impartial source assessment table could be very useful at this point in the discussion so there can be some agreement on which sources provide SIGCOV and which ones are only passing mentions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey

AfDs for this article:

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

The people in the 2016 discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Chamber_of_Commerce_in_Turkey who did not want the article deleted have not added or suggested any inline sources and I don't think the general sources listed are enough to show notability. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Turkey, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article is very promotional and lacks independent sources. Reywas92^Talk 03:19, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of inorganic reactions

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

This article has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination rationale makes little sense: if some entries are incorrect, this can be solved by editing; if the entries are unsourced, again, this can be solved by editing. Deletion is not cleanup.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Infinitely-expandable list. "Reactions that involve inorganic compounds"...well, inorganic compounds are pretty abundant on this planet (H2O, O2, HCl, NaCl...) and they all undergo reactions. There is nothing inherently notable about a chemical reaction that involves an inorganic compound, and there is no way any source could talk about all (or even many) such reactions as a cohesive whole, as needed by WP:NLIST, because they would have nothing in common other than involving a reagent lacking carbon. And the list is unsourced. A total mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of academic sources dealing with inorganic reactions as a whole: e.g. [6], [7], [8] etc.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete As it stands, this would just duplicate a now-nonexistent category, and I'm also finding that it is full of inaccuracies, e.g. shell higher olefin process, which is clearly organic just from the name. Maybe a category would be a good idea but this list is not. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not just sure how much is inaccuracies vs. it just being subjective and ambiguous what you want to consider to be inorganic. The coordination chemistry with the nickel-phosphine complex feels inorganic, even if the reactants are all organic molecules. Do we want to consider organometallic chemistry to be inorganic? I noticed our Template:Branches of chemistry lists organometallic chemistry under inorganic, rather than organic chemistry, but it really is a mixture of both. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete. ill-defined list. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is it possible to bring this list up to par with List of organic reactions? And are they comparable in terms of scope, notability and "helpfulness"? YuniToumei (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked at the issue more closely, I find it hard to set a clear limited scope for this list. This conversation might be of interest, as it discusses this list's purpose, relation to the other list and why it was previously decided to not limit this list to purely inorganic reactions.YuniToumei (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a completely pointless and useless list, infinitely expandable. What about a List of Novels that include the Word "and"? Athel cb (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think there is infinitely numers of inorganic reactions [types]? Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of books covers inorganic reaction (types) and/or mechanism (same thing). E.g. search on google books with 'named "inorganic" reactions'Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This clearly only lists notable reactions and mechanisms, so it's certainly not infinitely expandable. There are plenty of articles and textbooks about inorganic reactions so this may be an appropriate navigational list that complements List of organic reactions, especially if perhaps made into a table to explain reagents and significance. As much as I dislike basic bullet point lists, there isn't a related category. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The lack of citations is a matter for clean-up, not deletion. Frankly, I don't think it needs citations given its a list of things (most other lists of the ilk do not have citations.) It follows the same principle as List of organic reactions. A lot of inorganic reactions are legitimately used in organic synthesis & that doesn't detract from their inorganic nature. Organometallic reactions (e.g. Suzuki/cross-coupling, Metathesis, metallation etc) are very organic, but they're also very inorganic. Organic chemists may find them to be useful tools used occasionally to achieve an end, but the inorganic chemist treats them with respect as their own unique grouping - not just occasionally dragged out the shed for their utility - and understands how and why they occur. This encyclopedic grouping is important and shouldn't be lost - something supported by the numerous books on the topic. See M.J. Winter's 'd-Block Chemistry', R. Whyman's 'Applied Organometallic Chemistry and Catalysis', Jenkin's "Organometallic Reagents in Synthesis", Henderson's "The Mechanisms of Reactions at Transition Metal Sites", R. Bates "Organic Synthesis Using Transition Metals". The list is theoretically infinitely expandable, but it shouldn't include every single reaction under the sun - and it doesn't. Keep it to the important ones, and the list is a wholly manageable and useful encyclopedic tool to help people navigate the field, and find the various tools at their disposal. - EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think there might be an assumption that some are making that this article is about every reaction between any given inorganic chemical with any other given chemical. But this article is about general kinds of reactions (oxidation, amination, dehydration, etc.) of which there is a finite and manageable number of notable such reactions. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Remake from scratch or delete. As identified by @YuniToumei, this list was created in August 2011 to be an inorganic parallel to the "List of organic reactions" page. The creator suggested it should be reasonably selective, but include all common general classes of reaction that rely on the action of inorganic compounds. The list has since ballooned out to 129 reactions. Most of these reactions are also covered in List of organic reactions, which is unsurprising as the organic list holds 790 reactions (i.e. it suggests ~10% of organic reactions involve at least one inorganic catalyst or reagent).
As an encyclopedia reader, I would expect a list of inorganic reactions to link to reactions whose primary topic is inorganic chemistry, rather than re-covering organic reactions. To fix this, I suggest we:
1. Create a category Category:Reactions using at least one inorganic compound (a subcategory of Category:Chemical reactions) to hold the reactions currently listed (as suggested by @Mangoe), then
2. Remake the list to cover only inorganic reactions (i.e. those in scope of Category:Inorganic reactions). For example, the list should cover the various metallothermic reductions, e.g. Aluminothermic reaction, Calciothermic reaction, Silicothermic reaction, and the Kroll process (magnesiothermic reduction), none of which are currently listed.

Preimage (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it is surprising that editors with little or no track record in chemistry editing are voting with such confidence. We're not talking about Taylor Swift or pop culture here, but hard core chemistry. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't make too many assumptions about people's backgrounds from their editing history. I have a degree in biochemistry, even though I primarily joined to add my photos of Japan. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are evenly divided here between editors advocating Keep and those supporting Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Point Directory

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources that would establish notability. The previous AfD contained a lot of vague gestures about "historical significance" without suggesting sourcing improvements. If voting Keep, please show that the subject meets notability requirements by pointing to specific secondary sources that are reliable and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Was unable to find any WP:SIGCOV about this topic. Considering this article was created in 2006 and only has one source, I doubt there will be any new or lasting coverage of this topic. Beachweak (talk) 12:45, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:19, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philtranco

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The company is common in the bus industry in the Philippines, but that does not necessarily make it notable enough to warrant a standalone article. The majority of the article's content is unsourced, and the references used are unreliable, with some pointing to tourism websites that may fall under WP:AFFILIATE or WP:UGC. A quick internet search reveals only passing mentions of "Philtranco" in news outlets, mostly in the context of bus accidents involving the company. This is insufficient to establish notability as per WP:INHERITORG and WP:CORPTRIV. AstrooKai (Talk) 06:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Transportation, and Philippines. AstrooKai (Talk) 06:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeon San-hae

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG, Only played on lower level and lacks significant and independent coverage, including ja:wiki which only has primary sources and a factsheet by Soccer-King. :Geschichte (talk) 05:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. The article also lacks anything besides statistics, which isn't enough for a whole article in on its own. AIntrestingGuy (talk) 06:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Ruiz (born 1996)

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

Seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT, at least a WP:BEFORE failed to turn up significant and independent coverage of the player. Lots of namesakes is admittedly a problem in that regard. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gjorge Gjorgiev

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. No significant and independent coverage of the player found. Geschichte (talk) 05:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reindorf Review

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Social science, and England. – The Grid (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Merge to University of Essex#Academic and Professional Integrity. Edited per discussion below. There are allegedly 10 sources on the page, but 4 are just from the review itself so ignoring those, I looked at the 6 remaining:
- Sex Matters [9] is certainly significant coverage, but looking at who they are, they call themselves a human rights charity, and the very name of the charity leads me to believe that this source is problematic because it is clearly advocacy. I am not sure exactly where this one falls down on GNG to be honest. It is independent, secondary and with significant coverage. I have no reason to say it is not reliable, but the advocacy is an issue. ?
- The Times [10] Lawyer demands inquiry into trans ‘gag’ by university is news reporting. A primary source. N
- The Guardian [11] is on topic generally but I cannot see any mention of this review or of Essex. N
- The Telegraph [12] As for the Guardian, no specific mention. N
- The Irish Examiner [13] And another one that doesn't mention it. N
- Impact [14] How can universities promote academic freedom? has significant coverage across two pages (23 and 24). It is independent, reliable and secondary. This one is very good. Y

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

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

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, there's been no academic notice of this article or the kerfuffle around it, as seen by the lack of Gscholar or Jstor articles. Rest of what's used in the article is non-RS or about the legal issues of the academics, not about this article itself. Could be briefly mentioned in the university's article, but there seems to be no lasting notability, nor any sort of academic study around the events of this article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:38, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: As I detailed above, it it discussed in the Human Rights Journal. Zeno27 (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Keep and improve with the additional sources above, or failing that merge with a dedicated section in the background of Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 per the HRQ source, and redirect there. Void if removed (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~@Sirfurboy: you have two !votes - one for weak keep and one for keep. Please strike whichever one you do not intend to retain. You cannot !vote twice.~~ `Simonm223 (talk)
Redirect to University of Essex#Academic and Professional Integrity. Here's the thing: there's something notable here, in the sense of having enough coverage to be included in Wikipedia. But it is already included in Wikipedia in at least three places: Jo Phoenix, Rosa Freedman, and University of Essex. At question here isn't whether there's something worth including in Wikipedia, but whether we need a stand-alone article -- not about the controversy which is covered at three other articles, but about a report that was produced as part of the controversy. I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of that. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be happy with a selective merge to that page. That page currently says, following the Reindorf Review, the university was obliged to apologise... with the review wikilinked here. I think that could be written out to briefly say what the Reindorf Review was, and why it was instigated. Also the Times reference above from Zeno27 deserves a mention. However, as per my comments above, a merge is better than a page here on PAGEDECIDE grounds. A redirect without merge loses a little information. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Zeno27.Lamptonian (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rhododendrites, particularly: At question here isn't whether there's something worth including in Wikipedia, but whether we need a stand-alone article -- not about the controversy which is covered at three other articles, but about a report that was produced as part of the controversy. I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of that. Honestly, I'm not even really convinced that the controversy itself is notable, inasmuch as it's part of a broader culture war topic (and those tend to drive a lot of reporting, out of proportion to how "notable" they really are). The report itself, much less so. I wouldn't oppose deletion, but since we've got a good redirect target, might as well. -- asilvering (talk) 05:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge and redirect to University of Essex#Academic and Professional Integrity. Having just the name of the report in the target article with no explanation loses detail for readers, so a selective merge is better than a straight redirect. Agree with Sirfurboy's source analysis, so notability is questionable. Rupples (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's try one more relist. I'm noticing that several are arguing for a redirect/merge, though at least 1 redirect !voter appears to oppose a substantial content merge beyond what is already present in the redirect/merge target. Additional detailed arguments regarding notability and/or WP:PAGEDECIDE would be helpful in ascertaining a more clear consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urartian people

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

WP:EXTENDED might be required due to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Armenia and Azerbaijan. Article creator does not have extended confirmed status.

Potentially WP:FRINGE sources. For example, with respect to this claim According to the migration-mixed hypothesis of Armeni ethnogenesis proposed by I. M. Diakonov, the Urartians, along with the Hurrians and Luwians[2], gradually adopted the Indo-European, Proto-Armenian language.

In The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia: (10,000-323 BCE), pp. 537-538:

According to one theory, the self-designation of the Armenians, hay , goes back to the earlier * hātiyos, “Hittite.” This is conceivable only on the assumption that masses of Proto-Armenians settled in one of the Neo-Hittite states, perhaps Melid (Diakonoff 1984 :125–27).

From self-designation to what is mentioned above is quite a jump.

Also uses massively outdated sources such as belonged to the Armenoid race of populations, which cites a source from 1957 Bogazicili (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was also reviewing the page at the same time, and was about to remove that last claim. We don't do "scientific racism" here.

More to the point, the topic of Urartian people (as in, the Urartian-speaking ethnic group, partially overlapping with but distinct from the population of Urartu) is very likely notable, but holy crap that article needs a rewrite. It is not clear whether WP:EXTENDED automatically applies (as the article might fall under the second point rather than the first), so my first choice would be keep, but rewrite to at least remove the WP:FRINGE material. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 17:16, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much all the sources seem fringe though. The earlier "theory" has a source from 1983. I didn't even read what's in the link, since my browser is giving a security warning for that page. There are no high quality WP:Secondary sources. No peer reviewed journal articles. Bogazicili (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An article about Urartians or Urartian people is missing in English-language Wikipedia. But it needs to be written WP:RS. Wikipedia:Competence is required might also be relevant here. Bogazicili (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, and Armenia. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Shellwood, why wasn't it listed under Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Turkey?? Bogazicili (talk) 13:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - article sufficiently demonstrates WP:N. Archives908 (talk) 22:08, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but potentially keep it seni-protected. Bearian (talk) 11:36, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a major clean-up, I don't think its as problematic now. The article can be improved with this chapter, accessible through Wikipedia Library. Bogazicili (talk) 14:18, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t judge too harshly, I took the information for the article mostly from the Russian Wikipedia. Marquis2425 (talk) 15:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also took the sources from there, their information and sources were outdated. I never intended to harm Wikipedia or violate the rules. Marquis2425 (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This does seem to require extended confirmed status. See: Administrators noticeboard topic. Bogazicili (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, I can’t write until I have an extended verified status? Marquis2425 (talk) 19:26, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can, just not about some (not all) Wikipedia:Contentious topics, most notably Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Armenia-Azerbaijan and Wikipedia:Contentious topics/Arab–Israeli conflict. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has enough WP:N Codonified (talk) 22:24, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Specific and detailed analysis of sources would be helpful in attaining a consensus; there are a good number of comments thus far that offer an opinion, but either don't give a rationale or are extremely vague.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 05:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron Refvem

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Absolutiva (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:19, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mavis Ma

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

This article seems to be written in a highly NPOV style, it almost reads like a political attack ad. I'm also not so sure this person even meets GNG and should not be considered notable through their brother(Although it is possible that I'm missing articles not in English). GoldMiner24 ^Talk 04:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the nom that the article currently documents too many "controversies" which potentially violates NPOV. Some minor incidents, such as the subject being scolded by her father in public or her endorsements of candidates, are totally UNDUE and can certainly be removed. However, I believe most content can stay, as much of the subject's political career involved dirty work, supported by numerous sources and opinion pieces like the one from Apple Daily by Neil Peng (source 33). Although NPOV is a serious concern, AFD is not cleanup, and I do not think notability is an issue for the subject. Currently, there are more than 30 sources listed in the article, with even more in the zhwiki one. I scanned through the first 10 sources, and sources 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 all provided SIGCOV on the subject and are certainly enough to pass GNG. Not to mention a simple Google News search can already yield many full articles about the subject, such as these articles from Central News Agency[15] and ETtoday[16]. I also think that her case regarding the violation of conflict of interest should be sufficient to meet WP:PERP. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niteon

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

Non notable technology startup. Sources about the company both in the article and those not yet cited are press leases Ednabrenze (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 04:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Mukoya

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

Autobiography falling below notability guidelines. Failed attempt for a parliamentary seat does not confer notability Ednabrenze (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Entertainment, Africa, and Kenya. Ednabrenze (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Engineering, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 1165

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

This galaxy doesn't seem to be notable and I can't find much significant coverage. I don't think it matches the notability of other galaxies I can find on Wikipedia. GoldMiner24 ^Talk 04:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The author had added extra evidence to establish WP:SIGCOV. I googled the galaxy and found a lot of references on astronomy sites and in astronomy books. I'm not an expert in this field by any means, but I think the galaxy is well covered. Best wishes, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 07:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Spain

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

Non-notable news anchor. Only obituaries and no viable career coverage, while a real estate agent dominates name searches. Article was created by blocked editor whose objective was to promote Jacksonville TV personalities on Wikipedia. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Television, Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG (WP:NBIO / WP:JOURNALIST) criteria. Lacks WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma talk 11:20, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While an understandable catch now, he just died and the community he belongs to seems grateful for the Wikipedia article. He was an TV personality for decades; deleting the article now just seems like really poor timing. I would at least wait a bit and see what comes of it. I know Wikipedia doesn't have to do this, but from what I read he died suddenly and tragically. It's been up for 13 years; it won't hurt for it to stay up for a little longer.

If marked for deletion, then https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSET-TV#Notable_former_on-air_staff would need to be updated, and we should consider marking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Walls for deletion, as he seems to fall in the same category as Spain. I am wondering if it may be notable to add a section on the WSET-TV article about Mark Spain, as from what I researched the community went all out in purple, including notable institutions such as Liberty University. Spbooker (talk) 04:32, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding on, since his passing, popular outlets such as the New York Post, Daily Mail, Deadline, and People have posted about his death. He is gaining notability post-mortem, and it is impossible to tell within a week what these articles may do for his notoriety. Spbooker (talk) 01:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, it would be helpful to review new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miyu Takahashi

AfDs for this article:

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

Super 500 tournament appears to be the only thing that has changed since Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 28 endorsed my closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miyu Takahashi. While sources can be found, it does not appear that sufficient have been found for this to be in mainspace and Takahashi lost in the first round which does not meet N:SPORT either. Bringing this here for discussion and further handling if needed. NB: this was created by a new editor, and Pppery performed the requisite history merge to address the copy paste move. Star Mississippi 04:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Star Mississippi 04:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Road Style

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

Uncited, essay-like page TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Tennessee, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack context. No references provided. Unable to WP:V. WP:NOR. Fail to meet WP:GNG / WP:SNG criteria. QEnigma talk 08:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artan Dulaku

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

Sources do not show that subject meets WP:NBLP. First result when looking up his name is his own website. E_F⁵ 03:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Albania. E_F⁵ 03:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG criteria in WP:NBIO, WP:NBASIC and WP:ANYBIO criteria. Limited material for WP:V. QEnigma talk 07:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

San Anselmo de Canterbury University

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV. Reliable, independent sources simply do not seem to exist for this university. Muzilon (talk) 03:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Christianity, and Chile. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG / WP:SNG criteria (WP:NORG / WP:SIRS). No news articles for WP:V. QEnigma talk 07:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oasis Restaurant

AfDs for this article:

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

This restaurant is not notable beyond is local environment. It is not a landmark; it has no historic significance. It is unheard of beyond the local area. Kingturtle = (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Companies, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as this is definitely not notable enough for its own article. Not even known beyond its local area, the article was probably created by someone who visited it frequently. AIntrestingGuy (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asset.tv

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tagged for multiple issues. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created as a promotional article, this has always lacked sourcing showing sufficient notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anastasia Galyeta

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Ukraine. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:21, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail WP:GNG (WP:NSPORT / WP:NSKATE) criteria. No WP:RS and WP:IS. QEnigma talk 11:45, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Azerbaijan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cantata Singers and Ensemble

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

Could only find brief concert ads in local newspapers such as The Boston Phoenix. Doesn't seem like there's any substantial coverage of the organization or its history. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Massachusetts. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:13, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. After half an hour of searching, I could not find anything relating to this whatsoever. It doesn't help that there are no sources in the article at all. Honestly I almost voted for Speedy Deletion, but there still isn't anything that would make it worthy of that. AIntrestingGuy (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Broghamer

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this assistant basketball coach. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Iowa. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woodside, Telford

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

This article is heavily written as a journal, has zero to any relevant sources and is not really up to date. Is this place really worth a single article or would it be better mentioned maybe in the Telford or Madeley articles? DragonofBatley (talk) 00:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale, @PamD, @Dave.Dunford, @Rupples, @DankJae, @KeithD others thoughts? Not WP:Canvassing btw just simply tagging editors I have seen active on most of the Telford and neighbouring areas articles...DragonofBatley (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article obviously needs referencing. There's three pages on Woodside in this book on Britain's new towns [17] and this [18]; part of a study, here [19] Rupples (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Also this: [20] Rupples (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Zeinali

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

DELETE — The article on Patrick Zeinali fails to meet Wikipedia's general notability guidelines WP:GNG for inclusion. The subject's coverage in reliable, secondary sources appears to be insufficiently substantial and independent of promotional or self-published content. While Zeinali has a notable presence on platforms like YouTube and TikTok, the majority of the references cited either derive from websites of questionable reliability or are focused on basic statistical data (e.g., subscriber count, views) and not substantive biographical or critical coverage.

The article primary relies on low-quality or non-independent sources with several of the sources cited, such as hypeauditor.com, socialblade.com, and networthspot.com, are not considered reliable for establishing notability. They primarily provide analytics and self-reported metrics rather than independent coverage.

The limited biographical mentions from "Creator Handbook" or "The Famous People" are either brief or fail to offer in-depth, independent analysis. No significant third-party journalistic or academic sources have been identified that discuss Zeinali's work or impact in a meaningful way.

Promotional tone and focus on social media metrics: The article leans heavily on discussing subscriber counts, followers, and collaborations with other creators, which aligns more closely with promotional content than encyclopedic coverage. Notability should stem from reliable, independent coverage of the subject's lasting impact, not their self-promotion or online popularity alone.

Given these factors, the article does not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion and could be considered for deletion unless more reliable, independent, and substantial sources are provided.

Nyxion303 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nyxion303 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Food and drink, Internet, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage found in ProQuest or a general Wikipedia Library search. Sources currently cited within the article are not reliable sources per the Wikipedia guideline WP:RELIABLESOURCES. Does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UP! (Forrest Frank and Connor Price song)

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

Seems to fail WP:NSONG; I am unable to find sufficient WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. There is this with three or four sentences of independent coverage, as well as this blog post and trivial mentions like this. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Christianity, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]