Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

4 September 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

< September 03	September 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Jeremy Carl

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

Lack of notability Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AH Milad

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

Article about a non-notable entrepreneur and author. Sources are promotional paid pieces. Does not satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Claim's of winning "UNICEF of the year 2023" which is not a thing, neither does such award exist. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, and Bangladesh. Jamiebuba (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mihai Apostol (footballer)

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

Failure of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Neither playing in the Moldovan league or lower leagues in Netherlands give any sort of automatic notability. The only non-database source in the article is a primary source (club), and searching for his name in conjunction with clubs, I could not find a shred of reliable sources. Geschichte (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Kongolo Antonov An-32B crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT. From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth, significant nor continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. No lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated as a result of the accident. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into An-32, the article itself is a stub and also fails WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE nothing much to expand upon in the An-32 category, although the entry in List of sole survivors of aviation accidents and incidents, could use some improvement to pertain the little information shown in this article. Lolzer3000 (talk) 18:23, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Antonov An-32. This article barely passes notability guidelines given and all of the content is mentioned inside the An-32 aircraft article under accidents and incidents section. Galaxybeing (talk) 11:28, 28 August 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) 12:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bellinzona Ladies Open

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

A very small tournament that seems to get no third party coverage. Even a plain google search just reveals primary sources. Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Tennis, and Switzerland. LibStar (talk) 05:32, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a womens Challenger level event that does get outside publicity. Whether its a 2021 event, or Tennis 24, or Tennis Point magazine on youtube. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All these 3 sources are primary. We need third-party sources, that is not connected to tennis. LibStar (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A source would only be a primary source if it was directly connected to the event organisers or the ITF, not merely because the source is a tennis-focussed source. Iffy★Chat -- 10:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are not primary sources. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do not regard a youtube clip of an event as a suitable, reliable source. As per WP:SPORTSEVENT, " To be notable, games should be extraordinary and have a lasting impact on the sport; news coverage should be extensive (e.g., outside of the week of its occurrence and in non-local newspapers)". The other 2 sources fails that. Especially one being just a listing of results. LibStar (talk) 23:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That applies for individual matches, not for leagues or tournaments. Iffy★Chat -- 09:32, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENT could also apply here. ": An event is presumed to be notable if it has lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time. Coverage should be in multiple reliable sources with national or global scope." This small tournament definitely fails that. LibStar (talk) 10:12, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need some more opinions here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:21, 28 August 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) 12:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson Gurley

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

The article on Dawson Gurley should be considered for deletion as it appears to lack notability under Wikipedia's guidelines for biographies of living persons. The subject, while known as a YouTube personality, does not meet the criteria for significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources that provide substantial analysis beyond trivial mentions. Much of the content is based on self-published sources or primary sources, which do not establish the depth of notability required for a standalone Wikipedia article. Without significant coverage from independent, reputable sources, the article does not meet the standards for inclusion and should be deleted. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mjbmr (talk) 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Galway Warriors

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

Non-notable (and short-lived) amateur sports team. In terms of WP:CLUB and WP:SIGCOV, I can find no independent/reliable/significant coverage of the team's activities during its relatively-short lifespan. A WP:BEFORE search returns less-than-independent webpages like this on the IAFL website (which contains no information that can be used to expand/support the article). Or ROTM local sports news coverage like this (which is also of limited use in expanding the article or establishing notability). It is hard to overlook that the article was created by an apparent COI/SPA contributor, with a quasi-promotional intent, before the org/team had contested even a single competitive game. (This seems such a clear-cut case that I had planned on PRODing. But I note it had already been PRODed. Before being dePRODed as part of a series of (yet more) promotional edits.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 10:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the amateur and not significant sports team. Significant coverage not present so it makes clear not notable page. --Johnpaul2030 (talk) 11:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Healthera

AfDs for this article:

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

it does not provide sufficient independent, reliable sources that prove the company's notability according to Wikipedia's guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, Websites, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stockly

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

I cannot find sufficient reliable news coverage independent of the topic here, per WP:CORP Loewstisch (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 08:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole Sahin

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Refs are most business news than BLP sources. Routine coverage. No indication of significance. scope_creep^Talk 07:59, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, California, Massachusetts, and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Nelson

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

No indication of significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 07:54, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Eritrea, Washington, D.C.

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

PROD tag removed due to concern about removing "national embassies without a discussion". Fails WP:GNG. No secondary sources. Effectively just a directory listing. AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and United States of America. AusLondonder (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Eritrea–United States relations: No WP:RS sources I found from a quick Google News. Ping me if anyone finds one Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:30, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jasdeep Singh Gill

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

Falls under WP:BLP1E, as the subject is notable for only one event. Also, all four sources appear to be part of a press release, as they were all published on the same date, 2 September 2024, mostly by news desks with similar content. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. – DreamRimmer (talk) 07:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notable for only one event as suggested by almost all of the third party reliable sources. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Hussain Keen

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

Non-notable per WP:NPOL, a middle-ranking party bureaucrat and failed 2014 candidate. If he wins in this year's election he'd be notable, so the article was draftified once, but then immediately recreated in main space. The only coverage I could find in a WP:BEFORE search was routine coverage of his candidacy, and passing mentions. Wikishovel (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Jammu and Kashmir. Wikishovel (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ex-Muslim activism in Kerala

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

There are no WP:RELIABILITY, Most of the sources given here are their YouTube channel links, sources are self-published, clearly fails WP:GNG. Thank you! Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, and Kerala. Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is a small group of people who are ex-Muslims in Kerala, Sources are provided mostly YouTube links, without sources significant socks. An online group that conducts debates and uploads them through a YouTube channel. In Kerala, there are "'Ex-Christians'" and "'Ex-Hindus'" like this. But none of them have an article and they all belong to the category of rationalist Kerala Yukthivadi Sangham article is included in this, it doesn't need a page, very few people are involved in this, they are a small group of non-religious people, currently in Kerala, people who come from other religions (Ex-religions) and are non-religious, it can be merged into this page. It can be Delete or merge into a page Ex-Muslims ~ Spworld2 (talk) 10:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Atheism and Islam. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDM Law College

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

Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:53, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:40, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SDM Institute for Management Development

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

Not notable educational institution. I can find nothing except listings showing it exists. Fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Karnataka. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Voyageurs Area Council

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

Blatant use of Wikipedia as if it's an extension of their website and this doesn't meet WP:NCORP. That it's likely incorporated as "non profit" and their pesence in MN, WI and MN is not within the intentions of WP:NONPROFIT. Graywalls (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Scouting, Companies, Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin. Graywalls (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are a lot of articles for councils: List of councils (Boy Scouts of America). Councils are run by volunteers in BSA and they usually are done based on region so I don't know where even the WP:NONPROFIT argument applies (if it even did). The more important thing is WP:N and if it doesn't hold, I would be more towards a redirect to the list provided or any Scouting-related page. – The Grid (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, it sounds like the council itself is in the process of shutting down and their territory is being merged into other councils. So, the probability that the council will continue to have any significant long-term web presence is low. While the article does have some problems, the proposal does not indicate why this council would be less notable than others, many of which have independent pages. Wikipedia has plenty of pages dedicated to organizations that no longer exist, including several about defunct BSA councils, so while this organization may not serve people in the future, it would have met WP:N standards during its period of operation. Within certain communities of interest, such as Scout Patch Collectors and Scouting historians, every council is notable enough to get a few pages in things like Scout patch identification guidebooks. Although many of the sources linked are from the council, there are already a few independent sources (but more are needed). I oppose deletion, although I would not object to significant edits to address the issues of neutrality, limited references, etc. ToddDTaft (talk) 20:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pages about organizations/companies that fail to meet the requirements of WP:NCORP don't qualify to have a standalone article. Graywalls (talk) 06:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
and there's room for merging/redirecting as articles such as Scouting in Minnesota and Scouting in Wisconsin exist (as a valid alternative to deletion) – The Grid (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The Grid:, Yep, merge was my first thought, however being that there's no single suitable target being it is relevant to MN, WI and MI, and the article unambiguously failing NORG, it leaves deletion as a reasonable option. Graywalls (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please consider the alternatives to deletion like Redirect or Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend keep, because this BSA council is no less notable than the hundreds of other councils that also have wikipedia articles. Furthermore, although much of the original material in the article (which Graywalls has already deleted without waiting for the results of this discussion) was poorly sourced, that is more appropriate for a Template:Primary sources to be added (to encourage other editors to contribute to the article) than a deletion request (which only discourages others from contributing). Johnson487682 (talk) 14:26, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions based primarily on the website of the organization, personal websites should be discouraged. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST is not a good justification to retain notability failing articles. As a matter of fact, there are so many articles in BSA topic area that are written essentailly from BSA operated sites, personal websites and blogs that they should be merged, redirected or deleted. If it was only in Minnesota, re-direct to Scouting in Minnesota is an easy one, but given it spans over three states, the target is not an easy pick. Graywalls (talk) 18:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The content was contrary to policy because any Wikipedia article must not be primarily based on self-published sources. See WP:ABOUTSELF (the five conditions are cumulative). The removal was necessary, and the AfD being in progress does not matter at all. —Alalch E. 10:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see no support for Deletion right now. While a Redirect requires a single target article, articles can be Merged to multiple articles so I don't see a problem there. However, just because, other, similar articles exist is not justification to keep this one if notability can not be established.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of councils (Boy Scouts of America) per nom. After my search for sources per WP:BEFORE I could not find any with something resembling significant coverage, let alone WP:ORGDEPTH-grade significant coverage, and all of the reliable sources I could find were local reports on mundane affairs such as the closing of a camp or local youth receiving scouting awards. WP:NCORP fail, can't provide legitimate encyclopedic coverage of this topic. Interested readers should look elsewhere for information, such as by visiting the organization's website.—Alalch E. 10:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Scouting in Minnesota#Voyageurs Area Council is a better redirect target. —Alalch E. 11:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel B. Cid

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

Not enough in-depth references for a WP:BIO, suggest redirecting the article to his notable creation OSSEC. Already done that, but was reverted. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Businesspeople. PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Elvish Yadav

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability issue. Winning one show and couple of music videos are not enough. Xegma(talk) 05:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, Television, Internet, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that the 50 ish refs do make the subject pass WP:NBASIC, could you specify the guideline that you are using to determine if they are notable or not? Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability for WP:GNG is determined by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources and that is already demonstrated by the references in the article including many newspaper articles, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom, almost half of the refs are about Bigg Boss OTT. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 18:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Clearly appears to be the subject of much third-party coverage from reviewing the sources. StewdioMACK (talk) 20:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to identify which sources provide SIGCOV helping to establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bowie Jane

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

fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Television. Joeykai (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Law, Australia, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:GNG per these sources [1][2][3][4] which give fairly significant coverage to the subject. There are also other sources available that when combined further their notability for an article. Ednabrenze (talk) 08:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, source 8 above is a brief album review in Billboard (fine I guess), the rest are about the season of Big Brother and mention this person in relation to the others on the show. Not exactly significant coverage. Oaktree b (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the Big Brother season? Seems to have survived long enough on the show, but I'm not sure they're notable outside of that context. Doesn't seem to meet musical notability requirements either. The Billboard review is fine, but it's used for musical notability, then we go onto the TV show sources; you have to pick one sort of notability, you can't stack them. Being almost notable as a DJ and almost notable as a TV personality don't add up to an article here. I'm not fussed if this gets !deleted either. Oaktree b (talk) 18:28, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hopefully we'll see more participation. Also, to the nominator, in the future, please provide a more comprehensive deletion rationale that demonstrates BEFORE has been done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources I added.

Sources:

Gorman, Brigid O (23 April 2013). "Barrister's a secret singing sensation". Lawyers Weekly. Retrieved 1 September 2024.
"Meet Bowie Jane". VoyageLA (Interview). 5 April 2021.
Doreian, Robyn (25 August 2013). "All out, all change". Lifestyle. The Sun-Herald. Sydney: Fairfax Media. p. 12. Retrieved 1 September 2024. While studying law and commerce at Deakin University, she played covers at restaurants in an acoustic duo. Once qualified, the flip side to courtrooms was laser-lit gigs at venues like Transport, at Melbourne's Federation Square, where she blasted her energetic originals. And in 2013, she sang at the Australian Open tennis tournament. The moniker Bowie Jane came from her nickname - ever since she was a child, she's worn glittery bows in her hair. It was also how she kept her alter ego hidden from colleagues and clients. ... In March, she shelved four years of law practice and moved to London to become a star.

Bad Boy

"Dance Club Songs". Billboard. 13 October 2018. Retrieved 1 September 2024.

I also found this unreliable law profile source, with her real name:

"Miranda Ball". Meldrum's List. Retrieved 1 September 2024. The law profile notes: "Miranda's experience is extensive having run high profile White Collar Crime Litigations as both a Partner then Barrister. Her recent work includes the Bernie Madoff litigations in Bermuda & the UK, Operation Wickenby, Australian Crime Commission investigations and examinations, Special Leave Applications to the High Court of Australia, Legal Professional Privilege Claims, Constitutional Challenges, Children's Court hearings, Australian Taxation Office litigations/investigations and Coronial Inquests."

There is sufficient coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, plus the sources identified by @Ednabrenze to allow the subject to pass the general notability guideline, requiring "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." --Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 06:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I'd like to get a second opinion on these recently located sources. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Lynch

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

Article remains mostly bare that does not pass GNG. Grahaml35 (talk) 02:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Rhode Island. Skynxnex (talk) 03:55, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ There are 25 sources for him on Newspapers.com but they are just passing references or him being quoted about another issue. If someone finds other material please ping me. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:04, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- - Redirect to Lynch v. Donnelly, it's the most notable thing he's known for. I did go back and try to find some other sources but wasn't able to. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Lynch was the defendant of the Supreme Court Case Lynch v. Donnelly and was honored by the Rhode Island General Assembly for his service in a delegation to China and his work to redevlop the City of Pawtucket. Furthermore, he was director of Rhode Island's Division of Purchases and served in "numerous other" posts for the State Government. Microplastic Consumer (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lynch v. Donnelly. The claims stated by the commenter above me are not "inherently" notable enough to guarantee inclusion in an encyclopedia — "director of a state Division of Purchases" is not an WP:NPOL-passing job, for example, and being honored by the legislature isn't an instant inclusion freebie either. So if his actual strongest notability claim is that he was involved in a noteworthy legal case, then he can be redirected to our article about the legal case, but he doesn't get his own standalone article as a separate topic from the case without a heck of a lot more substance and sourcing than has been offered so far. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, I think this discussion could use a few more days.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ruben Katsobashvili

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

According to the recently published book Terrible Humans by Patrick Alley, a co-founder of the anti-corruption NGO Global Witness, this page is a wholly false biography. The book, in the chapter 'The Gatekeeper', states that it was created as part of a scheme establishing a network of false, or shell, companies designed to enable Dan Gertler and others to evade sanctions imposed by the United States Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control in December 2017 for their role in 'opaque and corrupt mining and oil deals in the Democratic Republic of the Congo'. Katsobashvili is also mentioned on the EN:WP page for Interactive Energy, another Gertler-related company involved in the scheme. Further details available if required.14GTR (talk) 04:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep for failing to assert a valid deletion rationale.

Clearly Global Witness has decided to make an issue of the truth of his biography, and their claims have been reported by others. And no doubt you find their claims and that of their founder credible. But an NGO being unhappy with a Wikipedia article doesn't constitute a deletion rationale.

He does get press coverage (some of which includes the allegations by Global Witness) like [5], [6], [7]. So it seems likely that the article passes WP:GNG (and you certainly haven't made the argument it doesn't).

I'm not trying to defend this guy, or advocating for keeping an article if it's just a bunch of lies. But if you have reliable sources demonstrating that parts of the article are untrue, wouldn't the appropriate thing to be to add those claims to the article? Then we get a full picture rather than just taking an approach that results in Wikipedia containing no information about this person. Oblivy (talk) 05:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Georgia (country), and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abhishek Malhan

AfDs for this article:

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

Runner up of the show and doing lots of music video is not enough for notability. Xegma(talk) 04:30, 4 September 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, Internet, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Central Library, Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

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

no non-primary sources found. Sohom (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify it for now, need to add more independent sources. Xegma(talk) 04:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Education, and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject does not meet the WP:GNG or WP:NORG due to a lack of secondary sourcing about the team itself. The only source is primary and does not cover the team itself in any event. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Singapore. Let'srun (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lacks significant coverage. Does not meet notability guidelines. Priscilladfb16 (talk) 10:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 3 September 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) 03:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Like not meet notability and WP:GNG 🌀TyphoonAmpil🌀 (💬 - 📝) 07:45, 4 September 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.

Germany women's national under-18 softball team

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

Unable to find any sources suggesting this subject meets the WP:NORG or WP:GNG. The only sources currently in the article are WP:PRIMARY and are not about the team in any event. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Germany. Let'srun (talk) 00:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The only references for the article are official results from International Softball Federation, without any other significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. This article fails to meet WP:GNG. ~~~~ Priscilladfb16 (talk) 10:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 02:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not eligible for Soft Deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:33, 3 September 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) 03:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Anthem of the Republic of the Rif

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

It does not appear to meet GNG and I don't believe there are guidelines for national anthems themselves. Based on my search on Google and TWL I could not find any sources. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. IntentionallyDense (talk) 02:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Folley

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

Fails WP:ARTIST and probably WP:GNG as well. The sources that I was able to verify are either insignificant coverage or not independent of the subject. I searched for other sources, but only found the artist's blog, a YouTube video, some mentions on gallery sites, and the usual social media sites. I was not able to located the article "Old Master", so I don't know how much coverage it includes. I also wasn't able to find "David Folley: Portrait of a Painter", but considering that it was published by Zap Art Promotions, I'm guessing it isn't independent and was probably created to accompany an exhibit. Overall, the subject seems to be a successful professional artist with the usual smattering of coverage in local media that you would expect. They don't, however, seem to be notable enough for an encyclopedia article, but I would be happy to hear other opinions. The article about their painting The Descent from the Cross (David Folley) also seems to have questionable notability, but I'll leave that discussion for another day. Nosferattus (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Nosferattus (talk) 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:48, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, someone went to prison for a rather nasty attack on a foreigner in Wales that has the same name as this fellow... That's about all I find for sourcing. No listing in the Getty ULAN [8] either. Sourcing now in the article is purely local in nature, not helping show the notability needed. Oaktree b (talk) 02:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang

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

Nominating both Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang and Panglima Bandahala for deletion. Created by the same editor, they appear to be based entirely on the blog posts of one person (with very similar text) and then refbombed with sources that aren't about them.

Bundled nomination for:

Sayyid Capt. Kalingalan Caluang
Panglima Bandahala Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Royalty and nobility, Islam, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Page is a complete mess, not up to WP standard. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom, that's why I tag it for unreliable source. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk)

(contribs) 03:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Started to review it. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 06:36, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BASIC and seems to be based on a blog post with no sourcing. cyberdog958^Talk 06:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not more than a promotion of someone's grandfather on Wikipedia. 223.204.71.128 (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time dilation creationism

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

Fails WP:NFRINGE. I find no notice of this by WP:FRIND sources. Only creationists seem interested enough to comment. Wikipedia really is WP:NOT for discussing every flight-of-fancy that a creationist has about how to reconcile their religious beliefs with scientific facts. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity, Astronomy, and Biology. jps (talk) 20:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. 5Q5|^✉ 09:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of meeting notability guidelines, which would be provided by significant coverage in non-crackpot sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per WP:FRINGE creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Nom admits this is a religious, not scientific topic, and yet proposes to apply scientific article criteria to it, making this nomination completely erroneous and hence eligible for speedy keep per SK#3. The religious sources are sufficient and appropriate (independent, etc.) for GNG to be satisfied. Jclemens (talk) 00:47, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What an absurd argument. Creationists routinely present their arguments as 'scientific', and are clearly doing so in this particular instance. Just read the sources cited. Pseudoscience does not cease to be pseudoscience when promoted to support religious faith. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they do. And when they're doing so on a religious basis, religious rules apply, not FRINGE. Sorry if you don't like the guideline, but I didn't write it. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant section in WP:FRINGE makes absolutely clear that it is referring to Notable perspectives and states the fact that claims from [e.g. creationist] perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. The article presents zero evidence that either mainstream theologians nor mainstream scientists have even heard of this 'perspective', never mind bothered trying to address it. The only non-creationist source currently cited in the article doesn't even bother to describe the 'perspective' in any detail, instead mentioning "time dilation" in passing in a single sentence in a section on "Examples of Pseudoscience". [9] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the article? In what way is this article describing the creation of the world on a purely religious basis? Are you claiming that Russell Humphreys believes that time dilation is some sort of theological allegory?! jps (talk) 14:55, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's literally using Christian-themed sources, 6 and 7 in particular. Christianity is still a religion... That's what the person was explaining. Oaktree b (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To add to the above, the suggestion that the religious sources being cited are 'independent' is both questionable and irrelevant, since they clearly aren't reliable sources for anything but the beliefs of their own authors regarding an obscure theory. Nothing is cited that establishes that this particular pseudoscientific hypothesis is even significant within creationism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I stripped out the science WP templates from the talk page as being non-relevant. The stub template was changed from cosmology to creationism. Beyond that I have no particular preference; it's pure pseudoscience so astronomy isn't all that relevant. Praemonitus (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks notability in RS. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be kept in mind that the primary focus of the article is not scientific, but religious. It is a theological doctrine more than serious science. Thus it should be viewed with the criteria of a religious article. I did not intend to promote this thing when creating the article and I did not intend to promote fringe theories, but I thought that the article should be there to represent different religious doctrines. And as someone else already noted, WP:FRINGE reads: creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Thus the point of the original deletion request does not seem to be valid. As a religious doctrine, there seems to be just enough coverage for it. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 05:53, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See my response to Jclemens above. No evidence has been provided that this perspective/doctrine has been "disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists". Or discussed in any detail by non-creationist sources at all. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:20, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you don't understand what is religious and what is not is not our responsibility. Science is testable under controlled, repeatable conditions; this is not. Jclemens (talk) 20:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, you have just discovered pseudoscience. As for what is or isn't religious, I have a degree in anthropology, and accordingly could write an entire dissertation on why trying to divide things into the religious and the non-religious is a fools errand. Fortunately though, that is unnecessary, since Wikipedia doesn't take such questions into account when dismissing as non-notable obscure proposals regarding time dilation and the origins of the universe only discussed in unreliable sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:09, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You realize you just ceded the point that this is a religious topic, right? That makes your critique of the sources as "crackpot" irrelevant and voids your !vote: the sources in the article may not be appropriate for a scientific discourse, but there's nothing obviously wrong with them as religious sources. Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis are reliable sources--torchbearers, really--for the literalist Genesis/YEC religious perspective, so notability is met unless this is entirely a non-religious topic, which you have just ceded you cannot definitively assess. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You now seem to be claiming that the mere fact that Ken Ham or Answers in Genesis have written about something makes it inherently notable. That is utterly absurd. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Religious content can be crackpot. For example, this content. jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing to indicate that this is an independent 'theory' in its own right rather than just an epicycle or fudge factor to try to get creationism to fit the observed facts. Could be appropriately and adequately covered here. Brunton (talk) 07:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be fine with moving the contents to another article if the topic is deemed not worthy of a separate article by a consensus. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the complete lack of coverage in non-creationist sources, and the lack of evidence that this is even significant to creationism, there is nothing to move. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense. If there's verifiable content--and there is--an appropriate merger is a perfectly valid ATD. Jclemens (talk) 04:05, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What "verifiable content" is there? The fantasies of Young Earth Creationists that no one else even bothers to notice? jps (talk) 15:28, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is literally a single WP:RS. That means no significant coverage, as in not notable, and that in fact it’s . We have long used WP:FRINGE to get rid of essays and pages that are little more than gee-whiz trivial nonsense, hey look at this kooky little idea. Bearian (talk) 03:19, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am sorry if I misjudged the worthiness of the topic to be on Wikipedia when I created it, I did not intend to promote fringe theories. If I was wrong, then it can just be deleted. I thought that since it is a religious topic and I was able to find multiple religious sources about it, then it could be worth its own article, but I may have been mistaken about their worthiness on such a topic. --ValtteriLahti12 (talk) 06:13, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to apologize. WP:FRINGE is hard to get right especially as there are often sources that show up about fringe topics which superficially look reasonable (and might be in less, let's say, controversial areas). The general principle that I find works well is that we can have articles on fringe subjects when they are noticed by people who are not convinced that the fringe idea in question is necessarily correct, but where it gets confusing is when you have internecine disputes among fringe claimants so it looks like you have "independent analysis" in the sources when instead you are just looking at different flavors of fringe. Keeping topics out of Wikipedia for which sourcing cannot follow the WP:MAINSTREAM understanding is one of the better solutions we've arrived at to keep the integrity of the reference work high. The alternative is a free-for-all. jps (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except that this isn't FRINGE. It's religious. It has "creationism" right there in the title. Jclemens (talk) 04:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its fringe, even for creationism. And it isn't notable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notable perspectives which are primarily non-scientific in nature but which contain claims concerning scientific phenomena should not be treated exclusively as scientific theory and handled on that basis. For example, the Book of Genesis itself should be primarily covered as a work of ancient literature, as part of the Hebrew or Christian Bible, or for its theological significance, rather than as a cosmological theory. Perspectives which advocate non-scientific or pseudoscientific religious claims intended to directly confront scientific discoveries should be evaluated on both a scientific and a theological basis, with acknowledgment of how the most reliable sources consider the subjects. For example, creationism and creation science should be described primarily as religious and political movements and the fact that claims from those perspectives are disputed by mainstream theologians and scientists should be directly addressed. Fringe theories that oppose reliably sourced research—denialist histories, for example—should be described clearly within their own articles, but should not be given undue weight in more general discussions of the topic. Emphasis mine. Jclemens (talk) 04:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've already read that. And quoted it above. Where I pointed out that "mainstream theologians and scientists" have said absolutely nothing on this topic. Which is why it is fringe, why it isn't notable, and why an appropriate encyclopaedic article cannot be written. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It bases articles on secondary sources, removed from the subject itself. Not on a few primary sources arguing the toss about pseudoscientific hokum amongst themselves. There is no religious exception to Wikipedia notability requirements. Notability is demonstrated through coverage in sources independent of the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let it go, man. Your ridiculous misunderstanding is clearly not the consensus understanding of our community. If you want to change our rules, start a conversation elsewhere. jps (talk) 15:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, while I've disengaged, several others have come along and agreed with my perspective. I do not think the consensus is what you think it is. Jclemens (talk) 17:14, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies or Delete, i don't know if you can redirect a maybe plausible search term to an article without mentioning in the target. Struggling to find even that much. fiveby(zero) 13:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to young Earth creationism, which this is a minor variant off. Slatersteven (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: While fringe hypotheses can be notable, there isn't enough coverage of this one in WP:RS to warrant a separate article. Any content from this article that's up to standard should be merged/transcluded into one of the other articles on creationism. 0xchase (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies and mention it by name there since the it is the "relativistic effects" mentioned. This comes up in teaching astronomy classes and there is a source:

Bobrowsky, Matthew (2005). "Dealing with Disbelieving Students on Issues of Evolutionary Processes and Long Time Scales". Astronomy Education Review. 4 (1): 95–118. doi:10.3847/AER2005007.

StarryGrandma (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as opinion is divided between Keep, Delete and Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Creation_science#Creationist_cosmologies, see no reason it can’t or wouldn’t be mentioned there. Hyperbolick (talk) 01:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the correct solution (otherwise Keep). It's obviously creationist claptrap, but that's not a reason to delete it, as Wikipedia shouldn't be the guardian of scientific orthodoxy. Athel cb (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced that the term "time dilation creationism" is used enough to make a redirect necessary. Googling it brings up hardly any hits, several of which seem to originate with the article here. It doesn't seem to be a thing. Brunton (talk) 18:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Young_Earth_creationism#View_of_the_Bible as a parallel subsection as Interpretations_of_Genesis. The title is a highly specialized jargon that is exclusively related to the field of creationism, and as the article itself claims, it “is a form of the Young Earth creationism”. Given the current shortness of the article, a reader would frequently click back and forth between this and other pages related to creationism for a better understanding. It’s actually easier for readers if the short article be merged with a most relevant and more comprehensive article. Nihonjinatny (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It's not clear to be relevant as a standalone idea to merit being talked about. And besides, the only criticism is from other creationists, the article still lacks a mention to the mainstream scientific ideas. And for those saying that "this is religion, not science", that distinction is only relevant on how we write the article. Notability, if we should have an article to begin with, is unconcerned by that. Neither religious nor scientific topics are automatically exempt from the notability guideline just because of their topic. Cambalachero (talk) 16:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Same as previous relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:37, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect/merge if an appropriate target can be found. Current coverage is not sufficient and I am unable to locate additional coverage which would be either. Not seeing any pressing reasons to believe that such coverage does exist either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Two different Redirect/Merge target articles are being proposed, would there be any consenus on this point? This might be a valid search term.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:41, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only RS I'd consider is 2, the Proceedings, and that's a big "if". Creation.com or Answers from genesis don't strike me as RS, and I don't find anything else that we can use to describe this phenomenon. Gscholar of course has nothing about this, so I'm not sure what we can use to build an article. Oaktree b (talk) 03:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If we must !merge, the creationist cosmologies would be my choice... I don't even think this warrants more than a brief mention there. Deletion is still my choice. Oaktree b (talk) 03:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:FRINGE seems to establish that things like creationism should be evaluated for notability on both a religious and scientific basis. That does not mean they are exempt from the guideline. The only reliable independent source is the Stephen Law chapter on the epistemology of pseudoscience which mentions this in a single sentence as an example of an argument a creationist might make. With respect to those who've suggested a merge, there simply is not anything that meets notability to merge here. Chaste Krassley (talk) 07:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social value (definition)

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

Fails WP:NOTADICTIONARY and maybe WP:N. Also, the entire article seems to be written by ChatGPT. It should at most be a section in Value (ethics and social sciences) SecretSpectre (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. SecretSpectre (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY and doesn't seem to be a notable topic outside of that. If we were to delete all the AI junk, we would have no article. C F A 💬 02:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant material into Value (ethics and social sciences) and delete. Wikipedia does need some coverage of "social value" because of the term's usage in UK legislation and public sector practice. There is some defining information on "social value", "social value requirements", and "social value clauses" in the Welsh government's guidance document at https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/pdf-versions/2023/4/4/1681394730/procurement-guidance-on-social-value-clauses-community-benefits.pdf. BobKilcoyne (talk) 04:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing of value to merge. The entire article is AI-generated nonsense. C F A 💬 12:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Looks like a dictionary definition. IntentionallyDense (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Czech Airlines destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, plain logic

Logic is failed because this is a largely a list of places that Czech Airlines wasn't flying to in February 2024, as is indicated by the overwhelming majority of them being listed as "terminated". Czech Airlines only flew to four destinations in February 2024, all of which are already mentioned on the Czech Airlines page, making this page redundant. Anyone asserting that these "terminated" destinations are of historical interest needs to show historical sourcing for that (i.e., historical journal, history book etc.) - Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own historical research about where an airline used to fly.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is largely sourced to old timetables published by the airline (e.g., this one), or to the company website, or to run-of-the-mill articles based on company press-releases and statements and trade-press coverage or local-news failing WP:AUD. Additionally, many of the links are 404, making them fail verifiability. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present nor could I find any. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Aviation, Lists, and Czech Republic. FOARP (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:47, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge It continues to be false that this falls under NOTCATLOGUE, as this is not used as a resource for conducting business, particularly if they're about to cease conducting business! The mere fact that people can be informed about the company's operations does not make it a business resource, nor are products and services broadly forbidden. A basic list of two countries and four continents is not a replacement of the information. The article needs more sources, but there is adequate coverage of the airline's operations to include its destinations here or in the main article. A link being dead does not mean the fact itself is impossible to verify or the whole article must be deleted. Listing former destination is not indiscrimination, but that could call for modifications rather than complete deletion. Reywas92^Talk 13:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This airline literally only flew to four destinations "As of February 2024". What is the point of listing places it possibly used to fly to at some point, but didn't fly to in Feb 2024, based on original research in primary sources? If the answer is "because of historical importance", then where are the historians covering this topic? PS - see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Air Malta destinations which recently closed as delete, which also covered an airline whose destinations were all "terminated", and where you made substantially the same arguments. FOARP (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To expand on the WP:OR issue discussed above, take the listing of Tirana as a "Terminated" destination on this page. This is cited to a 1966 pamphlet issued by the airline, but that surely doesn't support a claim that the destination was "terminated" in February 2024? In fact there's no way to reach that conclusion with this data, because even if Tirana isn't included in Czech Airlines' current services, there's a bunch of different reasons why that might be so that don't involve them previously having gone there but now having terminated the service, including errors in the original claim (or the later claim that they don't fly there), Tirana having been a destination they planned to go to but never went to, Tirana being part of a wider network, and the flight still being operated.

In fact, according to the airline website, Czech Airlines do still fly to Tirana.

Now this might seem like a minor, one-off error, but in fact this entire list was largely assembled using the same approach of synthesising primary sources to reach a conclusion that they don't actually support. Moreover this is repeated across the entire corpus of airline-destination articles as a whole. FOARP (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, various WP:NOT violations. Rosbif73 (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:IINFO. A list of every place this airline has ever flown to since it started operations 100 years ago feels like a collection of trivia. Sunnya343 (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's no reason to delete this - as per the other AfDs I'm not convinced WP:NOT applies and the destinations are well covered in WP:GNG. Furthermore, this airline is ending operations in less than two months, so this currently and will serve as encyclopedic information about places they flew. SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other thing to note is that those claiming WP:NOT - there's no broad consensus about whether these actually fail WP:NOT as a group at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 17:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not PROMO for companies to advertise their services. Fails WP:NLIST due to a lack of coverage. Let'srun (talk) 15:02, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea that this is advertising is utterly laughable. Sorry to OSE, but I take it you'll be nominating List of McDonald's products next? Reywas92^Talk 16:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:29, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Czech Airlines#Destinations as an alternative to deletion. Not a notable list in of itself and the information is already summarized at the targeted page. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Both a Merge and Redirect have been mentioned during this discussion, do these options have any support?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm OK with redirection or merger, with a preference for redirection as the relevant content is already in the main article to the extent that it's WP:DUE. FOARP (talk) 08:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Askew Saddlery Company

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

Reviewed during NPP. Only has a single source, and no additional reliable sources were found online. Does not satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:05, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Missouri. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets NCORP. Significant coverage: Kansas City Journal (also [10]), Kansas City Times (also [11]), Implement Dealers Bulletin, The Atchison Daily Champion. Was apparently involved in a high-profile labour dispute in the late 1800s. 558 results on newspapers.com alone. 5 pages of results on Google books. There is a paragraph of coverage from 2021 here. C F A 💬 02:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Anson

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

Redirect to The Amityville Horror. I did WP:BEFORE and there are a lot of reviews of The Amityville Horror and notices about his death. I wasn't able to find anything else about him outside of those two events. I checked Archive.org and Google but nothing was jumping out at me. Since I nominated this article if anyone finds some sources please ping me so I can add them to the article and I'll withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Authors. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the redirect. He's not independently notable. As far as I've seen, coverage is always about the book. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:18, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Beautiful Lie Tour

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

Redirect to either Thirty Seconds to Mars or A Beautiful Lie. I did WP:BEFORE on Google, Newspapers.com and Archive.org. I was able to find newspaper articles about a tour that happened to promote the release of A Beautiful Lie but I couldn't find anything about the tour being called "A Beautiful Lie Tour". I looked at the way the Lights in the Sky tour was handled for Nine Inch Nails and it directs to the album it was promoting The Slip (album). Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Events. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plants vs. Zombies (disambiguation)

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

Only the first game and the franchise go by the name of just simply "Plants vs. Zombies" meaning that this disambiguation page is absolutely not needed. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Disambiguations. C F A 💬 00:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

* Speedy Keep Sources were easy to find that call the games Plants vs. Zombies 2 etc. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:57, 4 September 2024 (UTC) [reply]

- ~~Snow, Nathan (2017-04-28). "Plants vs Zombies Heroes great strategy intro". The Daily Spectrum. Saint George, Utah, United States of America. pp. A4. Retrieved 2024-09-03.~~
- Delete I'm a fool and managed to misread multiple things. Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:15, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with the disambiguation page? No one is suggesting we delete Plants vs. Zombies 2 page itself... Sergecross73 msg me 01:52, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I thought they were talking about the game titles having more content in them then just Plants vs Zombies. Guess I misread that one! Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, kind of figured it was something like that. Sergecross73 msg me 03:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but those games are not called Plants Vs. Zombies. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not actually a disambiguation page, and this series is too small to need a list. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:08, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- generally speaking, pages in a disambiguation page generally must only include entities that go by the exact same name. Say for example, Mega Man (disambiguation) only includes entities titled "Mega Man" as opposed to including entities without the exact common name such as Mega Man II or Mega Man X. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:27, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, and this series only has two, the series and the first game, so this page should be deleted. QuicoleJR (talk) 09:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to disambiguate and has no content not already in Plants vs. Zombies. cyberdog958^Talk 05:56, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plants vs. Zombies already exists, which lists all PvZ games. There is no reason to disambiguate the topic. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:02, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A DAB page is not a search index. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree per above. No one refers to Plants vs Zombies 2 as simply Plants vs Zombies. This is an example of WP:ONEOTHER even though a few more items are listed JuniperChill (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:REDUNFORK of Plants vs. Zombies Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to have been created by a newer editor who probably doesn't understand the purpose for r concept of a dab page, because this doesn't serve one. Sergecross73 msg me 12:35, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viva Van

AfDs for this article:

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

Article deleted by consensus last month; G4 Speedy contested. Additional sources added by contester still don't appear to meet GNG as they are either results/routine coverage or interviews with the subject. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Music, Wrestling, and California. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Viva Van is currently active with AEW/ROH, the previous discussion was relisted however it was deleted before any additional discussion could take place, I've added an article from the Miami Herald, as well as several Fightful Select, Post Wrestling etc. links which we use on several pages concerning independent wrestlers. I think her role in the CMLL Women's championship match against Willow Nightingale is a good example of notability. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:59C0:5620:58ED:634F:B3D5:5673 (talk) 21:58, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Same reasoning as my !vote a month or so ago, just not enough to show notability. Match reports are about all that come up. Oaktree b (talk) 00:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Creator of the article here, my reasoning is similar to that of Thief-River-Faller. She makes recurring appearances in AEW/ROH (even if only as an "enhancement talent"), and has made appearances for both of Mexico's main promotions, AAA (appearing at their main event of the year, Triplemanía, in 2023) and CMLL (the aforementioned women's championship match involving Willow Nightingale), and as a result has been subject of articles from mainstream publications such as the Miami Herald. EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Just last month. a previous AFD closed as Delete so I think the discussion would benefit from a little more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added more sources to the article where she is the primary topic. One source is Pro Wrestling Illustrated, which is a generally reliable source on WikiProject Pro Wrestling's list of sources, as well as an interview conducted by Denise Salcedo. Salcedo is an employee of Wrestling Observer Newsletter and Fightful, both of which are considered reliable sources by the aforementioned list. These new sources, in addition to sources already in the article, help her clear WP:SIGCOV criteria. CeltBrowne (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews of the subject cannot be used to meet WP:GNG due to not being independent of the subject. Both of the sources you added were interviews with the subject. I'm still not seeing anything in the article which indicates the subject has met GNG in the month since the last article was deleted (which, if this is kept, should be undeleted and attributed to, since I don't think there was much different). ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 21:44, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As I pointed, my main concern is the sources. Wrestlers need reliable sources focusing on them. Most of the article is just WP:RESULTS, that means, reports about TV shows where she worked, but the report is not about her. We can use Cagematch and create articles for every wrestler on the planet, that's why we need to include sources about the wrestler. For example, AEW section has 5 sources, 4 of them, WP:RESULTS. ROH section has 1 source, which is WP:RESULTS (Her ROH career isn't notable). Impact Wrestling has one source, WP:RESULTS. Almost every match on the Independent Circuit it's WP:RESULTS (I don't get why her work with Hoodslam it's relevant at all). We can't just take matches from famous promotions to create an article. On the other side, it's fine to read articles from Denice or Miami Herald about her. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Denice interview has too little secondary context to base a BLP article off of it, especially so since in this instance it's published on The Sportster which is redlisted at WP:RS/PS#Valnet and specifically listed as unreliable at WP:PW/RS. The PWI interview is literally just the raw interview on YouTube. Even if we count Miami Herald, that's still one source. ― "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk) 16:24, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article is a moving target as sources are being added and removed during the course of this discussion. Sources that merely mention an appearance in a match and pure interviews are not considered SIGCOV. A source assessment table might help settle the disagreement over the quality of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nayatel

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

I don't see this company meeting SIGCOV or even NCORP. The article mostly relies on sources tied to the organization, GENREL sources and even sources thats falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The company is a regional ISP and citations are mostly reliable newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isoceles-sai (talk • contribs) 13:47, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Isoceles-sai, Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:17, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I count 4 non-promotional articles in national English language newspapers. Another 2 non-promotional articles in technology press. Isoceles-sai (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Links? — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP they are prividing 300 MB fiber internet, even PTCL is not providing 300 MB. Partner of FB as per DAWN.--Ameen Akbar (talk) 14:11, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- امین اکبر, This was WP:THISNUMBERISHUGE. Please provide coverage that meets SIRS and SIGCOV. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 15:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Dawn (newspaper) is RS for Pakistan. There are other sources as well. FB partner with this org showing it is leading in country. Ameen Akbar (talk) 10:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Please avoid WP:ATA such as WP:MUSTBESOURCES — Saqib (talk I contribs) 21:16, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Providing internet access, regardless of speed, is not notable here, that's what internet companies around the globe do. Oaktree b (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the !keep votes give any rationale for no deleting the article. No SIGCOV and I agree with the nom. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 16:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:30, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as this in-depth case study about the company in a reputed academic journal is an example of significant coverage. There is some additional negative coverage in form of controversies ([12], [13]) and some facts shared by Ameen Akbar suggest it is potentially a very notable topic per WP:GNG. 194.213.16.36 (talk) 19:41, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 00:07, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 194.213.16.36. C F A 💬 00:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UnchainedTV

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

I believe this fails WP:NORG. Aside from the promotional tone, most of the references appear to be press releases. Additionally, the reference from CBS News is just a local TV interview from KMAX-TV which is promotional in nature. The New York Times reference leads nowhere. I think redirecting this article to Jane Velez-Mitchell should be sufficient. Limmidy (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Internet, and Websites. Limmidy (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Limmidy.

I really appreciate that you have taken the time to review this article. I ask that you please reconsider your recommendation "for deletion".

1. I am an avid user of UnchainedTV and am an animal rights activist. Thus, my interest in writing and publishing this article.

2. Your comment that it fails WP.NORG. : Please note that UnchainedTV is a not for profit endeavour and provides all content 100% free and does not even require a subscription, a membership nor signing up, etc.

3. WP.NORG clearly states: "The scope of this guideline covers all groups of people organized together for a purpose with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, religions or sects, and sports teams.". According to their website they are a non-profit education institution: "UnchainedTV is part of the JaneUnChained News Network, a 501 c-3 non-profit, EIN number 82-3892784." Thus it meets the rule of "exception".

4. Well noted on the press releases, the CBS news interview, the NY Times deadline and the recommendation to link to the founder. ---After I hear back from you on the issue of "Article for Deletion", I will then fix all points in #3 above.

Again, I really appreciate your time on this. all my best, 444wiki444 (talk) 00:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that UnchainedTV is a not for profit endeavour and provides all content 100% free and does not even require a subscription, a membership nor signing up, etc is just blatant advertising. WP:NORG applies to all organizations, for-profit or not. The exceptions you've listed are for schools, religions and sports teams. Clearly this streaming website is not a school or any type of "educational institution". And even if was, WP:GNG still applies here. C F A 💬 00:51, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@444wiki444: Did you use AI to write this article? C F A 💬 01:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Both [14] and [15] are unarchived dead links and appear to focus on the "Peeled" show, not the streaming network. [16] is a blog post in an industry publication. [17] is an unarchived dead link. [18] is a trivial mention. NYT is another unarchived dead link. [19] is a republished press release. BroadWay World is an unreliable source. The other sources are republished press releases in industry (possibly non-independent) publications, the press releases themselves, the organization's website, routine coverage, or trivial mentions. Couldn't find anything better. I also don't understand how there are so many (unarchived) dead links when this article was created today? C F A 💬 01:04, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. C F A 💬 01:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete via A7 (no credible claim of significance) if possible, otherwise delete per NORG and WP:TNT. There's so much possible false information being pushed here that it would be better to remake the article through AfC. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:21, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Environment, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much PROMO. I had to get to page 14 of a Gnews search before seeing anything that wasn't from UnchainedTV... The CBS link now in the article 404's, so doesn't load. It's here [20], a brief interview on a news program. That's fine I suppose, but if there is no other coverage in 15 pages of searches, there just isn't enough to build an article. Delete for a lack of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant WP:PROMO, the sources provided is just WP:SIGCOV failing WP:GNG Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 11:38, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]