Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 30

< December 29	December 31 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guite people

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

This is a clan of certain Kuki-Chin language speaking tribes. It is a well-known clan, but not notable in any other way. We don't have any other pages devoted to such clans. The topic doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Asia, Myanmar, Manipur, and Mizoram. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:46, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it just needs a rename or move. Bearian (talk) 18:40, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep seems to have several references, but mostly offline, so it's not super clear if they are tangential or not. I could not find much online, but a subject expert may have more success establishing notability. I think the best route is to give this article some time to see if notability can be more clearly established. The information in this article may also be able to find a home at Paite people. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:42, 19 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!} 23:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination statement itself already says that 'it is a well-known clan'. Why delete an article about a clan that is known and has no any other existing article on it?. Runmastery (talk) 05:20, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because it is all folklore and no authentic sources are available. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article seems to be well-referenced, a source review would be helpful to see whether they help establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- unless someone has a good merge/move proposal. And again... the existence or non-existence of other pages has no bearing on deletion (or not, for that matter).MWFwiki (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics has been notified because the sources need review by a WP:GSCASTE expert. At a glance, at least four of the 22 references are from the colonial era and are categorically unreliable; another is undated and contains a YouTube link that is probably irrelevant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User Ratnahastin (talk · contribs) also identified Lalthangliana as unreliable because it is not peer-reviewed. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I tried searching for ဂွီးတဲ ဂွေးတဲ etc and found only a couple hits listing the clans of the Zo people, like this article, this government site or in lists/last names on Facebook. Of course, the lack of a modern facebook group for Guite people isn't indicative of GNG, especially since the Chin use the Latin script and there are some other sources in English I could google. But given what others have said above about the sources, the clan might not be as "well-known" as purported. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 22:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Runmastery. KOLANO12 3 16:44, 5 January 2025 (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.

2020 Pennsylvania Turnpike crash

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

Fails WP:LASTING and also WP:NEVENT Cutlass ^Ciera 23:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The fact that the NTSB got involved shows notability, this wasn't a fender-bender with a few people. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NTSB investigating something does not make it notable. Countless road accidents have been investigated by them but that detail doesn't mean each and every one deserves an article. Cutlass ^Ciera 23:41, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Pennsylvania. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's also coverage in 2022 of the NTSB findings [1], [2]. Coverage of the accident in 2021 [3], that's almost two years work of coverage, that's sustained coverage. Some talk of lawsuits after, but I can't find RS about them. Oaktree b (talk) 00:21, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
5 deaths and 60 injured is more than notable. It was also the most severe one to that point in time on the road [4]. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this wasnt a random accident, people died in this crash Codonified (talk) 12:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of fatal road accidents, This one may be notable, but that doesn't make it notable in itelf. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By virtue of the fact that this was an "accident" carries with the implication that this was random. How can it not be random? Did some dastardly person orchestrate this? Or perhaps it was the Fate of 60 or so people to collide on that day at that specific moment? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:42, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of randomness (or lack of being random) is not part of the criteria for notability. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 14:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of non-trivial references, so I think WP:GNG is satisfied, as well as WP:EVENTCRIT. WP:LASTING is not a criteria for notability. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although there is coverage by some news media outlets, I can't see this event as notable. I empathize that people were killed and injured but this type of stuff happens all the time on United States highways. Having this on Wikipedia seems to be pandering to the salacious. In any case, this is a WP:ROUTINE event. And Wikipedia is not a newspaper WP:NOTNEWS. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite being an unusually large car crash, it was "just" a large car crash. I don't see it rising to the level of notability set out by WP:EVENTS. In particular, the coverage is concentrated over a very short time - almost exclusively two single days, in fact (the date of the crash, Jan 5, and the release of the NTSB report on Feb 6). --Tserton (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Again, this is not a question of if YOU think this subject is notable but what reliable sources say. Our own opinions are not relevant. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the most part we usually note these large-scale accidents within the History section of the highway it took place (here, Interstate 76 (Ohio–New Jersey)), but no accidents are noted in that article itself, and the PA Turnpike article itself is already long enough. This accident isn't really of note outside a short paragraph, possibly in the article for Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. The article meets WP:RS, but I agree with Steve Quinn's WP:NOTNEWS assertion. According to WP:EVENTS, not every incident that gains media coverage will have or should have a Wikipedia article. Thus, merging it will keep the details of the incident intact, but from all indications it does not warrant a separate article.--DesiMoore (talk) 13:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Fatal traffic accidents are an everyday occurrence. Five years later this one has had no lasting impact as all but one of the sources are from 2020. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm not seeing the lasting coverage needed to support notability here. WP:NOTNEWS applies here, we aren't CNN. Let'srun (talk) 02:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It should not be merged with Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania. Where it possibly could have coverage to some degree, but doesn't currently is Pennsylvania Turnpike -- provided that there were any long term impacts on the operations / practices of the Turnpike (there's not in the article, I can't read the report, and coverage after the report was released is insignificant - noting that crash reporting is routine[5]). If there wasn't, then coverage at List of traffic collisions (2000–present) - its only incoming link currently - without a separate article is sufficient. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 04:34, 6 January 2025 (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 redirect‎ to Estonian Figure Skating Championships. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Estonian Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Estonian Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Skating, and Estonia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Estonian Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Estonian Figure Skating Championships, which could have been boldly done. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the rigamarole at AFD:2001–02 Swedish Figure Skating Championships, where I had tried to do just that, based on past precedence, and still got my ass handed to me and accused of trying to be "sneaky". I'm not dealing with that sort of bad-faith accusatory bullshit again, so AFD is where all of these will go. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Estonian Figure Skating Championships: Non-notable competitions which fail to meet the WP:GNG. No issues with the nom bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Estonian Figure Skating Championships--Estopedist1 (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Estonian Figure Skating Championships: per above ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:08, 5 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was keep‎. per Keep arguments (non-admin closure) BoraVoro (talk) 09:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Far Tortuga (novel)

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

AI language model entirely generated the article. There is only one source, might be appropriate to move into Draftspace. Verified as 100% AI using gptzero. Marleeashton (talk) 22:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Bogus AI garbage, only reference is hallucinated. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC) Article is greatly improved, changing to keep. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@WeirdNAnnoyed, Marleeashton: I've substantially improved the article, mind taking a look again? Cheers, ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 02:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notable, but needs some work. I will rewrite it and add some references, though some of the current content is correct. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 23:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to give @ARandomName123: and any other interested editors some time to improve the article. Subject appears to meet WP:GNG, if only barely: [6]. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to keep. --Richard Yin (talk) 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Yin: I wouldn't say it meets GNG only barely. WP:NBOOK requires only two pieces of coverage, and this book far exceeds that. Some of the following are already in the article. Reviews: The New York Review of Books (here), The New York Times (here), The Cincinnati Post (here) and The Miami Herald (here). Journal articles and analysis pieces: Rocky Mountain Review of Language and Literature (here), American Literature (journal) (here), Interdisciplinary Studies in Literature and Environment (here) and Critique: Studies in Contemporary Fiction (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify if changes aren't made. However if sufficient changes are, then Keep. Looks like a major improvement already. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, looks better now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has been substantially improved and easily meets GNG. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 05:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:HEY charlotte ^👸♥ 04:05, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability. However, the reception section suffers from excessive quotations. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: After presenting the sources, I will say it passes NBOOK. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:11, 5 January 2025 (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.

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. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaleb Tedla

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

Non-notable biography with no non-mirror sources found. Has been unreferenced since its creation; previously was PROD'd but the original author was not notified so the PROD was removed. Kazamzam (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. Kazamzam (talk) 22:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It also appears to be almost verbatim from here [7] which is a spam link anyway. Nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Couldn’t find sources about the topic. If anyone found sources in Amharic please ping me FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like an obituary, and it has had literally no sources added in more than a decade. Tepkunset (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tepkunset I wish that was a record...we've found dinosaurs that have been unreferenced for over 16 years. Kazamzam (talk) 21:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I guess at the very least that's fitting for dinosaurs! Tepkunset (talk) 20:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - substantively not notable, and also borderline WP:COPYVIO. Bearian (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (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.

Social thinking

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

The majority of this article is promotional content written by someone who works at Teach Social: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Pjc5316. See https://teachsocial.org/contact/ or https://x.com/socialthinking/status/1403139072218963970

The second main editor also does as stated by their page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Susanr714

The rest are mostly IPs

So obviously this article read more like an ad, and furthermore it is very POV (despite the "Social thinking" methodology being of the type of intervention that is VERY controversial). The relevance to Wikipedia is also questionable... I am adding appropriate templates and proposing a deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 23. 149.154.210.208 (talk) 09:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP nominator--above text is copied from the article's talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Draftify As per [8], some argue its a fringe pseudoscience theory that never gained traction. a response paper [9] argues its not. There is some literature about this article on Google Scholar that might indicate notability, but i'm counting only 2,500 journal articles for the search "social thinking" autism, which is not much. The current article is definitely insanely promotional and has large portions of unreferenced material that reads more like essay than anything else. However, the concept, though controversial, seems notable at least. If the article is kept, it will need significant work. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 19:34, 23 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!} 21:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep/draftify: (edited for clarity) While I definitely agree that this page looks very promotional and needs to be rewritten, I don't think that means the topic isn't notable. I'm not quite convinced that this topic isn't notable based on sources I could find. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 03:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Appears to pass WP:GNG per Bluethricecreamman above, but the article in its current state is unfit for mainspace. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:17, 7 January 2025 (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 redirect‎ to Alpha Motor Corporation. per Redirect arguments (non-admin closure) BoraVoro (talk) 09:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Jax

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

It has been 3 years, and not even one has been made, this is why we have wp:not, it fails this for many reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alpha Motor Corporation as WP:TOOSOON. Merging (if any, as the target already mentions the subject) can be done from history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is additional support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alpha Motor Corporation: as per nom. JTtheOG (talk) 03:38, 4 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Alpha Motor Corporation. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Saga

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

It has been 4 years, and not even one has been made, this is why we have wp:not, it fails this for many reasons. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 17:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Alpha Motor Corporation as WP:TOOSOON. Merging (if any, as the target already mentions the subject) can be done from history. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: to the main Alpha Motors article, some coverage, but the vehicle was never produced, so likely not notable. Oaktree b (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SmartSites

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sourced only to press releases and "fastest growing companies" type lists. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and New Jersey. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has lots of media coverage — 102.91.93.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 06:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Keep: The SmartSites article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations as it is a recognized and award-winning digital marketing agency with significant industry impact. The company has received multiple accolades, including rankings on the Inc. 5000 list for several consecutive years and recognition by Clutch.co as a leading agency in web design and digital marketing. These achievements have been covered by independent, reliable sources, demonstrating the company's influence and relevance in the digital marketing space.

Additionally, SmartSites has been featured in reputable publications such as Forbes, Entrepreneur, and Inc. magazines, which provide independent coverage beyond trivial mentions. This establishes the company’s notability under Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (GNG). The article provides verifiable, well-sourced information, contributing to the encyclopedia's goal of documenting notable organizations.

Deletion would remove a valuable resource for users seeking information on a player in the digital marketing industry. Instead, any concerns about content quality or neutrality can be addressed through constructive edits.

Hussainxyz (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Hussainxyz (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete, perhaps speedily as unambiguous WP:ADMASQ. This subject fails WP:NCORP. Virtually every source is a press release, and the few that aren't are WP:ORGTRIV. Being on the Inc. 5000 does not qualify a company as notable. Furthermore, I searched and there is no evidence for the page creator's assertion (or should I say ChatGPT's hallucination? GPTZero gives a 100% probability that the creator's !vote is WP:AIGENERATED) that there is independent coverage in Forbes or Entrepreneur. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is a fundamental disagreement over the quality of the sources and whether they are SIGCOV or just press releases so a source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They are technically on Forbes Advisor, Inc., and Entrepreneur, but Forbes Advisor is not reliable per WP:RSP, and the Inc. and Entrepreneur do not contain significant coverage. Influencer Marketing Hub and DesignRush don't seem like reliable sources. Everything else is press releases and/or routine coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a directory page, not actual coverage in Entrepreneur magazine. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: The article on SmartSites satisfies Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations, supported by significant independent coverage in reputable sources like Forbes, Inc., and Entrepreneur. These sources document the company's achievements, including its recognition on the Inc. 5000 list of fastest-growing private companies in America.

The content is backed by reliable references and is written in a neutral tone, providing encyclopedic value rather than promotional content. It offers important information about the company's role in the digital marketing industry, which is relevant to readers seeking insights into notable businesses in this field.

I suggest keeping the article and addressing any specific concerns regarding formatting or sourcing to ensure compliance with Wikipedia standards. Hussainxyz (talk) 02:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should only make a single "Keep/delete" comment. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please respond to the inquiry on your talk page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sourcing I find is strictly for PR items, as are most of what we have now for sourcing. Forbes Advisor sites aren't RS, a company profile isn't helpful... We have nothing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that User:102.91.105.184 (wrongly listed below as User:92.21.93.46) struck this vote with no apparent justification, which I reverted. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article shouldn’t be considered for deletion, It only needs additional content. — 92.21.93.46 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC) (UTC).[reply]
Delete This is a company therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I'm unable to identify any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The Inc profile is insignificant coverage. The consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 337#RFC Forbes Advisor is that the Forbes Advisor article is unreliable. The other sources in the article are press releases. I did not find significant coverage in reliable sources about the company in my searches for sources. SmartSites does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creator, Hussainxyz (talk · contribs), was blocked for sockpuppetry at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hussainxyz. Cunard (talk) 02:10, 5 January 2025 (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.

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 00:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kaissar Broadcasting Network

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

Contested PROD. No evidence of notability, and no apparent need for a standalone article on this network. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Philippines. CycloneYoris ^talk! 18:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:11, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The network clearly failed WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. The article's content was derived from government documents obtained through FOI requests from the Philippine government, which could constitute a violation of WP:NOR. Additionally, the article lacks secondary sources. Although Kaissar was previously a member of the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkaster ng Pilipinas (KBP), it no longer holds that status. However, KBP membership alone does not establish notability. ^{I endorsed the article's PROD for the relatively same reason} AstrooKai (Talk) 07:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NCORP due to a lack of coverage Let'srun (talk) 17:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. Sources in the page are reliable, with some in-depth enough IMV. 1 & 3 are about the company and its franchise. 2 is the company's profile. The former link is dead. So I replaced it with an archived one. The fact that it's no longer a KBP member is not my concern. 4 & 5 are proof that the list of stations are owned by the company. SBKSPP (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reference #1 is just the law that allowed Kaissar to be established, it doesn't demonstrate notability. Reference #2 shows the company's profile from KBP. It just demonstrates Wikipedia:Verifiability, not notability. Reference #3 just shows passing mention of Kaissar, it mainly talks about Villar's then-plan nationwide broadcasting network. Here's the part where Kaissar is only mentioned:

The same committee has, incidentally, not only just voted to renew the franchise of a little-known provincial radio TV network, Kaissar Broadcasting Network, but even expanded its coverage throughout the entire country as well.
— Victor C. Agustin, "ABS-CBn vacancy: Villar plans nationwide broadcasting network"

And I want to emphasize the fact that the news article mentioned that Kaissar was a "little-known provincial radio TV network", which just suggests that the network is relatively not notable. This news article was published in 2021, but no news coverage about the network followed since then. A search query in Google News would just return articles about Kaiser Broadcasting (an American company), and a refined Gsearch query will just return unreliable sources like blogs and network listings from radio blogs.

References #4 and #5 were taken from the Philippine government through an FOI request, which I think is a case of WP:OR and are WP:PRIMARY sources. You wouldn't ask for the document from the government itself it was already available from secondary sources, which is what needed to establish notability.

Overall, these references just proves verifiability of the content in the article, but they do not demonstrate the subject's notability at all. AstrooKai (Talk) 07:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still believe that the article meets WP:GNG based on my reasons stated. You can never change my mind. SBKSPP (talk) 08:45, 30 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!} 21:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete; none of the references demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, failing WP:GNG. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was no consensus‎. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:58, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Library of Cameroon

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

There is no "National Library of Cameroon". The current coordinates given are to the national museum. The national archives, which are the largest museum in the country, have their own seperate entry.-- NotCharizard ^🗨 15:11, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, and Cameroon. Skynxnex (talk) 16:08, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to National Archives of Cameroon which appears to be the case with the French article where Archives nationales du Cameroun talks about the volume it holds if I'm reading it correctly. Star Mississippi 03:14, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: What do you make of the first reference? The deletion discussion says there is no "National Library of Cameroon" but the source suggests there is.

On another note, the coordinates given (3.8611940644516403°N 11.516500695387736°E) are highly suspect. I'm not sure where those came from, but they have an astonishing 16 decimal digits of precision, which is sub-nanometer precision and nonsensical for a building. Crystalholm (talk) 16:26, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:36, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for a Merge of this article to National Archives of Cameroon?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: From this document page 8, it looks like as of 1978 the library was located in the archives, and had minimal (100m^2) space allocated. According to [10][11], "The National Library and the National Archives were created by the decree of 17 August 1966 as separate establishments. The decree of 20 November 1978 restructured the Library into three sections: acquisition and legal deposit, classification-cataloguing, history of Cameroon and national bibliography"; this document is perhaps 20 years old (Jean-Pierre Angremy died in 2010), but it was still a separate organisation (though perhaps a somewhat vestigial one) as of 2022[12]. this implies that as of 2016 it was still located within the archives. If a merge is to be done, it would really need a francophone who can correctly interpret/translate the sources and dig further and avoid accidently conflating the two (What do the various decrees re the library say? Does the archives have one or more libraries of its own -- eg presidential library -- that are separate to the national library? Do the stated 64000 books belong to the national library, and how current is that figure? How does the national library function?) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From this (not usable as an RS?), legal deposit as a function of the BN was still performed during 2014-2022, and this may be at an entirely separate location from the national archives given that the (poorly defined) map on page 45 appears to be at [13] (rotated 90 degrees). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:56, 5 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rizvan Huseynov

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources and for a biographical article, it does not adhere to WP:BIO and failing WP:V. The article's tone seems like WP:PROMO. Nxcrypto Message 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, History, and Azerbaijan. Nxcrypto Message 19:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This article was nominated for an AFD discussion soon after creation and it has been heavily edited in the past week. I think a re-review is called for. I'd also like to hear from the article creator, User:Editing For Better, if possible.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too promotional with too little that can be verified or is of substance about the actions of this particular person. This seems like someone who has been around some notable work but that doesn't cut it for me; we don't have an article for every person working on a movie set. I also find the listing of the translations of the subject's articles to be resume-padding. Delete for being insufficiently notable but it would be helpful to have someone with fluency or familiarity in Azeri, and, as Liz mentioned, hearing from User:Editing For Better as well. Kazamzam (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In my opinion, the person is notable a popular Azerbaijani historian. However, the main issue lies in the structure of the article, which should be aligned with the MOS:PROSE guidelines. I have already addressed this issue in the Azerbaijani version and the same improvements should be applied to this article as well. — Toghrul R (t) 09:15, 4 January 2025 (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.

Kdan Mobile

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

No properly reliable sources, seemingly written by someone affiliated. Found a profile on CommonWealth Magazine (Taiwan), but that is not enough for company notability. IgelRM (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. IgelRM (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two WP:TECHCRUNCH sources (which do not count for notability) and one primary one. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) Keep per Cunard's source analysis below. Madeleine (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Madeleine961 (talk · contribs). I found some additional sources below. Would you review? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I believe the sources you found demonstrates notability and significant coverage. I will change my !vote. Good work and cheers. Madeleine (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for reviewing the sources and reconsidering your position! Cunard (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Yan, Lou-you 顏漏有 (2022). 新創成長的關鍵：解開台灣新創企業從0到10億元的祕密 [The Key to Startup Growth: Unveiling the Secrets Behind Taiwanese Startups' Journey from $0 to $1 Billion] (in Chinese). Taipei: Business Weekly Publications 商周出版. ISBN 978-626-318-392-6. Retrieved 2024-12-29 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "創業之初,正好抓住App發展初期,競爭者不多,當時蘋果應用程式商店 ( App Store)上的App總數還不到一千個,但凱鈿可以開發出上百個不同的 App,營收穩定成長,但沒多久,他們的發展、成長開始出現瓶頸。除了越來越多新進開發者及大公司投入App開發,加上免費App的選擇變多,競爭加劇, 若要吸引使用者,勢必要加大行銷投資。另一個本質上的問題在於,使用者是採取一次性付費買服務,但公司仍要持續提供維運,長久下去,不利於公司成長。"
  From Google Translate: "At the beginning of the business, Kdan caught the early stage of App development and there were not many competitors. At that time, the total number of Apps on the Apple App Store was less than a thousand, but Kdan could develop hundreds of different Apps, and the business Revenues grew steadily, but before long, bottlenecks began to appear in their development and growth. In addition to more and more new developers and large companies investing in App development, as well as the increasing number of free App choices and intensifying competition, it is necessary to increase marketing investment if you want to attract users. Another fundamental problem is that users pay a one-time fee for services, but the company still has to continue to provide maintenance and operation. In the long run, it is not conducive to the company's growth."
  The book notes: "然而,過去的模式主要靠著多樣化產品在支撐,精簡後,營收規模自然大受影響,公司營運陷入極大困境,幾位創辦人不得不向員工承認錯誤,抵押、賣地、信用卡借款,這些創業故事中常見的情節,也在凱鈿發生。"
  From Google Translate: "However, the past model was mainly supported by diversified products. After streamlining, the revenue scale was naturally greatly affected, and the company's operations were in great difficulties. The founders had to admit their mistakes to the employees, resorting to pledging assets, selling land, and borrowing on credit cards—common scenarios in startup stories, which also occurred at Kdan."
2. "新創的國際化策略及管理精準掌握海外企業需求,他擁800萬會員走向B2B" [The Internationalization Strategy of Startups and Management: Precisely Understanding Overseas Business Needs, With 8 Million Members Moving Towards B2B]. BusinessNext 數位時代 (in Chinese). December 2020. pp. 50–51. Retrieved 2024-12-29 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "2015 年,除了商業模式「轉彎」,凱鈿也開始收斂 App的開發數量,蘇柏州當時梳理出3個主要產品線,包括 Document 365、Creativity 365 及Kdan Cloud。直到 2019 年,團隊才又端出另一條產品線:點點簽 DottedSign。自高峰時期1年52款App,到深耕3~ 4款系列產品,他們開始專注於產品的整合,以提供更好服務來維持用戶。2019 年,凱鈿訂閱戶的續訂率達8成、截至目前也累積了 800 萬註冊會員,其中有約3萬筆企業客戶名單,成為他們推廣SaaS服務的起點。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2015, in addition to the "turn" in its business model, Kdan also began to curb the number of app development. Subazhou sorted out three main product lines at that time, including Document 365, Creativity 365 and Kdan Cloud. It wasn’t until 2019 that the team launched another product line: DottedSign. From the peak of 52 apps per year to 3 to 4 product series, they began to focus on product integration to provide better services to maintain users. In 2019, the renewal rate of Kdan's subscribers reached 80%, and it has accumulated 8 million registered members so far, including about 30,000 corporate customer lists, which has become the starting point for them to promote SaaS services."
3. Li, I-Ju 李宜儒 (2023-12-03). "台南億級APP一哥1／累計超過2億次的下載量　從閱讀器打造生態系" [Tainan's Billion-Level App Leader: Over 200 Million Downloads, Building an Ecosystem from a Reader]. Want Weekly [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "CTWANT記者調查，Kdan，其實是2009年在台南永康起家的本土APP軟體公司｢凱鈿」（Kdan），以APP搶快搶多求生，但在免費APP海量出現後險遭滅頂，轉而聚焦PDF工具用程式，並推出訂閱制服務，定期根據用戶反饋進行更新，獲得用戶好評，在2016年起獲得天使投資新台幣4000萬元，2018年完成A輪募資500萬美元（約新台幣1.5億元），由美商中經合集團、達盈管理顧問及日本Accord Ventures等共同投資。"
  From Google Translate: "According to CTWANT reporter's investigation, Kdan is actually a local APP software company "Kdan" (Kdan) founded in Yongkang, Tainan in 2009. It used APPs to grab the quickest and the most in order to survive. However, it was nearly wiped out after the massive emergence of free APPs, and it instead focused on PDFs. Tool program, and launched a subscription-based service, which is regularly updated based on user feedback, and has won praise from users. Since 2016, it has received angel investment of NT$40 million. In 2018, it completed the A-round fundraising of US$5 million (approximately NT$150 million). Yuan), jointly invested by the US-China Economic Cooperation Group, Daying Management Consultants and Japan's Accord Ventures."
4. Lin, Joyce (2020-10-05). "The Top Taiwanese App Company You Never Heard Of". CommonWealth Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-11-14. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "Lman Chu (朱宜振), the founder and CEO of blockchain startup BiiLabs, said Kdan’s choice at its inception to develop “tool apps” was smart because those apps resonate across borders, helping penetrate overseas markets and build overseas teams. Not coincidentally, Kdan has focused mainly on users in Western countries. At present, the United States is Kdan’s biggest market, accounting for 40 percent of its revenues, with another 25 percent coming from Europe, 20 percent from China, 5 percent from Japan, and 10 percent from the rest of the world. Kdan’s apps have gained strong followings in the West because users see them as native English-language products."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kdan Mobile (traditional Chinese: 凱鈿; simplified Chinese: 凯钿) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for searching:

1. Mentions Asia America Multitechnology Association, does not appear particular independent?

2. A trade source, I found this about page.

3. Covers Kdan Office, Generative AI and Hancom, a bit about Kdan and an interview with chair 蘇柏州.

4. (I will note that I had already linked CommonWealth mag in my nomination).

So I don't think the sources here are extraordinary.

Edit: Had accidentally swapped 1 and 2. I found a profile on chinatimes.com, a rather promotional article on businesstoday.com.tw and one comparison to Adobe by Techcrunch. IgelRM (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the first source to be independent. It is unclear to me where Asia America Multitechnology Association is mentioned and why this would mean the source is not independent. BusinessNext is a business magazine focused on the technology and Internet sectors, which has a much broader scope than a trade magazine dedicated to a particular field. I consider it to be sufficiently independent to establish notability. The third and fourth sources include enough independent reporting and analysis about Kdan Mobile to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The description on GBooks says: "AAMA台北搖籃計畫十週年的智慧傳承

顏漏有校長首本著作". I'm unsure if I understand correctly but AAMA refers to aforementioned association.

2. The magazine appears specifically about startups and management, so I'm unsure how to evaluate but I agree it contributes.

3. It also needs to be WP:SIGCOV of the company specifically. The Chinatimes profile (by the same publisher) is certainly but I don't know how business profiles are evaluated.

@Madeleine961 Could you look into this again?

Edit: I am asking because the founder is listed on AAMA Taipei. About Cradle Project IgelRM (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I've stricken the first source as based on your explanation as it may not be independent of the subject. Cunard (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like further review of these new sources. Remember, they do not have to be "extraordinary", just sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found some sources such as

Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS: Techcrunch is situational and funding news doesn't give company notability. AWN is about the animation software and the last two, unsure if reliable, about the PDF software, specifically. IgelRM (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs to be supplemented with references found as above, but in general it demonstrates the company's importance through credible sources and contributions --Kej Keir (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At least for now. IgelRM raised some valid concerns and asked if this could be looked at again, but there has been no further work. In the meantime a load more sources were added. The relist comment requests a source review. Here is mine.
This is a company therefore WP:NCORP requires multiple deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information on the company per WP:ORGDEPTH. Per WP:ORGIND, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That is, references cannot rely only on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even where such information has been reworded. If it isn't clearly independent content then it fails ORGIND. My analysis of all the sources provided in this AfD follows:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
New Creation and Growth - Unravel the secret of Taiwan's startups from 0 to 1 billion yuan [14]		Published by Business Week Publishing apparently. That would make it generally reliable for business news.	This appears to be a very short mention in a book attempting to survey Taiwan's startup landscape. There is some information about their products, but it seems to be quite limited. When discussing ORGGDEPTH, NCORP discusses coverage that meets the guideline. It says: Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. That is not what we have here. It may be there is more in this book, but I don't read the language and don't have the book. But I expect this is all there is
Business Next Issue 319 [15]	Because of the source it is not certain this meets WP:ORGIND	Apparently a book but actually a magazine. A trade source.	As for the above, WP:ORGDEPTH is not met with the level of coverage here which is primarily about the apps and not about the business.	News reporting aspects are primary, but the question being asked of this source would make company information secondary. There is just not much there.
https://www.ctwant.com/article/301042/	I cannot tell if this is independent or not as I do not speak the language and investigating only with Google Translate. I would give it a pass if it were a clear pass elsewhere, but it is not.	Appears to be a reputable and bylined publication in an edited magazine (probably web only).	Once again, mostly about products and the little about the company does not meet ORGDEPTH.	It appears to be relying on some other reporting and is not itself news reporting.
https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=2809	Bylined Joyce Lin, who has authored multiple articles. Web only article, but no indication this is not independent	As far as I can see this is a web only article from a reputable outlet with an editorial process. No obvious reliability concerns. I note that this profile was mentioned in the nomination.	Meets WP:ORGDEPTH
TechCrunch [16] [17] [18] - Multiple articles from the same source count as one under WP:SIRS	– Partial. Startup funding reporting is independent, but the third article, in particular, is based on information coming from Kenny Su, and does not meet [{WP:ORGIND]].	I believe they are considered reliable. Trade source.	– There is little information about the company that is independent. What is independent is not significant per ORGDEPTH.	Three news reports about the startup. These are news reports - primary sources.
TechinAsia [19]	– Partial. The article is occasioned by a bit of news (and that information is primary), but what Kenny Su says about the company is not independent.	I believe it is reliable, although I haven't fully investigated.	Founded in 2009, Kdan Mobile provides digital productivity and content creation platforms. This is followed by a quote from Kenny Su and a product plug, but that is not independent. This, therefore, does not provide SIGCOV at CORPDEPTH.	– This source is occasioned news report for series B funding. The news report element is primary, but analysis would be secondary. Nevertheless, what we have does not meet ORGIND, which is a general problem for series B funding articles. These are startups promoting themselves.
AWN [20]	"Source: Kdan Mobile". Although it is bylined, this appears to be based ona. press release, and the download link has a cimmission based tracker link.	– It is reliable for reviews about animation software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any.	All about "Free Animation Desk App Available for Download". There is no information at all about the company, let alone any ORGDEPTH coverage.	Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company
Techworm [21]	Download link has a tracker to generate commission	– It is reliable for reviews about Windows software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any.	All about KDAN PDF Reader, and nothing at all on KDAN the company. Just	Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company
Windows Report [22]	"We may get a commission if you buy through our links"	– It is reliable for reviews about Windows software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any.	All about KDAN PDF Reader, and nothing at all on KDAN the company. Just	Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company

So we have one good source (already mentioned in the nomination), but we need multiple sources. The first of Cunard's might be worth revisiting, or there may be more elsewhere, but at this point we are not past WP:NCORP. I would like to revise my opinion, but I do not see the sources yet. Hopefully more can be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The BusinessNext and Want Weekly articles discuss the company's history and several of its products. If the sources just focused on a specific product, that would not be significant coverage of the company. But when as is the case here, the sources provide an overview of the company's products while profiling the company, the sources provide significant coverage of the company. Here are additional sources I found:
1. Chu, Yung-kuang 朱永光 (2016-11-01). "〈薪火新苗〉本土App商冒出頭打造亞洲Adobe" [〈New Sparks and New Shoots〉 Local Taiwanese App Developer Emerges, Aims to Build "Asian Adobe"]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B4.
  United Daily News's Yung-kuang Chu writes the column "New Sparks and New Shoots" (Chinese: 薪火新苗), which is published every other Tuesday. I found a copy of this column in the United Daily News archives. There is a copy of the column on a blog which says it has been "reproduced with the permission of the author". The article notes: "曾獲選美國Apple App Store年度最佳娛樂與工具類應用廠商，所開發的產品多次以最值得購買、蘋果員工最愛、熱門精選、主題推薦登上App Store首頁，預計今年底將突破全球1億下載量，如此亮眼的成績，是來自台南的台灣本土開發商凱釹行動科技（Kdan Mobile Software）。"
  From Google Translate: "Kdan Mobile Software, a Taiwan-based developer from Tainan, has been recognised as one of the best entertainment and tools developers on the U.S. Apple App Store. Its products have repeatedly been featured on the App Store's homepage, including as "Most Worth Buying," "Apple Staff Favorites," "Popular Picks," and "Recommended Themes." The company is expected to surpass 100 million downloads worldwide by the end of this year. This impressive achievement is the result of the efforts of Kdan Mobile, a local Taiwanese company founded in 2009."
  The article notes: "成立於2009年，創辦人蘇柏州早年任職於工研院，在App Store推出後不久，看准其發展潛力及商業模式，即著手投入研發此一新程式語言。有別於其他App開發商，凱釷長期深耕行動閱讀、多媒體創作、繪圖與影像編輯等領域，以「亞洲Adobe」的定位進軍國際市場，鎖定喜歡塗鴉及從事創作的族群，打造完善的數位內容創作工具。"
  From Google Translate: "Founded by Su Bo-Chou, who previously worked at the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), Kdan Mobile started developing mobile applications shortly after the App Store's launch, seeing the potential and business opportunities in this new development platform. Unlike other app developers, Kdan Mobile has focused on areas such as mobile reading, multimedia creation, drawing, and image editing. It has positioned itself as "Asia's Adobe" and aims to serve the international market, targeting users who enjoy doodling and creative work, offering a complete suite of digital content creation tools."
  The article notes: "相較於以PC為主的Adobe，凱釷更早打入行動裝置市場。旗下主力產品NoteLedge、PDF Markup、Animation Desk、Write-On Video、Pocket Scanner，簡易、直覺式的操作界面是最大特色，大幅降低使用者的學習門檻，即使沒有受過專業設計訓練，也能輕鬆上手、享受創作所帶來的樂趣。"
  From Google Translate: "Compared to Adobe, which is mainly focused on PC-based software, Kdan Mobile entered the mobile device market much earlier. Its flagship products, such as NoteLedge, PDF Markup, Animation Desk, Write-On Video, and Pocket Scanner, feature simple and intuitive interfaces, making them accessible even to users without professional design training. This approach lowers the learning curve significantly, enabling anyone to easily start creating and enjoy the process of content creation."
2. Peng, Tzu-hao 彭子豪 (2021-11-17). "凱鈿業務專一入選新創明日之星" [Kdan Mobile's Focused Business Selected as the "Next Big Star" of Taiwan's Startup Scene]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. C8.
  The article notes: "為讓台灣新創企業能立足國際及展現能見度，國發會推動NEXT BIG新創明日之星計畫，首波9家新創在總統蔡英文的站台下公布，其中軟體服務商凱鈿行動科技備受矚目，其因該公司是南部少數別具規模的軟體開發商，2009年成立至今軟體下載更累積超過2億次。"
  From Google Translate: "To help Taiwanese startups gain a foothold internationally and showcase their visibility, the National Development Council (NDC) launched the "Next Big Star" startup program. The first batch of nine startups was announced under the patronage of President Tsai Ing-wen, with Kdan Mobile Technology, a software service provider, receiving significant attention. The company, one of the few sizable software developers in southern Taiwan, has accumulated over 200 million software downloads since its founding in 2009."
  The article notes: "隨著Adobe進入行動服務、蘋果iOS開放對於PDF檔的支援，下載量下滑成為當時凱鈿行動科技的一大挑戰，為此在2012年公司獲資策會旗下資鼎創投基金，加上公司現金水位還不差，進而加強產品深度外，積極參加國內外各大、小軟體賽事，無形中提高公司能見度，並於2013至14年間推出跨平台文件管理服務。"
  From Google Translate: "However, as Adobe entered the mobile service market and Apple's iOS began supporting PDF files, Kdan Mobile faced the challenge of a declining download rate. To address this, the company secured investment from the Institute for Information Industry's (III) Vanguard Venture Capital Fund in 2012. With strong cash flow, the company deepened its product offerings and actively participated in both domestic and international software competitions, raising its visibility. In 2013 and 2014, the company launched a cross-platform document management service."
3. Chen, Hui-chen 陳惠珍 (2014-03-20). "微型創業－創業心法創業就是做自己擅長且喜歡做的事。凱鈿App開發行動玩家按讚蘇柏州成功挺進歐美，成立５年來全球下載突破2,000萬次，下一步強攻陸、日市場" [Micro-Entrepreneurship – The Mindset of Entrepreneurship: It's about doing what you’re good at and passionate about. Kdan App Development – Mobile Players Show Their Support. Su Bozhou Successfully Entered Europe and the U.S., With Over 20 Million Global Downloads in 5 Years; Next Step: Aggressively Targeting the Chinese and Japanese Markets]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.
  The article notes: "手機應用程式（App）市場競爭激烈，由蘇柏州所創辦的凱鈿行動科技設計公司，5年多來，已推出30多款跨平台的手機應用程式，至今已創下全球2,000餘萬次下載佳績，還曾獲得「最值得購買」、「蘋果員工最愛」等評語，受到全球不少手機使用者的推薦。工研院出身的創辦人蘇柏州，因看到Apple推智慧手機及App Store的成立，因而發現App開發的契機，進而觀察到切入世界的接口。"
  From Google Translate: "Competition in the mobile application (App) market is fierce. Kdan Mobile Technology Design Company, founded by Su Baizhou, has launched more than 30 cross-platform mobile applications in more than five years, and has achieved more than 20 million downloads worldwide so far. It has also received reviews such as "Most Worth Buying" and "Apple Employees' Favorite", and is recommended by many mobile phone users around the world."
  The article notes: "然而，現階段歐美市場，佔了凱鈿總銷售70％上下，在邁入全球突破2000萬下載量的新里程碑下，不僅已證實創立公司所設定的佈局策略是正確的，未來也有能力，將挑戰化為經營特色的實力。目前，依靠擁有完善的行銷團隊，除了歐美市場經營外，另針對中國與日本地區從事行銷規劃，並且逐步配置在地行銷人員，藉由他們可以精準地跨越語言的隔閡，把公司想傳達的產品構想，傳遞給潛在客戶群。"
  From Google Translate: "However, at this stage, the European and American markets account for about 70% of Kdan's total sales. As it reaches a new milestone of exceeding 20 million downloads globally, it has not only been confirmed that the layout strategy set by the founding company is correct, but also has the ability to do so in the future. The ability to turn challenges into business characteristics. At present, relying on a complete marketing team, in addition to operating in the European and American markets, it is also engaged in marketing planning for China and Japan, and gradually allocates local marketing personnel, through which they can accurately overcome language barriers and convey the products that the company wants to convey. idea and pass it on to the potential customer base."
4. Lai, Chao-nan 賴昭男 (2016-07-30). "職場達人－凱鈿行動科技創辦人兼執行長蘇柏州App創業從iPhone 3G開始" [Workplace Expert – Founder and CEO of Kdan Technology, Su Bozhou, App Entrepreneurship Starting with iPhone 3G]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.
  The article notes: "2009年3月，蘇柏州正式成立凱鈿行動科技。公司只有5個人，除了蘇柏州和另1個台灣伙伴，其他3個人來自大陸。蘇柏州將技術開發部分交給大陸團隊負責；在網路公司裡，這種遠距合作模式很常見，透過分工，蘇柏州也更能專注在市場研究上。"
  From Google Translate: "In March 2009, Su Bozhou officially founded Kaidan Mobile Technology. The company had only five employees: Su and one Taiwanese partner, while the other three were from mainland China. Su delegated the technical development to the mainland team. Remote collaboration like this is common in internet companies, and it allowed Su to focus more on market research through division of labor."
5. Wu, Chun-i 吳俊毅 (2022-09-21). "將上百種 App 整合成 3 大訂閱服務，凱鈿在 B2B 市場看到什麼機會？" [Integrating Hundreds of Apps into 3 Major Subscription Services: What Opportunities Does Kdan See in the B2B Market?]. 經理人 [Manager Today] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.
  The article notes: "凱鈿行動科技成立於 2009 年，打造上百個 App，其中「PDF Reader」更成為台灣「億」級商用工具軟體；在 2015 年轉型「軟體即服務」（SaaS）廠商，短短數年間，服務和產品累積下載超過 2 億次，全球會員突破 1000 萬，今年更與微軟、LINE 合作，力拚成為台灣下一個新創獨角獸。"
  From Google Translate: "Kdan Mobile Technology was founded in 2009 and has created hundreds of apps, among which "PDF Reader" has become a "billion-dollar" commercial tool software in Taiwan. In 2015, it transformed into a "Software as a Service" (SaaS) manufacturer. In just a few years, Its services and products have been downloaded more than 200 million times, and its global membership has exceeded 10 million. This year, it has cooperated with Microsoft and LINE to become Taiwan's next new unicorn."
Cunard (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that commission in reviews per se don't make sources not independent as a popular blog like The Verge also uses that. IgelRM (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Worm

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

I am nominating the articles on Doctor Worm and the following They Might Be Giants songs for deletion. Almost all of these articles were created between 2003 and 2006 (an era that surely had a large overlap of Wikipedians and TMBG fans) and do not hold up to contemporary notability standards.

Ana Ng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Can't Keep Johnny Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Experimental Film (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I Palindrome I (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
James K. Polk (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Man, It's So Loud in Here (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Particle Man (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Purple Toupee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
S-E-X-X-Y (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
(She Was A) Hotel Detective (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Snail Shell (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Statue Got Me High (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
They'll Need a Crane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Guitar (The Lion Sleeps Tonight) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It looks like these articles all fail WP:NSONG. They Might Be Giants might be giants, but that doesn't make these songs notable. The only sources cited in these articles are either primary sources or album reviews, and the content can be merged into the respective albums.
Though the article Boss of Me is also in a poor state, I do not think it should be deleted, as I can find some sources that exist. e.g., Panama City News Herald, 2001 I cannot find non-trivial coverage of the songs I have listed, even ones as popular as "Ana Ng", but would be happy to be proven wrong. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:13, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Can't Keep Johnny Down and James K. Polk (song) which meet GNG, IMHO. Ana Ng I would think is on the cusp. Redirect the rest. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:05, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:Vigilantcosmicpenguin, this is not correctly formatted as a bundled nomination so any closure will only affect the article in this AFD's page title. You can't just make a list of articles like you've done here. If you would like to nominate these other articles for deletion consideration, please review WP:AFD and follow the instructions for nominating multiple articles exactly. Also be sure to notify all of the page creators about this AFD. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry for not getting around to this until now. I have reformatted this AFD, and I hope I have done it correctly this time. I have also notified the creators of each page. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 17:51, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect "Doctor Worm" to Severe Tire Damage (album). This song article only gives us some very minor fan trivia with no evidence that it is notable enough for its own article, and I can find nothing beyond that same trivia. Meanwhile, in agreement with the comment above, there should be no discussion of the other songs piled into this list, without precise nominations for each. Some of the others are notable. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:41, 21 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!} 23:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect "Doctor Worm" to Severe Tire Damage (album). Didn't even chart nationally. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Doctor Worm to Severe Tire Damage (album), procedural keep all the rest. A bundled nomination isn't appropriate here; these songs should be considered individually. Some are notable and some are not. The ones that are not can be redirected to the album articles, so they don't even necessarily have to go through AfD. Jfire (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree that bundling wasn't appropriate here. I created James K. Polk (song) and Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head well after the period mentioned in the nomination statement, and wrote them because I believed they cleared NSONG. If this discussion finds otherwise, so be it, but I'll give my creator's keep for them. For the rest, better to discuss individually, though for any that are not found to meet NSONG, redirect them to the respective album articles. There's really no need to delete. --BDD (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say after a quick review, I'd be ok with redirecting They'll Need a Crane to Lincoln (album) and Man, It's So Loud in Here to Mink Car. That does seem a likely outcome for them such that a separate discussion wouldn't be so helpful. --BDD (talk) 23:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Redirect agree with the above, to redirect "Doctor Worm" to Severe Tire Damage (album). — Preceding unsigned comment added by BonitueBera (talk • contribs) 00:37, 29 December 2024 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge each of these songs with their respective album articles, or otherwise redirect all, including (regretfully, as a fan) the specific songs other editors have mentioned like Can't Keep Johnny down and James K. Polk. All of the sources mentioned on those pages are passing mentions rather than in-depth coverage, often as answers to individual questions in interviews. Tserton (talk) 21:03, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I see a consensus for Doctor Worm but not for the other articles mentioned here. Also, if you participate in these AFD discussions, do not argue for a "Redirect" or "Merge" unless you are supplying a target article for each individual article to be Redirected or Merged to unless you are agreeing with another editor who has supplied this information. A closer can not Merge an article if there isn't clear information on where to Merge it and that comes from the consensus of editors, it's not the closer's best guess.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even as someone who prefers to keep, generally, I don't think any of these are good candidates for a merge. Here are the respective album articles for prospective redirection, listed as a courtesy to the closer.

Doctor Worm → Severe Tire Damage (album)
Ana Ng → Lincoln (album)
Can't Keep Johnny Down → Join Us
Experimental Film (song) → The Spine (album)
I Palindrome I → Apollo 18 (album)
James K. Polk (song) → Factory Showroom
Man, It's So Loud in Here → Mink Car
Particle Man → Flood (They Might Be Giants album)
Purple Toupee → Lincoln (album)
Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head → They Might Be Giants (album)
S-E-X-X-Y → Factory Showroom
(She Was A) Hotel Detective → They Might Be Giants (album)
Snail Shell (song) → John Henry (album)
The Statue Got Me High → Apollo 18 (album)
They'll Need a Crane → Lincoln (album)
The Guitar (The Lion Sleeps Tonight) → Apollo 18 (album)

Per my comments above, I am not advocating redirecting most of these, except as an WP:alternative to deletion. --BDD (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Doctor Worm to Severe Tire Damage (album). KmartEmployeeTor (talk) 11:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I already voted above and will simply recommend that a closing decision should stick with "Doctor Worm" (redirect to its album), because piling in all the other songs is a procedural violation. If the nominator still thinks that all the other songs should be deleted, those should be nominated for discussion per proper procedures. Three of them made the charts and could survive if analyzed appropriately ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Doctor Worm to Severe Tire Damage (album), keep the rest, as some of these are clearly well-sourced, and no effort is apparent to disprove their notability. BD2412 T 01:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (already !voted above): even though none of the sources (let alone several, as would be required to establish notability under WP:NSONG and the WP:GNG) currently cited in any of the article nominated for deletion represent in-depth coverage, I suppose it can't be ruled out that such sources exist for some of these songs somewhere on the web. So I would have no objection to keeping the others (i.e. those other than Doctor Worm) and subjecting them to separate, individual deletion discussions. Tserton (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2025 (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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CoinGecko

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

Non-notable crypto nonsense. Even by the low bar of our crypto standards, it’s still not notable. Lacks any meaningful independent coverage and is, like most crypto in 2024, a dime a dozen. GRINCHIDICAE🎄 20:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CoinGecko has been used in academic research ([23], [24]) and their API has brief tutorials in various books ([25], [26]). The coverage within each source is thin, so I'm not sure whether it's enough for a GNG pass. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sourcing I find is strictly primary. I don't think the sources above add to notability either. Nothing for GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also did some google scholar searches and this company is used a lot as a data source. Some news orgs rely on their data too. I found this from Journal of Data Science in Germany which uses them throughout a lengthy article as one of two examples of a data provider and this conference proceeding which has a paragraph and bullet points that explain their services. Oblivy (talk) 23:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it stands - Coingecko is important inside crypto, but I'm surprised to see zero RSes on this article - it's all crypto blogs. There are RSes that mention Coingecko in passing, but nothing I know of that's about Coingecko. We can have an article when we have RS coverage sufficient to pass WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 2 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abdihakim Arabow Ibrahim

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

Clearly fails WP:NPOL. Sources are single-event so a case of WP:BIO1E. GrabUp - Talk 19:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Two news articles are all I find. Being elected to a school board isn't notable, no matter what ethnicity he is. Does not meet NPOL. Would also not meet GNG as we don't have enough coverage in RS. Oaktree b (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Somalia, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL, as he has not received enough reliable, non-trivial coverage to fit the second criteria. Jordano^5³ 22:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm someone who prefers we didn't delete so many articles but even by my standards there's not enough notable about this person. Gatemansgc (TɅ̊LK) 06:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm sympathetic to 'firsts' in political offices, but that's not the consensus. Bearian (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No local-elected politician per NPOL and fails GNG. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:15, 5 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aatral Ashok Kumar

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

The sources are one-event cases of WP:BIO1E, and the subject failed to win the election, so it fail WP:NPOL. GrabUp - Talk 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Tamil Nadu. GrabUp - Talk 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable politician, fails WP:NPOL. also does not satisfy WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 10:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Considerably removed the unwanted section and added the Citations from the respectable source. Improved the page and kindly check it. Thanks Kandhan selvaraj (talk) 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's very strong consensus that merely being a candidate isn't automatic notability. I also don't see any thing close to significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:NPOL - Xoocit (talk) 10:08, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:GNG TYPEINFO (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to 2015–16 Huddersfield Town A.F.C. season. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Wilkinson (footballer, born 1995)

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

Fails GNG. Extremely short pro career. Article has. routine or primary sources. Yorkshire Live has an article which might be okay but alone doesn't establish notability. Beware that he has a famous comedian namesake who does a football podcast. Canary757 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015–16 Huddersfield Town A.F.C. season which is his sole claim to fame. Giant Snowman 20:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above and no SIGCOV that I could find. CNC (talk) 21:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per GiantSnowman. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2015–16 Huddersfield Town A.F.C. season: per GiantSnowman. CNC (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vanskere

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

Both this article and Evans Akere are promotional while relying on WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. The same creator wrote both and also added the brand to Fashion in Nigeria. 🄻🄰 18:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Nigeria. 🄻🄰 18:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Evans Akere. Most references are about Evans Akere. Not enough to make the brand notsable.Shinadamina (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a deletion discussion about Akere. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the creator of the article lists the brand as a client on his Instagram profile which is linked from his Wikipedia profile... 🄻🄰 22:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - besides lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, there's a conflict of interest and nonsensical claims (luxury and ready-to-wear are incomprehensible). Bearian (talk) 02:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable per WP:NCORP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatantly fails WP:ORGCRIT. We also cannot redirect to Evans Akere. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:46, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lacks significant coverage in addition with a lot of claims that cannot be verified. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:20, 4 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Hoffland

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

Musician that does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG. He's released four albums but the first two were independent releases (the other two are on obscure labels). A Google search finds social media presence but no sign of significant coverage. Pichpich (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the nom said, I can only locate social media for this person. No media reviews or stories about this person. Not meeting notability. Oaktree b (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV, WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - there's evidence of touring in Michigan and Wisconsin, but that doesn't seem to be enough to pass WP:NBAND. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable label work or chart activity, albums have no articles, and sources are all primary. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:02, 5 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evans Akere

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

Both this article and Vanskere are promotional while relying on WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. The same creator wrote both and also added the brand to Fashion in Nigeria 🄻🄰 18:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Nigeria. 🄻🄰 18:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Businesspeople. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I see a little notablity but this is not yet ready for a standalone article. I would also say redirect to List of fashion designers if there is any support for it. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Notability is not inherited. Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. We can't redirect to the List of fashion designers because that list is for notable people. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable, does not meet ANYBIO. BoraVoro (talk) 09:14, 6 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wes Berry

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

Promotional and created by a user who has only edited this article. 🄻🄰 17:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 🄻🄰 17:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Radio, and Michigan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE — Article fails WP:GNG. While the subject is described as a bestselling author and entrepreneur, the references primarily consist of self-published materials (Goodreads) or promotional sources (espeakers.com) and press releases (Agility PR Solutions Newsroom). None of the cited sources provide in-depth, independent analysis of the subject's life or work.

Claims of “bestselling” status lack verification from independent and reliable sources and appear to rely on press releases, see: WP:RS. Subject also fails Wikipedia:AUTHOR. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 18:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This article relies heavily on self-published materials. Out of 23 sources, 18 are from Goodreads. Aona1212 (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2025 (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.

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 speedily deleted‎ under G5. (non-admin closure) C F A 21:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ranaghat Government Polytechnic

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no SIGCOV coverages found. Colleges are not inherently notable. GrabUp - Talk 17:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and West Bengal. GrabUp - Talk 17:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as sock creation of blocked user Dny123. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2025 (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.

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 speedily deleted‎ per criterion G5. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Memari Government Polytechnic

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no SIGCOV coverages found. Colleges are not inherently notable. GrabUp - Talk 17:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: West Bengal and India,. GrabUp - Talk 17:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. GrabUp - Talk 17:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article is eligible for speedy db-banned, as the only significant edits were by its creator, a blocked sockpuppet. Wikishovel (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Misters of Nigeria

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

Sources all appear to be WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA 🄻🄰 17:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Nigeria. 🄻🄰 17:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sorry, I don't get it. This is a clear-cut WP:GNG pass. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you review the citations? They all seem to fail as reliable sources and appear promotional as per WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. 🄻🄰 21:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve reviewed ALL the sources and it is extremely bold to bundle ALL of them as unreliable because the tone seems to be promotional to you. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, which ones do you think are reliable? 🄻🄰 07:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Which ones do you think are not reliable? Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN states that the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that they are reliable. Which ones do you think are reliable? 🄻🄰 16:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Due to discussion had elsewhere, I think your judgment is biased and would not discuss anything further with you. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: there are enough reliable sources in the article to establish notability FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Sounds a bit promotional, but clean up isn't deletion at all. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: There are enough WP: GNG sources. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Generally NAWARD is now discontinued. And this subject passes GNG. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:20, 5 January 2025 (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.

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 speedily deleted‎ under G5. (non-admin closure) C F A 21:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalpaiguri Institute of Technology

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no SIGCOV coverages found. Colleges are not inherently notable. GrabUp - Talk 17:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, West Bengal, and Schools. GrabUp - Talk 17:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article about this college was previously soft deleted in September 2023, following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IMPS Polytechnic College, Jalpaiguri. Wikishovel (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IMPS Polytechnic College Jalpaiguri, IMPS Polytechnic College, Draft:IMPS Polytechnic College, Draft:IMPS Polytechnic College Jalpaiguri and Draft:Jalpaiguri Institute of Technology also had a series of short, unhappy lives, with the latter five ending up indefinitely salted. Wikishovel (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I couldn't find significant coverage from reliable sources in English or Bengali (জলপাইগুড়ি ইনস্টিটিউট অফ টেকনোলজি) in to meet WP:NSCHOOL or WP:GNG, just routine coverage confirming that the college exists. Wikishovel (talk) 14:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as sock creation of blocked editor Dny123. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2025 (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.

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 speedily deleted‎ under G5. (non-admin closure) C F A 21:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Itahar Government Polytechnic

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no SIGCOV coverages found. Colleges are not inherently notable. GrabUp - Talk 17:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, West Bengal, and Schools. GrabUp - Talk 17:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as sock creation of blocked user Dny123. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2025 (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.

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 speedily deleted‎ under G5. (non-admin closure) C F A 21:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kalimpong Government Polytechnic

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no SIGCOV coverages found. Colleges are not inherently notable. GrabUp - Talk 17:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, West Bengal, and Schools. GrabUp - Talk 17:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a sock creation of blocked user Dny123 Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:26, 3 January 2025 (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.

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 speedily deleted‎ under G5. (non-admin closure) C F A 21:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathabhanga Government Polytechnic

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, no SIGCOV coverages found. Colleges are not inherently notable. GrabUp - Talk 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India, West Bengal, and Schools. GrabUp - Talk 17:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a creation by a sock of blocked user Dny123. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inde News

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

The only sources are a press release and a random blog? 🄻🄰 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 🄻🄰 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources are not SIGCOV, and the article is a promotional piece. It fails both GNG and NCORP. I found some press releases, but nothing substantial to establish notability. GrabUp - Talk 02:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only sources I could find that talk about Inde News seem to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA press releases about their YouTube channel reaching 10 million subscribers, none of which would count towards NCORP or GNG. While I'm no expert, their 10 million subscribers also strike me as very suspicious - their videos only get about a thousand views on average, and their most viewed video only got 25,000 views, so I'm quite sceptical that they acquired those subscribers legitimately. But regardless, clearly a promotional article for a non-notable channel. MCE89 (talk) 12:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Deleted as a speedy deletion CSD G11. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alketa Spahiu

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

Fails WP:NBASIC and WP:NPROF. (NPP action) C F A 16:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Albania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would suggest draftification as an unsourced BLP, but that's already been done once and contested, and I can find no evidence of academic or author notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This was in draft for a while. Not only is it completely unsourced (and I found no coverage on a search), but it is totally lacking in specifics that would indicate possible notability. Seems to be a WP:MILL professor, and nothing encyclopedic would be lost by deleting this. The author of the article knows so much about this person's personal life that it is very likely COI, if not the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — agree with the above and even with the benefit of doubt to the author, there is no notability at all, no sources, no coverage at all of the subject anywhere to be found. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 20:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sources and apparently a total of 2 cites on GS. We normally expect 100s if not 1000s. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Nakamura (footballer, born 1996)

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

Lacks significant and independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. None of the sources in ja:wiki are significant or secondary. Geschichte (talk) 14:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT / WP:FOOTYN). QEnigma talk 15:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not seeing that the subject meets GNG CNC (talk) 17:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dokuzuncu Hariciye Koğuşu

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

Tagged 6 years ago as unsourced. The source on the Turkish article might be good and I found https://ahmetandicenmtal.meb.k12.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/06/22/256625/dosyalar/2022_12/30193320_Peyami-Safa-Dokuzuncu-Hariciye-Kogusu.pdf which is maybe the script? But 2 sources are not enough to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 13:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I think the source in the Turkish article supports WP:NF. The novel is much more notable than the film and covered in school curricula in Turkey. The film seems to be an adaptation of it with a cast consisting of top actors in Turkey. We need to check the archives to find more sources. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 16:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding another source, a thesis comparatively analyzing the film and the novel. [27] TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: in light of the sources presented. A redirect and merge was absolutely warranted anyway, so, very opposed to deletion of this. (Note: AfD is not cleanup and 2 sources can sometimes be judged enough (and often are))) -Mushy Yank. 01:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought there was a guideline somewhere suggesting 3 sources minimum. Whenever I create a new article I always cite at least 3 sources Chidgk1 (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You have the essay WP:THREE and of course, the more the merrier, but I don’t think 3 is the threshold. -Mushy Yank. 11:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the reliable sources identified in this discussion including the one linked by the nominator and the thesis identified by The Joyful Tentmaker, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:03, 1 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was merge‎ to List of recurring The Simpsons characters. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mona Simpson (The Simpsons)

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

Did WP:BEFORE, but found zero sigcov at all. Only this source [28] is quite good out of all that have been used, but I don't think this one also counts as sigcov. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 13:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of recurring The Simpsons characters Mona is an interesting charachter with a fun background, being voiced by Glenn Close and named after Steve Jobs' biological sister, but it's hard to justify an article for someone who just has (6)? appearances in the show over 30 years and no significant coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really seeing the problem here. The article is not only plot- it includes information on the creation, development and reception of the character. It could be merged to a list article but there is a lot of information to merge and it seems to me the simplest thing to do is keep the article as is. Rhino131 (talk) 04:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not nominate this for Afd just because the article is rubbish, but it lacks WP:SIGCOV. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 04:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. I reviewed the sources, and the development is sourced to primary sources such as DVD commentary, or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs about the character's existence. The reception is mostly trivial mentions within coverage about Simpsons guest stars in general. We need WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources to support its own article. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of recurring The Simpsons characters - The character only appeared in a small handful of episodes, and the coverage outside of listicles is either trivial or general coverage/reviews of the episodes she appeared in. As the entry on the character list currently only consists of a redirect here, there needs to be a Merge, rather than just a Redirect. Rorshacma (talk) 22:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Rorschacma. Non-notable, but the fact there's no section at the list means that some content should be merged there so we have information on the character preserved. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 23:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of recurring The Simpsons characters. As Rorshacma says above, there is a small handful of episodes where this character shows up. I don't think it should be kept or simply redirected for that matter.--SimmeD (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian winners and nominees of the New York Film Critics Circle

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

This page fails WP:NLIST, since none of the sources (or any others reviewed in BEFORE search) discuss Indian winners and nominees at the New York Film Critics Circle as a group. First off, there appear to be only two entries on this list, and all the sources describe their individual wins, not them as a group. Contested draftification. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Awards. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no sign of significance as a group per WP:NLIST. While NLIST allows for certain other types of lists regardless of notability, this does not fall into those categories. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is generally not a defining WP:NLIST characteristic and edges WP:POINT. Nate • (chatter) 23:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable awards ceremony since more than 40 years, not something random, well sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ustadeditor2011 (talk • contribs)

Comment The awards aren't in question here, but this separate article for two items picked out because of a nation of origination is not a proper reason for an article. Nate • (chatter) 17:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To kind of further explain this - the main issue here isn't whether or not the awards are notable. The issue is that as a spinoff article, this needs to justify its existence. This is generally done in one of two ways:

The topic has enough coverage to justify its own article. For this, what would be needed isn't coverage of a specific person winning an award, but rather coverage that generally talks about Indians being nominated for or otherwise participating in a given awards ceremony. You can see examples of this in the Academy Awards and Golden Globe articles.
The topic is large enough to justify a spinoff article. In other words, there would need to be so many nominees that it would make sense to spin it off into its own article. The catch here is that if there are enough nominees/winners to justify this, then there would be coverage fulfilling the first situation.

Now what makes this different and a bit frustrating is that well, the NYFCC isn't nearly as high profile as the other film festivals listed on the page. It's certainly known and respected, but it tends to receive a fraction of the attention of say, the Oscars or Golden Globes. As such, outlets are less likely to write articles focusing on a specific country at the NYFCC awards. Returning to the two points I made above, the issue here is that the article contains only two entries, so it isn't a case of there being so much content that a spinoff is obvious. There also doesn't seem to be any coverage focusing on the Indian film industry in general as it applies to the NYFCC awards - and because there are only two entries, this is the criteria that would really need to be proven (unless there are others that haven't been added). If you can find coverage of this, please add it. Now, I'm not saying that this coverage doesn't exist - I haven't looked for it so I can't say that it doesn't, just that this is where people arguing for a delete are coming from with this. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NLIST as described by the nominator. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CROSSCAT. hinnk (talk) 23:30, 5 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Burke (footballer, born 1994)

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

Fails GNG with 1 database source. No notable pro career. Canary757 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 11:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT / WP:FOOTYN). No notable professional career. Statistics available online fail to provide a consensus ([29] and [30]). No WP:RS and WP:IS for WP:V. QEnigma talk 14:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Among all the James Burke's out there, I found an Irish footballer manager, but nothing for the English footballer. CNC (talk) 17:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 13:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hill States–Sikh wars

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

Full of OR and synth mess, likely a mix of other conflicts, with hardly any mentions of such an event in the sources, couldn't establish notability in my WP:BEFORE for "Hill States–Sikh wars," which allegedly lasted over a century. Garuda ^Talk! 11:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Nepal, India, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, and Uttarakhand. Garuda ^Talk! 11:53, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Premised on original research. The individual battles appear to be well established by sources but grouping them alltogether under one series of wars is not which makes it original research. XwycP3 (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shakti Pumps

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Madhya Pradesh. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This company lacks significant coverage to meet the case of Wikipedia's Companies Notability Guidelines B-Factor (talk) 07:18, 6 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was speedy delete‎. Deleting per G5 and salting. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 21:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rizwan Sajan

AfDs for this article:

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

This promotional spam page is being continuously created by UPI editors. Fails GNG. All the sources are paid pieces. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, United Arab Emirates, and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 11:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt. I can't see if it's eligible for a G4, but the sources are spammy and unreliable unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA-type articles, so it should be deleted regardless. There is no independent, reliable WP:SIGCOV for a WP:GNG or WP:NBIO pass. Salting is appropriate given the numerous attempts at recreation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 13:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jay Prabha Medanta Super Specialty Hospital

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:NHOSPITALS. No source proves it to be a Level 1 trauma center. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 11:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bihar-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking significant coverage. A mere 3 google news hits. LibStar (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was merge‎ to List of banks in Uganda. ✗plicit 13:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of investment banks in Uganda

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

Disputed PROD. Fails WP:NLIST. No independent reliable sources that establish notability of the list (especially regarding investment banks specifically) as a whole. Also most entries are not notable with most of the ones having entries being about the parent company instead.

We already have a general list per List of investment banks. I also cannot see why this country gets a specific list for investment banks while most other countries have their investment bank list as a category instead. Imcdc Contact 11:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, Lists, and Uganda. Imcdc Contact 11:14, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of banks in Uganda. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 03:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge blue-linked only entries to List of banks in Uganda. Ajf773 (talk) 09:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of banks in Uganda: bit of an odd and unnecessary list FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Marion G. Wells. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marion G. Wells Foundation

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

No reliable secondary sources discussing it, note that Sourcewatch is classified as generally unreliable. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Organizations, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Marion G. Wells. I'm not sure she's notable either, but there's a page there that would make sense as an AtD for this topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:15, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not finding any sources, but TBH I'm not looking that hard because I'm also not seeing a lot of reason to think sources would exist. Per ProPublica, this foundation has $2.78M in total assets and a revenue of $318k. If this is a 'major' donor to Conservative Partnership Institute ($71.1M and $19.5M) and The Heritage Foundation ($415M and $101M) than I would expect to see some discussion in sources. The sources for the Heritage Foundation are just PDFs which list this among dozens and dozens of similar foundations with no indication of particular significance. Grayfell (talk) 21:39, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Nirma University. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmalabs

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Article made by COI user. Imcdc Contact 10:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and India. Imcdc Contact 10:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Gujarat-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:43, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The subject does not have enough media coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nirma University. Non-notable incubator and appears to have ceased operations within a couple of years of its establishment [31]. Yuvaank (talk) 14:46, 5 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

RepublicAsia

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

Fails WP:GNG two sources are from itself. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Websites, and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCORP. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Royiswariii Talk! 10:39, 5 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was keep‎. per Keep arguments and added sources (non-admin closure) BoraVoro (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STONEX India

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Page is promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - promotional style is visible but plenty reliable sources are present and the page requires clean up more than removing. --Kej Keir (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kej Keir, can you please list the numerous reliable sources present in the article for other editors to evaluate? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to identify any source that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. The content is supported by churnalistic articles and listings on e-commerce sites like Justdial.com and Indiamart.com, falling well short of meeting WP:NCORP. Yuvaank (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I made extensive research to find reliable sources and added two books that provide significant coverage. These sources now clearly meet the NCORP criteria. In addition to a few weaker references, there are also some important and useful ones that fulfill CORPDEPTH requirements—particularly several local newspapers that offer much deeper, independent context. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RodrigoIPacce, could you mention the sources that you believe provide deeper and independent context for other editors to evaluate? The Business World article you added is a trivial mention and the ProjectX India edition is merely a company listing. These do not offer significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' Initially, I thought it would be easy to delete; however, after evaluating the sources (including newly added ones), I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Wikipedia. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinnacle Air (India)

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

No IATA code, no ICAO code, no call sign. Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, appears to be a small charter plane // helicopter tourism operation which doesn't meet WP:GNG. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and the article is lacks verifiable content about its operations, history --Kej Keir (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super Penguins

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

This game is not notable as there are no RS that discuss it. What I see are primary sources that are minor reviews Seminita (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Seminita (talk) 08:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't seem to have much significant coverage from Pocket Gamer or VentureBeat. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 01:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even with the mentioned sources it still does not demonstrate sufficient notability. MimirIsSmart (talk) 09:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not finding anything additional from WP:VG/SE and the located sources are not sufficient coverage for WP:GNG. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:42, 2 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hans_Andre

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Hans Andre

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

I believe the subject does not meet notability requirements. There is no article on the Swedish-language wikipedia. Of the five references provided, two are NY Arts Magazine which is, from what I can gather (and correct me if I'm wrong), a vanity publisher. SallyRenee (talk) 08:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Sweden. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've been unable to locate any decent Swedish sources in Swedish newspaper archives. It hardly matters if we can't verify the article, but the name is misspelled – it should be Hans André, not Hans Andre. /Julle (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. Also chicken and egg situation: exact text as Concept Art Association. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 16:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WomenArtistUpdates: I took a look at the history and feel fairly confident that Concept Art Association has taken the text from Wikipedia and not the other way around, as the Wikipedia article grew piece by piece in several edits, rather than being inserted all at once (which would have been the case if it had been copied and pasted). /Julle (talk) 21:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Julle. Then the Concept Art Association bio cannot be used as source for the article. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 23:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. Insufficient sources to support a BLP (or indeed any article). Eluchil404 (talk) 04:27, 5 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was Speedy delete‎. WP:G7 to speed up the deletion process. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kehinde Thomas

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

Failed to meet Wikipedia Notability Requirement for biography Abu4real1995 (talk) 07:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Sportspeople, American football, and Nigeria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are all substanceless puff pieces. "Played for the Steelers" seems like an audacious lie. I can't find any record of this. Maybe he somehow left before he started playing, but I really doubt it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any substantial coverage for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. The current sources all read like PR puff. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Just a complete lie and patent nonsense meant to promote his ego. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: per nom and it should have been PROD'ed FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:33, 1 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 00:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sukhdev Singh Gogamedi

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

He got the attention in news media when he was allegedly shot by notorious gangster Lawrence Bishnoi gang and he was also a president of state level organisation i.e., Shree Rashtriya Rajput Karni Sena. But we do not create pages for presidents of caste based state organisations like Rajasthan Jat Mahasabha or Rajput Karni Sena of Rajasthan. If you see the sources then in almost all sources it is about “he shot by bishnoi gang”. I think he fails WP:GNG because he got attention only due to single event of being shot by alleged notorious gangster. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 12:40, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to no participation in debate
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSlumPanda (talk) 08:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Coverage of the subject in either English or Hindi centers exclusively around his murder and is concentrated within the time frame of December 2023 to January 2024. The subject would fall under WP:1E, which states that "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed." Tutwakhamoe (talk) 17:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was ‎Keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Diether Roderich Reinsch

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

~~Non-notable, article has no references, and as far as I can see, none can be found on searching anywhere DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)~~ Withdrawing AfD, see below[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Germany. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would the nominator care to comment on the subject's citation record in this low cited field? Xxanthippe (talk) 10:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
He does have a lot of works in his field, but nothing I have seen after a WP:Before suggests that he has had a significant impact in his discipline, nor does anything suggest he meets any of the other criteria in WP:NPROF either- and I especially checked all the criteria in case anything came up. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the multiple reviews of multiple of his works available on JSTOR: JSTOR 41121771, JSTOR 27687156, JSTOR 27626011, JSTOR 41048102, JSTOR 23463955, JSTOR 27689329, JSTOR 20861469. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 of basis of citations in this very low cited field. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Withdraw I couldn't find the reviews presented by User:David Eppstein (thanks), I should have searched differently, therefore withdrawing deletion nom DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus among participants to Keep this article.

As an aside, to the nominator, being " highly unlikely to grow beyond a stub" is not a valid deletion rationale. We have hundreds of thousands of articles that are stub articles and being a stub isn't a good reason to delete an article. It's about the content and sources, not the length of an article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GobbleHoof

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

The article has merely 2 sentences (for the past 10 years). Not enough reliable, verifiable, independent sources providing enough information to write a reasonably detailed article on the subject. The article seems highly unlikely to grow beyond a stub per WP:PERMASTUB. Rainydaywindows (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Massachusetts. Rainydaywindows (talk) 06:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NBAND bullet 5, having released two albums on New Alliance Records which has an article which shows that they had like 20 blue-linked bands on the label, including Hüsker Dü. I guess that makes them "one of the more important indie labels" which is what WP:NBAND wants. (Info from Discogs.

Also meets WP:GNG which wants two sources that are somewhere north of a passing mention in a single sentence (how far north it doesn't say). Here is bit in Trouser Press which has an article and which even I've heard of, with a full paragraph. Refs indicate that Spin (magazine), famous magazine, is claimed to have some material on the band (Jan 1993 - Page 36 Vol. 8, No. 10)) -- can't tell how much but at least a full sentence, probably more. There is your GNG right there, and to round it out there's a passing mention in The Encyclopedia of Popular Music, and an Italian book ("The Night Elvis Came Out of the Grave"), and another book (" I Found My Friends: The Oral History of Nirvana"). They really just barely pass WP:GNG so it's debatable, but that's just the refs from the article, there might be more out there, and anyway they pass WP:NBAND also. (The article itself is not super great yet but there's enough there to make an acceptable article, couple paragraphs.) Herostratus (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Herostratus. I'm just not seeing enough material from which to develop a "reasonably detailed article" – it seems like a classic WP:PERMASTUB. The article has been around for 10 years and hasn't grown beyond a couple of sentences. Even if we could grow it to a couple of paragraphs, I'm not seeing how the article would ever grow beyond a stub short of adding puffery, padding, and undue weight. With borderline notability at best, I'm struggling to see a case to keep it. Rainydaywindows (talk) 05:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I get you. Yes its marginal. However, I don't think that couple of good-sized paragraphs is a stub; it's just a short article. We have lots of articles that short. It's kind of a judgement/opinion call. I'm saying keep because 1) they do squeak past NBAND, 2) it could be expanded to (my view of) a reasonable size, and 3) it's already made and not hurting anyone, so why bother to delete it. OTOH it's getting only two views a day which over the years will probably drop even lower....

I'm too tired/lazy to edit the article, but we have got a "Between crazy sick blues and hardcore, the baritone voice of Charlie Nakajima, the singer of the group, stands out. With the single "Headbanger," released the following year, Gobble Hoof offers, in the title track and in Shotgun, strange visions of splatter..." [maybe there's more] and " ...Gobblehoof — This band is in a constant battle with demons and I am interested in following its struggle to see who will come out on top..." [maybe there's more, and that is SPIN] and it's got a blulinked member (J Mascis) who was also in the notable Dinosaur Jr, but OTOH GobbleHoof isn't mentioned in Mascis' article... you've got "...Far less ponderous than it might seem on paper, GobbleHoof butts heads like a dark-hearted metal band, but never... [maybe there's more] and a couple passing mentions... Blulinked Tim Aaron was in the band, and there's a link to this article, which if deleted would go black... I dunno. All in all, my view is that it just squeezes over the bar. Herostratus (talk) 08:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus I have identified and added several independent critical reviews of the band's music - please have a look - because it's starting to look like a more solid keep. ResonantDis_tortion 10:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. Somebody should WP:HEY these things in, but let George do it lol. Herostratus (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Keep. Further to the above - I have added citations to the article with non-trivial secondary coverage of the band's work. This includes that notable musician J Mascis played drums on the bands debut EP. I have also identified that Metal Hammer reviewed Freezerburn, but I am unable to source the actual article (see [32]). Sufficient here to build a start class article in my view - and also evidence to presume offline sources do exist. ResonantDis_tortion 11:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the article now has a number of additional references to reliable sources coverage in multiple publications so that together there is enough coverage for a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:25, 3 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of foods that are Swiss by name but not culture

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

Incomplete list. Not sure if topic satisfies WP:NLIST, and if such a list is needed. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Switzerland. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Added citations but wasn't able to find any articles suggesting that the list category itself is notable (though it's a great idea for a blog post or magazine article). Probably doesn't satisfy WP:NLIST. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and add to WP:DAFT. Just not a viable list with such a limited scope. Geschichte (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.

-1ctinus📝🗨 00:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am wondering if this topic satisfies WP:SETINDEX rather than WP:NLIST. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The names are not similar enough for this to be a set index article. Set index articles also don't have arbitrary selection criteria like "not Swiss by culture". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Mekons. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Corina

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources. Easily fails WP:MUSICBIO and now a target of a promotional farm. Even this older version I reverted to might fall into the WP:PROMO category. Jalen Barks (Woof) 05:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and England. Jalen Barks (Woof) 05:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:MUSICBIO) category. Sources provided in the article fail WP:V with some of them being considered generally unreliable (WP:RSP). Articles available online are mostly user generated content that do not meet WP:RS and WP:IS criteria. QEnigma talk 13:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Mekons per WP:BANDMEMBER. As it stands, there is insufficient to warrant individual notability. On current evidence, and in searches, most mentions of Corina in RS appears to be in context of the Mekons band, therefore this should be considered as an WP:ATD. If further coverage surfaces in due course, then the article can be easily resuscitated. ResonantDis_tortion 12:24, 1 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max Flick

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this American soccer player. Contested PROD. JTtheOG (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania. JTtheOG (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT / WP:FOOTYN) criteria. Football statistics websites show ([33]) 3,445 minutes in 71 matches as career figures. USL 1 is the highest division this player has participated in with 3,408 minutes and 67 matches. USL 1 is a division 3 football league (Professional football). No WP:V material available. QEnigma talk 12:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 withdrawn‎. charlotte ^👸🎄 21:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mars and Venus in the Bedroom

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

~~Not enough coverage. I've attempted to locate coverage for this book, but was only able to find sales of the book and other first-party sources.~~ See withdrawal below — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 04:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 04:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I just want to point out that this page has had an undisclosed payment tag for a while and was proposed for deletion ten years ago. I won't vote here but I'm just pointing that info out for others. Di (they-them) (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Di (they-them). I've removed the UPE tag, it's old and any promotional language has been removed. Schazjmd (talk) 15:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. On a quick search I found a review from Kirkus Reviews as well as two academic articles that have this book as their primary subject, which is more than enough to satisfy WP:NBOOK.
- MARS AND VENUS IN THE BEDROOM: A GUIDE TO LASTING ROMANCE AND PASSION. (1995). Kirkus Reviews, (4) Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/trade-journals/mars-venus-bedroom/docview/917205028/se-2
- Peterson, Valerie. "Mars and Venus: The Rhetoric of Sexual Planetary Alignment." Women and Language, vol. 23, no. 2, fall 2000, p. 1. Gale Literature Resource Center, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A71066172/LitRC?u=anon~f9675820&sid=googleScholar&xid=4703e5e4.
- Potts, A. (1998). The Science/Fiction of Sex: John Gray’s Mars and Venus in the Bedroom. Sexualities, 1(2), 153-173. https://doi.org/10.1177/136346098001002002

Astaire (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added the best-seller info with refs and the Publishers Weekly review to the article. I found the same Peterson paper as Astaire but haven't digested it into the article yet. Meets WP:NBOOK. Schazjmd (talk) 15:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per sources above, enough to meet NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. As the original nominator, the sources that have been presented above prove that the book meets NBOOK. Thank you for the assistance. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 21:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

K07AAD-D

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

Fails WP:GNG; largely unsourced; was part of a previous AFD. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Texas. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 03:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for the record, this is the previous AFD. Esolo5002 (talk) 05:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stations owned by Innovate Corp.: it's certainly been a while since the last time one of these run-of-the-mill HC2/Innovate stations came up for (re-)nomination. That this station was part of the failed bulk nomination a few years back would appear to indicate that, despite the history dating to 1980, the requisite significant coverage (much less evidence of running anything other than national services) does not (and likely will never) exist. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All-time Charleston Battery roster

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

Subject lacks notability under WP:LISTN due to a lack of sourcing. PROD was removed with the claim that sources exist, however none have been added to the article and I could not find any in a BEFORE, so bringing this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Football, Lists, and South Carolina. Let'srun (talk) 03:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The idea of PROD wasn't bad either. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 08:36, 4 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LoyaltyLion

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

DELETE — Fails WP notability guidelines for organisations and companies WP:NCORP. The sources cited don't demonstrate significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Most of the references are either self-published (the company's own website) or fail to offer in-depth analysis, consisting instead of brief mentions or promotional content, such as interviews and mentions in listicles. The tone of the article also leans towards promotional, especially in sections like "Platform Features" and "Partnerships and Integrations" WP:NPOV. There is a lack of information demonstrating the company's impact or actual significance beyond its promotional claims WP:NOTPROMO. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 02:41, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article about an e-comm tool platform / company (created fully-formed on a new account's 11th edit). Fails WP:NCORP. The given sources are poor (though I can't see the paywalled article about Astrid & Miyu's use of the tool with Shopify), insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH and searches are not finding better to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 10:01, 4 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Haret Hreik. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hezbollah Headquarters

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

Redirect to Haret Hreik. WP:RS do not identify this as a distinct entity but rather use it as a descriptive term. The cited provide only WP:PASSING mentions of a "Hezbollah headquarters" with their primary focus on information already covered in existing Wikipedia articles. Consolidating this content under Haret Hreik is more appropriate, as the area encompasses the context discussed here. A redirect ensures the information remains accessible without duplicating content unnecessarily. Longhornsg (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Geography, Middle East, Israel, and Lebanon. Longhornsg (talk) 02:17, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. The term "Hezbollah Headquarters" seems to have only been discussed as a casual mention in reference to recent events. There do not appear to be any sources describing the "Hezbollah Headquarters" as a physical location. Anonymous 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom for all the reason mentioned above me and more. gidonb (talk) 19:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - Haret Hreik is more appropriate. Whizkin (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2025 (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.

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 23:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YL Ventures

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Mostly about routine funding. Some info from Techcrunch but notability is limited per WP:TECHCRUNCH. This was previously deleted per AfD before. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, Israel, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 01:46, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references meet GNG/WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage in independent reliable sources that is not routine. Whizkin (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of diplomatic relations of Ireland

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

This article is pretty much a copy-paste of Foreign relations of Ireland except the list is a bit different as the creator believes that Ireland maintains diplomatic relations with Equatorial Guinea and São Tomé and Príncipe, yet the soucres he used are poorly sourced as they do not indicate anything about establishing diplomatic relations. Also, the history section has no reliable source at all. Underdwarf58 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Underdwarf58 (talk) 01:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Foreign relations of Ireland is enough. Orientls (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Delete: Per nom FuzzyMagma (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, leaving a Redirect. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with Bastum. ww2censor (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy Maday

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

Non-notable actor with roles in only one notable film. None of the sources are reliable, and I found none with significant coverage online. I initially BLARed this to Presence (2024 film)#Cast, but it was reverted by the article's creator. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 01:24, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:BIO/WP:NACTOR. No significant coverage exists in reliable sources; most existing sources mention him as a cast member but there is no independent coverage of the subject himself. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All sources I can find are databases or passing mentions in news sources. Fails WP:NACTOR as mentioned above. Jordano^5³ 04:16, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living Prime Ministers of India

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

A new article not meeting WP:NLIST and unwarranted in the presence of List of prime ministers of India. At heart, it's a two-element list, and the rest is WP:OR. A PROD was contested; I considered a merge, but there doesn't seem to be any unique referenced material to merge. Klbrain (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Politics, and India. Klbrain (talk) 00:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:21, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Anybody wanting this info can just look at List of prime ministers of India#Lifespan of prime ministers. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete duplicates information already avialable at List of prime ministers of India. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Totally unnecessary. Obi2canibe (talk) 15:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and info is available in List of prime ministers of India#Lifespan of prime ministers.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2025 (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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Pocket PC devices#Samsung. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung SPH-i700

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

No indication of notability displayed since 2012. In addition, does not cite any sources. Could possibly be merged elsewhere. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 00:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This was all I could find [34], looks to be a press release. Nothing for notability, no sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 01:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pocket PC devices#Samsung - mentioned in that list, I added the press release as a reference. --Mika1h (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~:Also found this CNET review: [35]~~ --Mika1h (talk) 10:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, it was for a different model. SGH not SPH. --Mika1h (talk) 10:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Killing of Brian Thompson with the option to merge content from the history as deemed appropriate by interested editors.

The "merge"/"redirect" arguments are substantially stronger in terms of applicable policies and guidelines, and I must therefore give them determining weight. For as to why, I refer generally to the convincing analysis by Guninvalid, below. In short:

The policy WP:BLP1E and the guideline WP:VICTIM represent broad community consensus. In cases where, as here, the issue is whether, exceptionally, to maintain a separate article about the prima facie not notable victim of a notable crime, the onus is therefore on those in favor of keeping the article to demonstrate the notability of the victim independent of the crime. Very few people have even attempted to do so here. Arguments that assume that any CEO of a big company is notable are without basis in our guidelines or practices. And those arguments that point to sources predating the crime have generally not stood up to critical scrutiny in this discussion. Nobody has, for instance, cited the kind of pre-murder coverage in independent reliable sources that we generally look for in assessing notability per WP:GNG. Sandstein 12:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Thompson (businessman)

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

During initial discussions of the notability of the subject I favored that this article be kept for the time being, pending the emergence of articles in reliable sources on the subject. Since then there has been quite a lot of coverage in reliable sources and a problem has emerged.

It has become apparent that virtually all the coverage of Thompson in reliable sources is relevant to his murder. The little that is not is trivial in nature (e.g. he was separated from his wife and once was arrested for drunk driving). As a result, the indisputably notable and necessary article on his killing, Killing of Brian Thompson is little more than an expanded version of this article. This article is superfluous, and should be deleted or merged into that article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His activities at UH are sufficient to meet WP:NPERSON. He is not only notable for a single event. PhotographyEdits (talk) 17:05, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - while the coverage/sources have largely emerged only due to the killing, there are notable events and facts about his life that pre-date late 2024, and I think he meets WP:NPERSON as a result. Need to be careful not to let too much of the content/tone of Killing of Brian Thompson spill into here, tho. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for these same reasons. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for similar reasons to others listed. And also, I'm sorry, not to be rude, but are we talking about this again? And already? This is the third discussion I've been a part in the last month or two, or however long it's been, as far as whether to keep this article. Each time, the consensus has been keep. So, that seems to just be the consensus for the time being. I don't know how many times the same discussion is 'allowed' or what have you to be brought up in the same time period, but surely we all can agree that we should be waiting at least a few months if not longer to let things cool down before re-opening this discussion again (if that's even necessary) based on the fact that we are consistently coming to the same conclusion? InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 18:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge there is far too much scrapping on any possible report about Thompson that fails BLP (which still applies). The bulk of the biographical details are routine and do not show any notability. Nearly all the criticism about him is mostly about UHC while he happened to be CEO, which doesn't automatically make him responsible for those choices, nor make him notable. We will avoid a lot of BLP problems by including the criticism of UHC within the killing article are related to the motive of the killing. But otherwise BLP1E clearly is met, and we should not have a standalone of him. Masem (t) 17:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- To add the bulk of the sources are after his death. If he was truly notable beyond BLE1E, there would be far more sourcing from before his death, but the only pieces there prevdeath are routine aspects related to his promotions at UHC. This is the type of case that BLP1E as well as BLP CRIME were written to avoid. Masem (t) 18:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Iowa. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - we have articles for CEOs of major companies, including those who aren't particularly notable except for just leading their companies. UHC is a major and controversial company, and Thompson is notable for his leadership before his murder. See WP:NPERSON. JohnAdams1800 (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no explicit notability for CEOs of major corporations. — Masem (t) 00:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would also point out that Thompson was not the CEO of the public entity, United Health Group. He was CEO of the United Healthcare division. Johnadams11 (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Thompson largely has the same characterization as Mangione I think, since he is largely WP:BLP1E, but that WP:1E is not trivial, and he played an untrivial role in that event (even unwillingly). I think the same principle applies to Thompson as to Mangione, but the difference, as I see it, is that the coverage around Mangione quickly turned him into a folk hero. Thompson has almost faded into obscurity by comparison: it's been the US healthcare system that's been vilified, not this one person. I think that if Mangione is notable enough for this 1E, Thompson should be, but the deletion discussion for Mangione didn't conclusively litigate that, in my opinion (though I was involved). But if Mangione isn't notable for simply the one event, I don't think Thompson would be notable at all. There simply hasn't been much coverage of this person, as @Coretheapple points out. I hope that was enough explanation to not just be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS :)guninvalid (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the AfD was overturned, I have a chance to add some additional thoughts. The closer of Mangione's AfD mentioned that one of the main arguments that went unaddressed was WP:RECENTISM, and I think that applies here as well. To again make the comparison to the Mangione article, I'm not convinced either Mangione or Thompson would pass the WP:20YEARTEST, but I definitely think Mangione would have a better shot at it with all the robin-hood-esque coverage around him post-shooting. Thompson, on the other hand, was just another CEO of just another branch of just another big company. The only notability he has is from being a CEO, not anything he necessarily did as CEO. This could change if his personal life is litigated at Luigi's trial, but even then, only maybe. guninvalid (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, as per reasoning of @Coretheapple Sushidude21! (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And @guninvalìd Sushidude21! (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson per nom, as well as the reasonings of Masem and guninvalid. JeffSpaceman (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JohnAdams1800, and since the Mangione article AfD passed as keep, which was a concern of Coretheapple. Cheers! Johnson524 06:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Mangione article's AfD did get closed as Keep, but a deletion review was initiated. There is some weak support from the admins to overturn to no-consensus, though I don't believe that's actually going to happen. guninvalid (talk) 09:58, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mangione has received an avalanche of attention in RS sources, so I am not surprised by the result of the AfD. In the past such criminals (Richard Matt comes to mind) get articles, and efforts to delete them on a 1E basis are unsuccessful. I speak from experience on that. Here we have an article on a victim, and I think 1E looms especially large here, as the amount of attention focused on him has been far less than Mangione, resulting in what is essentially a duplicative article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:01, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Matt, he was a principal character in two film adaptations. Though I advocated for deletion of the article the community was opposed. 1E only is meaningful if it is enforced, and it was not in that instance. In this instance, we need to weigh carefully the purpose served by this article and how it replicates another article. Coretheapple (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson Let's not make this person a hero over many dead people. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 07:12, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Having a Wikipedia article does not mean he is a "hero". Iostn (talk) 11:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson Jotamide (talk) 21:18, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it would be pretty questionable in terms of the reputation of this website that the alleged murderer (and his father) has been given a wikipedia article, whilst the victim's one is deleted. I would support all of these articles including the one for Mangione to be merged into a single article however Anvib (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, Wikipedia's reputation will be fine. It's already bad enough with creationists and teachers alike. guninvalid (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Notability stems from coverage of murder. Firecat93 (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson. Once again, he will always be synonymous with his murder and was not notable beforehand. Everything else pertaining to his life — his separation and DUI arrest — is trivial. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 04:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has become known not only for his death, but for his role in the U.S. health insurance industry; as CEO of his company, he was the person within the company that bore primary responsibility for carrying out its policies, which were remarkable even by the standards of that industry. — The Anome (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- It has not been shown that he was the principle decision maker or the one that directed the company to chose its approval/denial processes. His tenure at UHC was marked by these but as he was only in the CEO position since 2021, it's hard to determine how much influence he actually has or was a continuation of ongoing practices. We have no way yet to be able to attribute that all to him personally. — Masem (t) 15:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Brian Thompson was the CEO of a very successful and large company and his murder was also very notable and unexpected, so I believe that he should have his own article kept because of this. I also agree with @The Anome above, on why the article should be kept. AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 14:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Idek mann (talk) 16:23, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I started to type out a "merge and redirect" !vote, mainly because I did a search for sources, restricting the dates to before this month, and couldn't find anything substantial. Since we already have an article on the event, merge made sense. However, stepping back for a second, his notability may have increased because of the way he died, but there are nonetheless many sources that are about him specifically now, including high-profile obituaries, and not just the killing. Seems he passes WP:BIO at this point. e.g. NYT, Star Tribune, NYT, Newsweek, WSJ, AP, CNN Business... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of that coverage is rote obit aspects particularly when we compare to how the victims of tragic events that fall into BLP1E are covered similarly by the media in a sympathetic manner (eg like victims of school shootings). None of these point to any he did that was notable before he was killed. If one considers all the factors that are unique to his biography that there is not covered to a degree on the killing page, this is a very generic business person profile that would fail GNG normally. That means we can still give a few paragraphs on his bio on the killing page but shouldn't have a full article that is a honeypot for potential BLP violations. Masem (t) 18:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Masem. KOLANO12 3 19:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kolano123, I don't think you have read the comments here very carefully because Masem is arguing to Merge, not Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of WP:N and WP:V with WP:RS. IZAK (talk) 03:36, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This deletion request is frankly quite ridiculous. Brian Thompson is not just known for his murder. There are multiple reliable news sources talking about him other than his death. Shoot for the Stars (talk) 06:44, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Not only is he notable enough to have his own Wikipedia page, separate from the killing, theres also a massive number of sources, also separate from his killing, that talk about him EarthDude (talk) 07:43, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Shoot for the Stars and EarthDude 𝔅𝔦𝔰-𝔖𝔢𝔯𝔧𝔢𝔱𝔞? 17:08, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep well he is a famous person, with this logic then every dead ceo's page should get deleted Emayeah (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In addition to the sources provided by Rhododendrites, here are some other reliable sources that focus on and discuss his personal life and career, not just his death/the killing:
The Washington Post

The New York Times

BBC

CNN

NPR

ABC News -- Some1 (talk) 22:02, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should make it clear that I support keeping the article. Some1 (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the best argument in favor of Keep on this page. But Wapo, BBC, and NPR seem to be typical obituary pieces. I can't read NYT, but from the headline and the first paragraph it looks like a obit as well. CNN and ~~NPR~~ABC do bring up that he was named in a shareholder lawsuit which could make this a WP:BLP2E, but this shareholder lawsuit was against UH's board, not just Thompson. guninvalid (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I apologize in advance for the informality, the man is everywhere. I can't escape him. Every source is yammering about him. —theMainLogan (t•c) 22:20, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don’t typically put Oppose or Support !votes on AfD discussions - you either Keep, Merge, or Delete !vote - are you opposing the article’s existence, or the deletion of the article? Cheers, atque supra! Fake scientist8000 19:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I meant "Keep". Sorry for the inconvenience. —theMainLogan (t•c) 22:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He is a notable figure outside of this murder and has information about the healthcare system by being a CEO. Rager7 (talk) 00:00, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this is notable enough to have an article, then an assassinated CEO should easily clear the bar. -- Sleyece (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That argument is very much WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and we already have an article on his assassination – there is way less sourcing on Brian Thompson separate from his assassination than there is on hawk tuah, as that article's references attests. Notability is about sources, not about subjective importance or seriousness. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess if you're going to press me on policy, my position is more of a cynical Merge into this. -- Sleyece (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Brian already has some coverage from BBC, CNN, etc. as stated by @Rhododendrites and @Some1. He definitely meets WP:NPERSON. Sangsangaplaz (Talk to me! I'm willing to help) 10:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article looks good and the subject is notable on its own. There's some notable info that has nothing to do with his shooting as well. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep as there is some limited amount of coverage not related to his death. However, being a CEO of a large company is not in itself a notability criterion – we should decide based on coverage in sources, not any subjective measure of fame or importance – and arguments only relying on this should be discounted or at least given lower weight, in my opinion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Killing of Brian Thompson. He seems like a WP:BLP1E, which is always sad when it's a death. All but one source I saw is from this month; I don't see it demonstrated that he was notable before his killing. Even though there is a lot of coverage on him, even describing his past, it's still due to the assassination. SWinxy (talk) 19:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Someone pointed out that Hawk tuah has a page, so Brian Thompson should too; and someone else responded saying that argument is invalid because WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. However, I disagree with that logic. Hawk tuah has a page AND Hailey Welch has a page. Therefore, it would seem to make sense that Killing of Brian Thompson and Brian Thompson should have their own pages. Furthermore, this man was the CEO of the 10th largest corporation in the United States by market capitalization. Teddybearearth (talk) 07:25, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Citing Hailey Welch is stilla WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Welch is notable for at least two things: hawk tuah and Talk Tuah, where she plays a well-documented role in both of them. Thompson, on the other hand is only notable for being a CEO. There's very little documentation of what he has personally done, or anything even attributed to him. If he hadn't been shot, we wouldn't be having this conversation because he wouldn't have an article. That's essentially the definition of WP:BLP1E. guninvalid (talk) 11:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD was closed by a non-admin as "keep". Following a DRV appeal, I have re-opened it (as permitted by WP:NACD). Any admin is welcome to close at any time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this AFD was closed prematurely, went to DRV and was reopened. Seems fitting to give it a relisting to give our regular closers time to assess this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Just because his article didn't exist before the killing doesn't mean he wouldn't have been eligible for one - as the CEO of a major company and the other items in the news about him, I wager he could have had an article prior and it would not have been disputed. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:05, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many ways that we can establish the article's notability. KOLANO12 3 09:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is clearly not a case of BIO1E/BLP1E. The sources in the article demonstrate notability as the CEO of a major insurance company, well before his murder. Frank Anchor 15:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The bulk of the sources about his role including CEO in UHC are all after his death, which is a good sign his role in UHC was not notable. Just because post death sources have covered his career more extensively does not create notability that wasn't there, because this is all trying to justify any reasoning to why he was targeted. All which is far better to discuss in the context of the killing event article and not a bio. Masem (t) 15:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - While the bulk of his sources are dated after his death, the article still includes several GNG-passing sources that are dated prior to December 2024. And even several of the ones that were published after his death include significant coverage of his role as CEO. This means that his death is a contributing factor, and not the sole reason, for his notability. Frank Anchor 19:00, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The pre death sources are not "significant coverage" of his role as CEO for the GNG, they simply announce this promotion. The coverage from Modern Healthcare, a trade magazine for the healthcare industry, edges on falling into not being independent under the type of more stringent sourcing we'd apply for businesses under NORG (as to avoid promotional coverage) . The only other real bit of coverage is his being named in the insider trading lawsuit but per BLP, we'd not use that for notability since he wasn't a public figure. If one can take out all post death sources and consider what had been written about him, he would not meet either the GNG or any NBIO criteria. The only reason we now know so much more about him is the type of coverage that victims of crimes often get, which is one of the reasons we have BLP1E for in the first place, as to not memorialize or glamorize or condemn them because of the obits that suddenly appear. Masem (t) 19:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - Saying the in-depth profile articles by Modern Healthcare border on not being independent because it is a trade magazine describing the healthcare industry is absolutely ridiculous. This publication describes the healthcare industry, but is not affiliated with any healthcare or insurance provider. The lawsuits, when combined with the news of his death, make it so BLP1E does not apply. With either one or the other, there is a possible BLP1E argument, but that is clearly not the case now. Frank Anchor 20:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Trade journals, even if independent, are often places where you pay to be written about, which is why per NORG we should be very cautious of using the Modern Healthcare profiles as independent. Being named in an yet-resolved insider trading lawsuit that has not had extensive coverage is also not a sign of notability. And as pointed out below, VICTIM absolutely applies here. Editors are trying to stretch anything he did before his death as being notable, but really there is just nothing there for this. What details on his personal life and career can be easily summarized in the event article. Masem (t) 20:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep High notability and extensive media coverage. Wjfox2005 (talk) 15:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is enough WP:RS coverage to meet WP:NPERSON. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here, as the subject very likely would have been considered notable before his death.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Never thought I'd see this kind of subject as a Wikipedia article. But there's probably a lot more to come, and Wikipedia should be there. i.e., under Thompson, UHC employees were specifically trained in claims denial, to wear patients down from getting their medical services paid. — Maile (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. CEO of a business with over $200,000,000,000 in revenue. Received coverage such as this prior to his death and was ranked by Modern Healthcare multiple times as one of the most influential people in healthcare [36], [37].

Coverage now of course focuses on the salacious details about him being shot to death on the street and the reactions, instead of the intricacies of some insurance deal he oversaw a decade ago. Our article currently mentions he kept a low profile, so he maybe wouldn't have wanted a Wikipedia page, but that doesn't negate his notability.

There are likely lots of other CEOs and business leaders who are notable and we should have articles about too, but nobody without a COI cares enough to write those articles. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM: This seems like an argument for creating other articles, rather than a reason for this article to be deleted; we already have a list of CEOs of significant companies, and it's arguable that most, or all of the CEOs of similarly large companies should have articles. — The Anome (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@The Anome: I agree. It wasn't an argument to delete this article, I !voted to keep.

We have an article about one of Thompson's predecessors as UHC CEO, Gail Boudreaux. I'm not sure if that's due to her college basketball or business career though. We should probably have an article on Greg A. Adams, CEO of Kaiser Permanente. He was ranked #4 among the 100 most influential figures in healthcare this year, and just from a brief search there is quite a bit of coverage of him.

We have notability guidelines for WP:NACADEMICS for example. Any chancellor of a university or editor of a journal is inherently notable, but the CEO of a >$200 billion revenue company (of which there are fewer than 50 in the world according to list of largest companies by revenue) is not a notable position for someone to hold, apparently. This would probably be dismissed as an OSE argument, but WP:SSEFAR. I think it's a result of editor interests, most editors simply don't care enough to write articles about businesspeople (or notability guidelines about businesspeople) unless they have a COI and are being paid to do so. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This may qualify him for point 1 of WP:ANYBIO, since he received a well-known award. But I don't know if Modern Healthcare's list would be considered a "well-known award or honor" according to ANYBIO. guninvalid (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My comments were a response to the nomination, which said "virtually all the coverage of Thompson in reliable sources is relevant to his murder. The little that is not is trivial in nature (e.g. he was separated from his wife and once was arrested for drunk driving)". I probably could've been clearer about this. He was covered in RS about his business career and named by Modern Healthcare as one of the most influential people in healthcare multiple times. These are not trivial details about his personal life as the nom suggests, and that coverage was before his killing. There's also been significant coverage of his business career after his death, evidenced by the numerous references we have in the career section of the article currently.

No one has !voted to delete this article either, there seems to be unanimous agreement that the subject is notable, but those arguing for merge say Thompson is only notable in context of his killing, which we already have an article about. The references I linked above about his business career prior to his death, and more generally the fact he was CEO of a >$200 billion revenue company, runs counter to the merge arguments citing BLP1E which imply that he was a low-profile individual or only covered in relation to one event.

An argument could be made for the subject's notability prior to December 2024, but that's a hypothetical as this AfD discussion isn't taking place prior to December 2024. Such an argument would also not be inclusive of the practical issues about article size which now exist. The killing of Brian Thompson article is already very long. As I mention in some comments below, NVICTIM argues for creation of sub-articles due to article size; merging this article into the killing of Brian Thompson article would exacerbate the article size issue. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 02:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Killing of Brian Thompson. No one here has brought up WP:VICTIM yet, which applies here and means we can have an article, and while WP:DEATHS is only an explanatory essay, the flow chart is still instructive. There are also very few sources on him before he became a victim. Furthermore this doesn't mean that we should lose any of the information here, just that there is no need for two separate articles. SportingFlyer T·C 06:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that WP:VICTIM applies (A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person) and I am slapping myself with a heavy trout that I didn't know about it, or I would have cited it. I hope that the closing admin takes it into consideration despite my negligent omission of that highly pertinent aspect of the guideline. Coretheapple (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, just being a CEO does not qualify him for a stand-alone article as others are claiming, and there's no evidence of coverage that isn't routine that was written before this happened. The sources in this AfD are either routine (he got a job) or are obituaries, and we do have guidelines for this exact situation. SportingFlyer T·C 01:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree there should be more articles about CEOs, the reason this case got so much media coverage was because of him being a CEO. Sahaib (talk) 11:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Siding with Sahaib. / RemoveRedSky ^[talk] 17:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Notable as CEO of UnitedHealth alone.--Afus199620 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Brian Thompson is not only notable for his murder but for being the CEO of a large and successful health company, UnitedHealthcare. Some people also appear to have a bias against him just because he was a healthcare CEO. Also, the amount of coverage he has gotten not only in the US, but also across the world, makes him worthy of a Wikipedia article in my opinion. AwesomeAndEpicGamer (talk) 20:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Some people also appear to have a bias against him just because he was a healthcare CEO." This is a mild case of assuming bad faith. Please remember to assume good faith in the future. Many of the merge votes have presented arguments of varying validity, and not all of them are biased against Thompson just for being a healthcare CEO. guninvalid (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As an article covering a man who was the CEO of such a large company and with many reliable sources covering information about him outside of his death, this article indubitably passes WP:NPERSON and if it weren't for the significance of his death, the notability of this article would not be remotely questioned. This is frankly a ridiculous nomination. N1TH Music (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As many have pointed out, simply being a CEO is not notable. There are indeed sources that discuss him beyond his death, but these are mostly ceremonial announcements of having a job or obituary pieces. guninvalid (talk) 03:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of information in this article outside of his death, and while many of the sources are from since his death, that's not relevant, it's information about his life and it's enough to pass WP:NPERSON N1TH Music (talk) 10:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's why we have WP:VICTIM, because it is very typical for the media to give a bunch of biographical details of formally unknown people after they were victims of a crime that appears to make them more significant than they were. That suddenly doesn't retroactively make him notable, particularly as none of the details that have been revealed after his death would qualify him for any GNG or NPERSON notability criteria (CEOs of major companies are not inherently notable as some of the !votes above are claiming). Masem (t) 13:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NVICTIM argues for the creation of sub-articles on the basis of article size. The killing of Brian Thompson article currently has over 12,000 words. And this is pre-trial, appeal, etc. Wouldn't NVICTIM recommend we split off this biography for that reason alone (WP:CANYOUREADTHIS)? Especially when you add in the fact there was coverage prior to his death and afterwards about his prominent business career, why would we want to merge this and cram an already long article with more content? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 20:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What coverage, though? There's one blurb about how took a new job and he won a business award. SportingFlyer T·C 22:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "coverage prior to his death and afterwards about his prominent business career" amounts to 'one blurb about how took a new job and he won a business award'?

In any case, that's not an answer to the question I asked about article size. WP:NVICTIM has been referenced by those who want to merge this article, but NVICTIM argues the opposite. Why would we want to merge this article and cram the already long killing of Brian Thompson article (currently over 12,000 words) with more content? NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP articles are meant to summarize a topic, and the killing article, as well as this and Luihi's article, are far too detailed for being summaries. This is a problem with editors trying to write as if WP was a newspaper than an encyclopedia. There is a lot of paring that can happen across all three articles (or even relative to here, the killing and thompson's article) than would easy get the word count combined to under 8000 words (I'd estimate). This overly detailed and verbose coverage of breaking news is a major problem for WP, and editors should now be looking to trim down these articles since most of the dust of the initial events have been settled. Masem (t) 21:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you view the killing of Brian Thompson article as far too detailed, why would you !vote to merge this article into it, thus adding more detail to the article which is 'far too detailed'? Such a case is when to WP:NOTMERGE, and instead to split off the content into a separate article like this one, as NVICTIM recommends to address the article size issue.

And as I mentioned the killing of Brian Thompson article is still pre-trial, appeal, etc. Unless you're proposing to split off a separate article for the trial/legal proceedings of the suspect(s), then the killing of Brian Thompson article will naturally have to expand its scope and include additional content about the trial, sentencing if found guilty, etc.

As Patar knight says below, this would've been a borderline case of notability if the AfD was held in November 2024, but It's January 2025. We can't ignore all the SIGCOV of the subject from December 2024 and onwards, and that there's an argument (even if some believe it's a flimsy one) the subject was notable prior to the killing demonstrates he was not a low-profile individual as defined in BLP1E. In more general terms, saying that someone who was the CEO of a >$200 billion revenue company, received coverage in multiple RS prior to his killing about his business career, and was specifically named in open letters by the American Hospital Association, Federation of American Hospitals and other groups about his actions as UHC CEO prior to his killing, was not a public figure is difficult to understand. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Arguably borderline notable before the killing, and would be pushed over into meeting our notability guidelines by the post-death coverage. In any case, WP:VICTIM is not a bright line rule and there are strong arguments for splitting this off from the main article. Adding this one to the main one would put it in the neighbourhood of when splitting would be considered while overwhelming the page with details that are relevant to a biographical encyclopedic entry, but not to the killing. It would also introduce WP:NPOV/WP:BALASP concerns in providing a full biography for one of the main parties but not the other. Splitting off Brian Thompson and Luigi Mangione has done wonders for keeping the article focused as a top-level article on the killing itself. Merging this back in would only be detrimental to that goal and be bad for readers. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:40, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Putting aside the fact that CEOs are nominally not inherently notable, BLP1E's criteria 2 says The person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, and I don't think this is the case for the CEO of one of the world's largest insurance companies, especially when one considers the 2021-2022 emergency rooms incident and the 2024 lawsuit, so I think he should have a separate page from his killing. ミラP@Miraclepine 14:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a source or Wikipedia article for those? At least for the lawsuit, I can see that he was named, but I can't see if the lawsuit alleges he had a specific role. The sources I've seen say that he was only named as part of the board, not that he played a particular role. guninvalid (talk) 23:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep – Merging into 'Killing of Brian Thompson' seems nice on paper, but in reality, it creates a gigantic mess. Brian Thompson is, unto himself, unequivocally notable enough for his own article at this point (this isn't WP:BLP1E either, as Thompson is notable both for his death and, to a lesser extent, for his actual role as the CEO), and trying to shoehorn that information into 'Killing of Brian Thompson' hurts that article by distracting from the main focus and what would be the biography of Brian Thompson because you can't reasonably fit as much in there. To be clear, plenty of information about his role as CEO has been prompted by his killing, but that information is nevertheless about the things he did as CEO, not about his killing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - articles like Andrew_Witty are notable simply to collect who a person was and what they did with their very influential life, as well as any controversies they may have been personally involved in, separate from a timeline of their death or a history of the company they're known for running. Tollsjo (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Biased review of !votes: Many of the Keep votes offer variations on the same argument, and several of the Merge votes hinge on a few policies. As a Merge !voter, I wanted to briefly discuss each of the major arguments I could find scrolling through. I've also discarded !votes that simply name another person, as those can be considered WP:JV.

Keep per WP:NPERSON, WP:GNG, or WP:N

Offered by User:PhotographyEdits, User:ZimZalaBim, User:JohnAdams1800, User:The Anome, User:AwesomeAndEpicGamer, User:Rhododendrites, User:IZAK, User: Shoot for the Stars, User: EarthDude, User:Emayeah, User:Rager7, User:Sangsangaplaz, USER:TDKR Chicago 101, User:Chaotic Enby, User: Darth Stabro, User:Kolano123, User: Frank Anchor, User:Wjfox2005, User:Maile66, User: NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, User:Sahaib, User:Afus199620, User:N1TH Music, User:Patar knight, User:TheTechnician27

Most of these arguments boil down to Thompson is notable for his killing and for being a CEO of a large company. I, guninvalid, of course agree with my own argument against this: that simply being a CEO of a major company is not notable. I agree with Masem's argument that most of the coverage of his CEO tenure is trivial; "he got a job". Some, like Rhododendrites, also cite more personal coverage, but Masem argues that these are simple obituary/procedural pieces and should be considered trivial, and I again agree.

Keep per WP:BALASP/WP:NPOV

Offered by User:Anvib, User:Patar knight.

Anvib and Patar knight give essentially the same argument, that it would be a bad idea to have an article on Luigi Mangione but not have one on Thompson. I disagree. As I see it, WP:BALASP could be fulfilled just as well by having a brief discussion of Brian Thompson on Killing article. In fact, in prior revisions of the killing article before Brian Thompson was made, the killing article did contain both the Brian Thompson and Luigi Mangione subarticles, and I think that was a good move. But to keep the Luigi Mangione subarticle in now would be to include a lot of material not directly relevant to the killing, such as the folk-hero status he has attained. On the other hand, keeping the Brian Thompson subarticle as part of the killing article would only really cut out trivial coverage.

Keep, as WP:BLP1E does not apply

Offered by User:Some1, User:Frank Anchor, User:NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, User: Miraclepine

These opinions attempt to directly rebut the WP:BLP1E arguments, not by arguing that he is a CEO, but by bringing up other events. There's discussion on each of them, but I think these are the best Keep arguments here.

Merge per WP:BLP1E

Offered by User:Coretheapple (nom), User:Masem, User:guninvalid (me), User:Firecat93, User:HopalongCasualty, User:SWinxy

The BLP1E argument is pretty simple, that Thompson is only notable for his killing. This argument is rebutted by some of the WP:BLP2E or Not WP:BLP1E args given previously, but I believe that these rebuttals do not apply: simply being a CEO does not make him notable, simply being named in a shareholder lawsuit does not make him notable, having a DUI or being valedictorian are trivial coverage. To paraphrase Coretheapple's original argument, there simply isn't much coverage of this person, and most of it is trivial.

Merge, per WP:VICTIM

Offered by User:Masem, User:Firecat93, User:HopalongCasualty, User:SportingFlyer

This one comes along with WP:BLP1E, as the argument is that Thompson is only notable for his killing, which qualifies him as both WP:BLP1E and WP:VICTIM. VICTIM does say that his role could be notable if he was the victim of a well-documented historical event, but it's WP:TOOSOON to say if his killing will have persistent coverage for long enough to be considered "historic".

Merge, per WP:RECENTISM.

Offered by me!! :DDDD

I think WP:RECENTISM applies. It hasn't even been a month since this happened, and we've yet to see if this event will be considered historically notable. There are signs that it could be, as some polls have shown that Americans now view healthcare as more important thanks to the shooting, but that's still a recentism. I'd say once the trial of Mangione and the shareholder lawsuit conclude, we'll have more information on whether anything Thompson particularly did was notable. But for now, merge.

Other args:

InquisitiveWikipedian cites prior discussion of keeping this article. I disagree, as the whole point of WP:AfD is to potentially overturn prior consensus.
User:Idek mann: WP:JV (Keep)
User:Jotamide: WP:JV (Merge)
User:theMainLogan: WP:JN
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS args offered by User:Sleyece, User:Teddybearearth, User:Tollsjo.
Article size has been brought up by N1TH Music and TheTechnician27. I disagree, as much of the content on Thompson's article is duplicate from the killing article. Some of it would be removed entirely, and some of it would be skipped by duplication.

guninvalid (talk) 00:02, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm less convinced than before about keeping the article (especially per WP:VICTIM), but I do believe that, either way the discussion gets closed, it should be without prejudice about renominating it in the future when WP:RECENTISM applies less. (Oh, and by the way, you pinged a lot of people there) Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 00:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I tried not to ping anyone, just named them. If I did... uh sorry about that folks :) guninvalid (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guninvalid So, you disagree with the fact that Brian Thompson isn't notable enough to have his own article? Rager7 (talk) 00:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my view, Thompson is not notable enough to have his own article. That's why I voted merge. guninvalid (talk) 00:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alight, and also like the other person said you mass pinged people when you link their names. This how I saw your response and comment. Rager7 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yea I won't do that in the future. Thanks for letting me know. Sorry about that everyone! I hope you all have a good day nonetheless. guninvalid (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You too man, take care! Rager7 (talk) 00:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

guninvalid, it is not appropriate for an editor to "summarize" an AFD discussion or set yourself up as an interpreter of other editor's arguments. Any editor or admin who closes this discussion in the future should take this summary with a large grain of salt. Please do not do this again for any future AFD discussions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was inspired by a prior DRV (of Mangione's article i think? i don't remember) where an administrator did the same thing, but I can see why an editor doing the same can be counterproductive when I'm not explicitly trying to evaluate an existing close. I'll refrain from doing so in the future. Thanks! guninvalid (talk) 05:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

guninvalid, I honestly don't think it matters whether or not the summary is done by a regular editor or an admin. It's just the act of another user putting themselves in the position of interpreting the arguments that other editors are making. Closers should read every comment and not rely on a summary instead of reviewing the comments themselves. That's the intent behind my comment to you. And I'll also say that this happens every so often in very long AFDs, we just make a comment to the editor doing the summary to please not do it and it generally doesn't happen again. Thank you! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually appreciate that you pinged my name, because I maybe wouldn't have seen it otherwise and I liked the opportunity to respond to you when you were talking about part of my argument InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 04:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for basing my vote on common sense instead of editorial recommendations. —theMainLogan (t•c) 00:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's seems ~~disingenuous~~ incorrect to categorize the arguments in a way implying that participants who !voted keep on the basis of notability are avoiding the BLP1E issue when most who did so explicitly cited prior notability for Thompson. If someone is arguably notable before the 1E event, then that is de facto, an argument that BLP1E does not apply.

Secondly, with respect to NPOV/BALASP, my argument is very different from Anvib. In fact, if I was closing this, I would discount reputational damage for Wikipedia from not having an article for the victim as an argument entirely, since that's not based on any policies or guidelines. My point was that merging all the encyclopedic material from Brian Thompson into the killing article, we end up with too much on Thompson both in respect to how Mangione is treated on the same page and in respect to elements of his life that are apparently not relevant to the killing and prejudicial (e.g. prior arrests, family separation, insider trading lawsuit). What is appropriate for a biographical article is not necessarily appropriate for an article about that person's death and we avoid the issue in cases by having separate articles when that is justified via notability guidelines. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC); edited 02:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I cited several arguments for why he may be considered notable prior to his killing, with by far the most common one being that he was a CEO. That's why I lumped those together, and left the other ones by Some1, Frank Anchor, NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM, and MiraclePine separately as BLP2E arguments. I disagree with your first comment in that I don't think he was even borderline notable, though the BLP2E arguments provide the best arguments I saw that he may have been. Your argument was indeed very different from Anvib, but you were both essentially citing BALASP, though for different reasons. guninvalid (talk) 03:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Guninvalid yes, I agree that prior consensus can change. But realistically, how often and how fast? My understanding is that this is the third time(?) this conversation has happened in one month. It's making me feel like there's not enough trust in the process or something, that twice is one month, the consensus of Wikipedia editors has been to keep, but the convo is nearly immediately started all over again? I think it is a convo that could potentially be worth revisiting, with less recency bias. But I don't think that re-visiting would be appropriate now. InquisitiveWikipedian (talk) 04:19, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly it's been relisted because of a bad close (and now two). This is the first nomination, and unless it closes as no-consensus, it won't be relisted for a while. I have no idea how long the period between noms is but there is a period. guninvalid (talk) 03:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's ever been a formal period between noms, but I imagine admins use common sense based on 1) how strong and extensive the original consensus was, 2) how much time has passed, 3) attitude surrounding the subsequent AfD nom, and 4) how much the subsequent AfD nom sets itself apart from previous argumentation. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 04:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree, as he is not famous only because of his killing, but also some lawsuits against him for insider trading, also my point totally does not boil down to "he is famous for his death" but rather "with this logic every ceo's page should be redirected to the page describing his death" Emayeah (talk) 08:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I would agree. Many other persons and CEOs are only known for their deaths. Thompson is indeed well-known, but simply being known doesn't make him notable. Compare that to a CEO like Steve Jobs who was indeed notable for his death, but also for the work he did prior to his death. guninvalid (talk) 10:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I 100% agree, just because somebody is a CEO they do not deserve a page, but I do not see fit redirecting this page to the one discussing his death and seeing the lawsuits made 7 years prior there Emayeah (talk) 13:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier lawsuits have very little coverage in RSes, suggesting that they do not contribute to his notability. Being named in the insider trading lawsuit along with several other executives at UHC means that the case is not about him, so does not add to notability. And the more recent lawsuit accusing UHC of using AI to deny claims is absolutely not about him. Masem (t) 14:36, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this interpretation of things - articles that we have currently identified that were written before the tragic event simply do not suggest he would have been notable for a page. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The contention I've put forth (and which I think others are arguing for) isn't that articles before the event would've made him notable. You can see, for example, that I nominated David Joyner (business executive) for deletion previously on similar grounds (for which CVS Health paid me seven figures and a lifetime supply of Bill Gates' microchip vaccines, but keep that on the dl), so I'm no stranger to the position you're taking. I think the idea that "CEO = notable", however, is a bit of an unintentional strawman for the 'Keep' argument. My point is that coverage of his actions as CEO after his killing made him sufficiently notable independent of his killing. Said coverage was prompted by the killing, but it covers things he did prior and unrelated to the killing in substantial detail. That is, stripped of any mention of his death, Brian Thompson could still easily have an article of his own due to the amount of coverage of his tenure as CEO that his death has generated. Moreover, the amount of content that can reasonably and with WP:DUE weight be placed in said biographical article cannot reasonably fit into an article about his killing without becoming extraneous and highly distracting. There's bound to be some overlap, but so what? This is the entire reason the {{Main}} template exists: to allow us to provide a brief, summary-level description of something and to then link to the main article covering it in much greater depth. Same here: the 'Background' section for the killing can have a link to Thompson's biography as the main article, and the 'Killing' section of Thompson's article can have a link to the killing as the main article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 18:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But we have WP:VICTIM exactly for this reason, which specifically refers to BLP in the event the person did not previously pass GNG, which isn't met here. SportingFlyer T·C 20:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean I still think it's plausible that Thompson met those criteria pre-killing if David Joyner (business executive) was so overwhelmingly kept, but more importantly, I seriously think the spirit of WP:NVICTIM clearly doesn't apply here. The reason WP:NVICTIM exists is so that we don't turn into Nancy Grace and have a bloated, out-of-control separate article on Caylee Anthony types every time someone gets murdered. Wherein coverage post-mortem is either about the murder itself or about extremely basic, mundane things about them like how they got 2nd place in their high school soccer regionals or liked to take their pet dog named Scott for walks or their childhood nickname. However, if Thompson was debatably notable pre-mortem, the kind of coverage of Thompson post-mortem that veers into the investigative about his actions as CEO clearly elevate him for me. Basically, I think we need to consider not just that WP:NVICTIM exists but also why it exists and what, if any, spirit of that we'd be violating by keeping this. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this article keeps getting relisted until the Merge crew gets their way I'm going to report it. Y'all have about one more relist and fail before I lose patience and elevate. -- Sleyece (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the commment – @Sleyece: Most of the editors here on both sides of the argument (I think we can agree that 'Delete' is dead in the water) are fairly experienced, and many of them are admins who understand policy and would be immediately objecting if something here contravened it. The discussion was closed by a non-admin, and OwenX – I think correctly – re-opened it as contentious and warranting further discussion. This wasn't done as some sort of 'pro-merge coup' to stall things out. This is the first nom, and that was therefore the only time this has ever been re-listed. I'm on your side of the argument, and I think you're taking this simple, well-meaning, and well-reasoned decision out of proportion (especially because I think it's helped generate much clearer consensus in favor of 'Keep'). Please, give yourself some time to think before attempting to climb the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. The people arguing for a 'Merge' are here because they want to improve the encyclopedia as much as you do. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 01:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anywhere that the current conversation isn't productive. I'm saying that the relist, as you say, has only made the consensus for "Keep" stronger. I'm stating that a simple use of this would have given you the same information without having to relist, so I'm definitly not going to keep doing this over and over. Also, for the record, If I ever were to climb here, I would be wearing a custom suit with rocket boots because I'm a man of culture. -- Sleyece (talk) 02:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But climbing using your arms is the whole point of climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man! You're there to make a point, after all. (Sorry, I'll stop now.) I mean I guess I'm just not sure. Prior to the relist, it wasn't dead even, but I think given an AfD vote isn't a "vote" in the traditional sense, someone could at least have come along, contested the AfD result as ambiguous, and started a new one. I think the much stronger consensus post-relist demonstrates why it was a good idea, and I don't think there's any evidence that there's another forthcoming unless there's just some new, iron-clad argument for 'Merge' that everyone to this point has overlooked. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 17:42, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have just reopened this AfD (again), which was closed by a non-admin, as an uninvolved administrator per WP:NACD. While the outcome may have potentially been correct (I haven't read this debate in sufficient detail to know how I would close it), given this has been to DRV once before for a non-admin close and considering the nature of the debate, it is my clear belief (shared by others at the closer's talk page) that this was not a good non-admin close. I have not relisted the debate for another seven days, however. Daniel (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2025 (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.

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Eisspeedway