User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 03:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Negative keyword	18 days ago	1	5220	1662.94
Powerking (2nd nomination)	19 days ago	2	5974	1633.12
Comilla Polytechnic Institute	16 days ago	1	7873	1515.79
Jhala Manna	17 days ago	2	6882	1455.09
SKANS School of Accountancy	16 days ago	3	4849	1385.46
Starting Point Directory (2nd nomination)	13 days ago	1	3783	1350.26
Libyan–Syrian Union	14 days ago	1	6013	1342.79
PeerStream (2nd nomination)	14 days ago	1	5566	1337.8
Pantodapoi	13 days ago	0	4219	1333.11
Mobile development framework	11 days ago	0	3068	1225.15
Jalal khel	12 days ago	1	3463	1222.19
Neotia University	13 days ago	2	6622	1198.32
Glostrup Terrorists Case	13 days ago	2	6471	1184.99
Kepler-1047 c	11 days ago	1	4961	1174.47
Hut 33	10 days ago	0	1923	1164.09
Rugby School Japan	11 days ago	1	11656	1155
Giacomo Milano (2nd nomination)	11 days ago	1	3797	1154.7
Eudora OSE	13 days ago	3	5151	1154.36
Bhavishya Malika Puran	12 days ago	2	5578	1139.98
List of Oceanian under-23 bests in athletics	12 days ago	2	6609	1127.93
Advanced Video Attribute Terminal Assembler and Recreator	13 days ago	4	18601	1065.9
Vampirefreaks.com	9 days ago	1	4669	1064.91
Jamalon	9 days ago	1	4569	1033.57
2009 Aéro-Frêt An-12 crash	11 days ago	3	5858	1029.64
Jms Brynt	8 days ago	0	3690	986.3

Negative keyword

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

Poorly sourced article that fails WP:GNG. Encoded Talk 💬 15:10, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising and Internet. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Seems notable enough to me. Documentation from Microsoft [1] and Apple [2] can be added to the references. The blog post reference can be removed. That makes room for others: [3] [4] [5].

Book references are also forthcoming: [6] [7] [8] [9]

The article is crap now, but it seems like it can be improved and the phrase is notable and common. -- mikeblas (talk) 17:26, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:22, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 01:31, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge to Keyword research as an AtD. I am unconvinced by these sources. The Microsoft and Apple sources are how-to guides for using keywords with MS/Apple products. The blog posts are not reliable sources. The first two books cited above are published by Wiley but each one (and the third book) devotes less than a page to "negative keywords." The fourth book reference is from Lulu and is thus not reliable as an WP:SPS. All told, these brief references aren't really WP:SIGCOV, and per WP:NOPAGE the subject matter can be covered encyclopedically and appropriately with reliable sources at the parent topic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Keep or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 04:42, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Powerking

AfDs for this article:

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

Already soft deleted once in 2012 (not eligible for G4), the only non-primary source that is given this time is [10] which is far from being in-depth. With a WP:BEFORE, the only additional source I found is [11], of which I'm not sure of the reliability. Not very optimistic for WP:GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:47, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finland, Netherlands, and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. It is certainly a well-known product in Northern Europe, but I was not able to find significant coverage of it online. Only sales sites and forum discussions. Something might be buried somewhere, maybe in trade press. Geschichte (talk) 08:22, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:20, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:14, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. At this point no one has challenged the deletion rationale, but there is little participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:43, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete A passing mention in an energy drink review is the only reliable source I can find mentioning this product. Even the Swedish and Finnish Wikipedias, where the product is more popular, don't have an expanded range of sources. Fails WP:GNG. Jordano^5³ 15:51, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable. I searched in both Finnish and Swedish, but could only find retailer product listings and similar, nothing that would come even close to satisfying the GNG standard. Yes, it's a reasonably well-known product in those countries, but that's not a notability criterion. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:10, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Comilla Polytechnic Institute

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

The only independent reliable sources found are brief mentions within primary source news reports about broader events (e.g. https://www.thedailystar.net/news-detail-75355, https://en.prothomalo.com/bangladesh/5enz43u7pl, etc.). Per WP:SIRS, primary sources do not count towards establishing notability. This title was previously redirected to the supervising Bangladesh Technical Education Board, where the school is listed, but the redirect was removed by an editor without regard to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 16:10, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Worldbruce, non-profit and government-run schools don't have to comply with WP:SIRS. They only have to meet the GNG.

Also, did you check for sources in the Bengali language? Or in the local newspapers, such as the ones listed in Comilla#Media? When an article says that a secondary school is one of the oldest and largest of its type in its entire country, and that it has thousands of students, the failure to find sources usually turns out to say more about our limited search skills than the actual availability of sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Nearly all of my editing is of Bangladesh-related topics, so I'm constantly searching in Bengali, but sometimes forget that not everyone will know that, and neglect to mention it explicitly in nominations. In addition to general searches in Bengali, I specifically searched three local news outlets that in my experience are reliable: amodbd, comillarkagoj and dailyamadercomilla.

My reading of WP:ORG is that all schools must comply with WP:SIRS or WP:GNG, so I agree with you in part. Although WP:ORG's second sentence says "The scope of this guideline covers all groups ... with the exception of non-profit educational institutions, ...", its subsection WP:NSCHOOL says "All universities, colleges and schools, ... must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline." The subsection goes on to say that with respect to WP:ORG, for-profit educational institutions must in addition satisfy WP:COMMERCIAL. WP:SIRS is not part of the commercial requirements, but part of the top level "Primary criteria" section. WP:GNG doesn't spell it out as forcefully as WP:SIRS does, but says "'Sources' [used to establish notability] should be secondary sources ..." I can substitute that language for what I said about WP:SIRS in the nomination if you prefer, but the thrust of my argument remains the same.

It's true that Comilla Polytechnic Institute (1962) is one of the oldest government polytechnics in what is now Bangladesh, but the same can be said of the other 20 or so that were set up between 1955 and 1964. About 30 more have been established, I think all since 2000. Very little has been written about them individually, but some sources cover them collectively, so I believe a redirect to an article that treats them as a group is best. --Worldbruce (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

The GNG doesn't "spell it out as forcefully" as SIRS because the GNG doesn't agree with SIRS. Secondary sources are not necessarily rare; a source that says CPI is "one of the oldest" is a secondary source (because it's comparing it against other schools, and comparison is a form of analysis, and analysis is the hallmark of a secondary source).

IMO some of the best sources for schools are government agency reports that cover multiple schools. A report that says something like these are bigger than those, these are cheaper than those, these require higher test scores than those, etc. would be perfect for getting a decent little encyclopedia article together for each of the schools in the report. (Neither CORP nor GNG require a source to be exclusively about the subject, though obviously the parts of a source that discuss only 'School 1' are not useful for determining whether 'School 2' is notable.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:52, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. No secondary sources to prove WP:GNG.TitCrisse (talk) 03:36, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. The one Delete "vote" is from a globally blocked editor so additional arguments are welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Jhala Manna

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

This article was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhala Man Singh and recreated under a different title with sufficient differences that G4 speedy deletion was declined.

However, the recreated version still does not show that the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO.

Most sources have one or a handful of passing or WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of the subject (A History of Rajasthan, A History of Mewar, Battle of Haldighati, Jhālā rājavaṃsa, Mewar Saga, Mewar & the Mughal Emperors, and Maharana Pratap: The Invincible Warrior.
In addition to having trivial mentions, some sources are also considered of questionable reliability per WP:RAJ, such as Tod's Annals of Rajasthan
One source is WP:SELFPUBLISH: Sacred Mysteries from vanity publisher by Notion Press.
Chiefs and Leading Families in Rajputana has no mention of Jhala Man Singh/Man Singh Jhala/Jhala Bida/Jhala Manna/Jhala Sardar or any other configuration of his names.
Another "source" is a poem.
The final source is an e-commerce site.

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources is found in a WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:06, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Still not seeing notability, sources are as explained above, not much for showing notability. I still don't find any sources we can sue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Article previously at AFD so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep Notable person. Mentioned in many sources. He played a significant role in the Battle of Haldighati. Lordo'Web (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We're now at a split opinion, so worth relisting in an attempt to garner further clarity on consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:28, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete article without notability. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 03:56, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. After the source analysis in the nomination statement, any editors arguing to Keep have to counter this assessment of the sources or present ones they believe are reliable. Just saying they exist is not enough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

SKANS School of Accountancy

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

Non-notable for-profit accounting school, fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:21, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gheus, did you search for sources in Arabic? Did you check the Pakistani newspapers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:57, 3 December 2024 (UTC)

Please note that Pakistan is not an Arabic-speaking country, so asking me to do checks in Arabic is not ok. In Pakistani newspapers or magazines, I found this press release. This is a for-profit school and fails WP:NCORP criteria. Gheus (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:51, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to List of accounting schools in Pakistan. 103.82.120.79 (talk) 16:40, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any support for the redirect as an ATD? Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 17:59, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete, could not find any sources independent of it that are also not press releases. Fails WP:GNG Grumpylawnchair (talk) 05:24, 25 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable per GNG. Quick search finds nothing beyond the usual directory listings and social media etc. profiles, and more to the point this article has had more than a decade for better sources to be added, yet no one has, so I can only assume they don't exist. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:54, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Starting Point Directory

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Libyan–Syrian Union

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

This article is at least two-thirds fluff. In its entirety, it is background, direct excerpts from a book, an uninformative scheduling timeline, and the personal puffery and conjecture of the respective heads of state. Given it is about a polity that never existed or even got at all close to existing, coverage of it should likely be limited to a blurb between a sentence and a paragraph in length on a handful of related articles. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Politics, Africa, and Middle East. Remsense ‥ 论 01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Draftify or Merge into Federation of Arab Republics#Other Federations of Arab Republics. The topic appears to be notable, e.g. The Washington Post, but probably not as an individual article, and the current set of sources are mostly offline and/or non-English, and the current editors have left in place in the current version what is very likely a WP:COPYVIO, which even has numerical references apparently from the original source retained: which provided for an "organic union" [7] or a complete merger of the two states. [5] [2] ... and thus become the core of a pan-Arab union . [9] ... effectively meant that the project failed. [10] [11], implying that no serious copyediting of the article has been done yet. The merge would best need someone in addition to EpicAdventurer to also have access to the existing sources, which appear to be mostly offline and/or non-English, or else to online English WP:RS such as The Washington Post (reliable in this context for factual type statements). Boud (talk) 02:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC) (clarify Boud (talk) 22:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC))
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Libya and Syria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge. I agree a standalone article is probably not warranted but there’s enough for a section in a broader article. There was a time when hardly a week passed without Arab states announcing unions. Mccapra (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Draftify: We also have the Arab Islamic Republic, which is smaller in size and surrounded by many unverified rumors. Additionally, we have the United Arab Republic (1972), which I doubt many have heard of. There are sources, books, and interviews about this experiment, and we even have interlanguage links about it. Valorthal77 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Draftify or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:34, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

PeerStream

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [12] [13] [14], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, Websites, United States of America, and New York. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

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 05:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete - agree this fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage, edit history doesn't inspire confidence. Void if removed (talk) 11:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I don't see the 2017 brief confusion of this firm's Snap Interactive name with Snap Inc as appropriate for a mention on the Snap Inc. page. However as this firm is now Paltalk Inc and there is a longstanding page at Paltalk, that may provide an ATD target? AllyD (talk) 08:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to see if there is any support for the suggested Merge/Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:26, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Pantodapoi

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

Unreferenced stub gives a definition for "Pantodapoi" which appears to be original research as the main sources found online are product pages for "Pantodapoi Phalangite" miniatures made by a maker called "Xyston". Does not meet WP:GNG. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Toys, and Greece. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:27, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I'm not expert enough with Greek military units to feel confident in voting, but I did check some typical reference sources, including Harper's Dictionary of Classical Antiquities and Pauly-Wissowa, neither of which has an entry for "pantodapoi". I also checked under "auxiles" or related headwords. A broad search of the classical materials at Perseus turned up the word with reference to a kind of sauce (perhaps I misunderstood) and in a couple of other places, but not with reference to soldiers. A Google search for "pantodapoi soldiers" turned up a set of circular-looking definitions, perhaps based on this article or wherever its definition came from in the first place.

I suspect that what has happened here is that the article's creator confused a description of some auxiliary soldiers with a name for their unit: pantodapoi phalangites means "miscellaneous soldiers (in a phalanx)", not "a particular type of soldiers (natives) making up a phalanx". But it would be nice to see if anyone with more expertise in Greek military history concurs with this. Not certain that the general notability guideline is what's relevant here; if the definition were correct, I think the topic would be notable. But if, as I believe, the article is the result of a misunderstanding, then it can be deleted as though it were a hoax (albeit an accidental one). P Aculeius (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:48, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Mobile development framework

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Multiple phone web-based application framework

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

Cruft-magnet - unsourced and out of date list containing original research. Long tagged as such and nothing has been done to address the issue. Doesn't look as if there's anything of value to preserve by moving to other articles. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 10mmsocket (talk) 16:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:17, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Jalal khel

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

Another administrator said that a clan (tribe) is not subject to WP:A7. I disagree, but I'm not 100% sure, so I'm nominating it for deletion. I have no idea how to evaluate whether a clan meets WP:GNG. I suspect, though, that others in the community are more knowledgeable. Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment The above article mentions Jalal Khel or Jalalkhel clan is a sub-division of Mahsud Wazir larger

Pashtun tribe. In my brief search, I saw this.....Mehsuds and Wazirs, the King-makers in a game of thrones on khyber.org website...Ngrewal1 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Merge this stub with Mahsud if the information in it is verifiable. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:09, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Neotia University

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

This will need to satisfy either WP:NORG or WP:GNG in order to be considered notable, both of which it fails to do. Although this article cites no usable sources, the sources I found while performing a WP:BEFORE did not have WP:SIGCOV, most of them were only mentioning it's rankings or the events conducted at the university. [15][16][17][18], note that none of these sources identify an individual reporter and have generic bylines as author information, so they all fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Universities established by statute have always considered to be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
@Necrothesp: Please point out the relevant guideline/consensus. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
This has consistently been the result of AfDs. Hence consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
The only notability guideline pertaining to universities is at WP:NSCHOOL which states :- All universities, ..... that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either the notability guidelines for organizations (i.e., this page) or the general notability guideline. (Emphasis mine). There's an apparent contradiction here between what you are saying and the guideline, additionally can you also demonstrate how what you are saying is the consensus on notability of universities established by statue.- Ratnahastin (talk) 13:01, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

In the somewhat related SCHOOLOUTCOMES RFC,[19] the RFC close found that
Citing SCHOOLOUTCOMES in an AfD makes the circular argument "We should keep this school because we always keep schools". This argument has been rejected by the community.
Rightly so. The page is notable if it meets the appropriate notability guidelines and policy. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:05, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Note that the RfC only applied to secondary schools and not universities and shouldn't be cited to support any other deletion arguments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
See my words somewhat related. Circular arguments do not stop being circular when the students at the relevant institution are a couple of years older. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - No sourcing that I can find that this meets NORG, which would be required for a private university. I would happily move to redirect if someone can find an appropriate target. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:12, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No evidence so far establishing notability
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Glostrup Terrorists Case

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

Relatively minor case of arrest and prosecution. WP:NEVENT without much followup information. Hornpipe2 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Terrorism. Hornpipe2 (talk) 21:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep but rescope. there seems to be continued coverage to pass NEVENT to me [20], also lots of book coverage [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

This article is a hot mess though and needs to be renamed, and possibly rescoped to focus on this in combination with the arrests in Bosnia which this is really a subtopic of. I would suggest rescoping on the overarching terror plot which resulted in arrests in several countries. We actually have a completely separate article on one of the people related to this plan, Mirsad Bektašević, which should probably be merged into an article on the terror plot since he is BLP1E and the coverage isn't so prolific as to necessitate or benefit from multiple articles. Something here is notable but we aren't covering it the best way - not a reason for deletion. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:TNT or userfy as an ATD. When an article is a "hot mess" like this, it might be best to start over from scratch or incubate it for more work. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
@Bearian I will work on it in mainspace. Does that change your vote? Draftifying is pointless when the problems with this article can be resolved with normal editing. There is useful content here, so it isn't a TNT case at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:06, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
As they say in Missouri, "show me." Bearian (talk) 05:23, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
OK, give me a bit. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I did a rough outline. It's now scoped and sourced properly and has a claim to notability (first big Danish terror case). A lot could be added but this is enough for it to not be deleted IMO. Will rename after AfD. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:18, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Can we get a fresh review after major changes in this article this week?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep. This is a fine article now, neither a hot nor cold mess, and TNT doesn't apply. Geschichte (talk) 07:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Kepler-1047 c

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

Non-notable exoplanet, the bibliographies of exoplanet.eu and NASA Exoplanet Archive only show database coverage about it. Fails WP:NASTRO. Might be redirected to List of exoplanets discovered in 2016. 21 Andromedae (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Question. I'm no expert on this topic, but is the following statement run-of-the-mill for exoplanets, or is it something exceptional: "The planet has a fast year of just 3.2 days. It is not far from its star, but only 0.0434 astronomical units from its parent star."? Athel cb (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
@Athel cb, I have been through the references and surprised to see that none of them mentioned the text The planet has a fast year of just 3.2 days. It is not far from its star, but only 0.0434 astronomical units from its parent star. Also searched the web about that and realised that it's not something extraordinary. Meanwhile the NASA website stated about that Planet[26].––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:16, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Just found more exoplanets with such info, TOI-2109b, Kepler-78b, K2-137b. Mentioned all could prove that the stated sentence about that specific exoplanet was just a run-of-the-mill.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 18:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

We have quite a lot planets with such low orbital periods, so they are not individually notable. This is not a very remarkable charateristic that is not seen in any other planet. 21 Andromedae (talk) 12:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It might be a bit unusual in that it's an Earth mass planet orbiting very close to a Sun-like star. There's probably an interesting story in how it got down to that orbit. Perhaps a migrating gas giant that has been stripped of its atmosphere? Unfortunately, there don't appear to be any studies so it's not notable at this point. Praemonitus (talk) 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:45, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per nom. No academic publications or news coverage of the planet was found in either ADS, Google Scholar, or a Google search. Article therefore has minimal, if any, WP:SIGCOV. Ark Hyena (it/its) 16:45, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Hut 33

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

Non-notable radio show; lacks any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:GNG. Only refs found in Google are mere mentions or are BBC links, which is not independent of subject. Prod removal not based in policy. Wikipedical (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Rugby School Japan

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

This article is about a branch of Rugby School, only opened a year ago. I think that it is WP:TOOSOON for it to be likely to meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP, and indeed I cannot find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. There was an article in The Rugby Advertiser in 2019 about the planned school, but this is local coverage and about a third of the article was a statement from Rugby School. There was an interview with the head in Relocate magazine, but I am not sure that this is a reliable source - the magazine's About talks about sponsored content. There is this article in the Sustainable Japan section of the Japan Times, which is a reliable source, but again it is mostly an interview. There is also an article from the British Chamber of Commerce in Japan, but this is not an independent source. I added a section on overseas branches to Rugby School, and redirected this article there, but another editor reverted this; so bringing it here for the community's view. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Japan, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 11:30, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge to Rugby School. There is also a Rugby School Thailand which should really be considered together to avoid trainwrecks. Can that be added to this nomination? These are new ventures that purportedly are creating overseas campuses of Rugby school. Rugby is clearly notable, but the only thing making these other sites notable is the Rugby name, which is a clear case of WP:INHERITED. They are, per nom., too new to have gained any independent notability. They should, however, be discussed on the Rugby school page. There is mergeable content and the redirects would preserve former content and provide a pathway for readers to locate the relevant information in the relevant parent article. Spinout could occur if and when they become independenltly notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:03, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I had redirected Rugby School Thailand too - having put brief details of both schools in the Rugby School article first - but that was also reverted. I had considered AfD for that too, but have not yet had time to carry out WP:BEFORE for that branch and it has been going longer (2017) so there may be more coverage, so was holding off on that. Happy for it to be bundled with this discussion though if people want. Tacyarg (talk) 12:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

RottenTomato0222 speaking here: I think both articles should NOT be deleted and be kept as independent articles for the following reasons: Though not many readers might recognise either Rugby School Japan or Rugby School Thailand, some teachers/families who are intended to move to those schools have the need to read about that school online whether if they're reading it on Wikipedia or not. Second of all, just because there's not a lot of articles dedicated to Rugby School's branches in Asia compared to the original school, there are tens of articles online discussing about Rugby School Japan and Rugby School Thailand, so we actually do have loads more to write on the article. Third of all, just because the article's discussion is not widely discussed doesn't mean that the article has to be deleted. As mentioned earlier before, there are people who really needs to read those articles. In addition, other world-famous school from the UK like Harrow School's branches in Asia have seperate articles on Wikipedia; like Harrow International School Bangkok, Harrow International School Hong Kong, Harrow International School Beijing, etc.. Furthermore, other UK boarding schools' branches in Asia other than Harrow School all have an article as well, for example; Haileybury Almaty, Marlborough College Malaysia, and Dulwich College Beijing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RottenTomato0222 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

It might look a bit messy and have some grammatically incorrect sentences or structures as I was writing that on a hurry. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF is an argument to avoid at AfD, although here it raises an interesting question. Is this school a campus of Rugby School itself, or is it an international school in the way the Oxford International Schools (or Harrow) international schools, where these are legally independent private schools that affiliate to and adopt the syllabus of the affiliating body (e.g the Oxford Education group)? What is the legal arrangement? The page as it stands reads as if this is a campus of Rugby (which is a reasonably common arrangement, more so for universities). But if it is not really part of Rugby at all, but a legally independent private school that is permitted to use the Rugby name then a lot of what is on the page would necessarily be deleted and it is likely (as for a the Oxford International Schools) that there would not be notability of r an article as it would fail WP:NORG. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:10, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Answering your question, the legal arrangement is that Rugby School Japan is an independent private school, just like many other franchise schools. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hope that helps. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 09:56, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

But the school was set up by Rugby School? Looking at RSJ's website, it says Rugby School Japan is proud to be part of the Rugby School Group, an international network of pupils, teachers and senior leaders. The website for the original Rugby School says Rugby is in the process of developing a family of Rugby schools around the world, following the successful establishment of Rugby School Thailand. So should there be an umbrella Rugby School Group article, if notability is met, and then if we don't find RSJ notable, it can be mentioned there and a redirect in place? Tacyarg (talk) 11:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Rugby School Japan, or should we call it RSJ, was indeed established by Rugby School, but that doesn't mean RSJ is part of Rugby School's campuses. In contrast, Harrow International School Bangkok for example, was established by a British private school, but still has a Wikipedia page on its own, rather than being merged with Harrow School. The reason is simple; going back to the Rugby Schools Group, that is a brand of a school set up by Rugby School, though their schools are still independent. Another reason; many British private schools in Asia might have opened under the name of their original school in the UK, but the operator of the school in Asia are different. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

It appears that this was not established by Rugby School at all. It is a venture of Clarence Education Asia [27], who seem to have funded the school and then partnered with Rugby School Group. This is a similar structure used by the Oxford Schools. The school is therefore not a campus of Rugby but an independent sister school that is licensed to use the Rugby name and branding, and follows a Rugby School Group curriculum. What this means is that it is a private for profit independent school. The appropriate notability guidelines are WP:NORG. My searches do not find independent sources that meet WP:ORGDEPTH, so we are still not at a keep here. The question is only whether an appropriate merge target can be found. I think there is still a case for a merge with Rugby School under a section called either "sister schools" or "Rugby school group". The alternative is there could be a Rugby School Group article per Tacyarg, and that could then cover all such schools. Failing these alternatives, my view is that it should be deleted as it currently lacks independent notability, but my preference is merge somewhere, and Rugby School remains my preference. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, Rugby School Japan is an independent school, either if Rugby School established it or not. Any school can be made into an article, even if it's operated under the name of another institution, unless the whole building is a campus of Rugby School, for example. RottenTomato0222 (talk) 08:30, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:52, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 01:33, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Giacomo Milano

AfDs for this article:

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

Deleted article which was recently recreated with no significant improvements. Clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Italy. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, El Beeblerino ^{if you're not into the whole brevity thing} 23:33, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Seeing there are multiple Italian Ruby players up here made be look below WP:SPORTCRIT to see if there was a Rugby specific guideline. Seeing that there is WP:NRODEO but no Rugby guideline. Makes me think WP could use a Rubgy guideline. I do not have enough subject matter knowledge to want to attempt that though Czarking0 (talk) 01:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete Basically all primary sources in the sense that they are published by the institutions he plays for. Does not seem to be notable enough in other respects. Googling his name only returns basic player stats. I also tried Italian google news and he does not come up. Czarking0 (talk) 01:17, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Eudora OSE

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

Appears to be an open source version of Eudora, article is virtually entirely original research. Any notability seems tied to Eudora or Thunderbird. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

keep. Contains a bunch of information and references. A couple of articles link to this one (Special:WhatLinksHere/Eudora OSE). 2A02:3036:206:65CA:8888:9AD2:A4A0:79C6 (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not a valid Keep rationale. We do not keep articles because it "contains a bunch of information": all articles do. We keep them on the basis of significant coverage. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep, though mainly for historical interest. However, I have a weak spot for Eudora, which was head and shoulders better than Mail, Thunderbird, Gmail etc. I only gave up on Eudora (in around 2012 — long after it stopped being maintained) because our computer service more or less insisted. Athel cb (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)
Could you figure out what could be salvaged from this article and merge into Eudora? IgelRM (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

That is not a valid Keep rationale. We do not keep articles because you think they're interesting: we keep them on the basis of significant coverage. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of the Keep !votes carry much weight in terms of P&G. Please focus on the key issue of notability per our guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 17:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to Eudora (email client)#Hiatus and source code release (2006–2018): it is mentioned there, making it a valid-enough alternative to deletion. Given the existing sourcing (all of which seem tied to Qualcomm or Mozilla, which is not what we're looking for in 2024), I'm not sure if anything "exclusive" to the current separate article makes that much sense to merge, but that doesn't preclude a redirect. That this is a separate article at all is more an artifact of the lower inclusion standards of 2006 than anything else. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Bhavishya Malika Puran

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

I propose taking action on the article "Bhavishya Malika Puran" as it solely presents propaganda spread by news channels for financial gain. Context: The article is highly disputed, and its accuracy as a translation of the original Bhavishya Malika remains unverified. News channels have extensively covered this topic, primarily repeating the claims made by the Pandit. Unfortunately, the errors in this translated book, which appears to be motivated by financial interests, have gone unchallenged. Having carefully examined the book and its issues, I recommend one of the following actions: 1. Archive the article until credible evidence supporting its claims is provided. Or 2. Add a disclaimer to the article stating that it is a controversial issue and establish a Reception section to present a balanced view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kharavela Deva (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:26, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:38, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Hinduism. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep The nominator didn't provide a valid reason for article deletion. However, the subject passes WP:NBOOK. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
Which of the 5 criteria did it pass for English Wikipedia:Notability_(books)? Would Hindi Wikipedia be more appropriate?Some of the sources appear to be solely in Hindi and/or are interviews, quotes, promotional, or blatanly state that the publisher takes no responsibility: "The above information is based on various sources. Webdunia does not officially confirm it." Alegh (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:06, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:30, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The book is self published through Notion Press publisher. Book fails WP:NBOOK. Page does not have multiple reviews from reliable sources. I can not find if book has won a major literary award and if the book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution in any area. Sources on the page are simply poor. RangersRus (talk) 04:31, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

List of Oceanian under-23 bests in athletics

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

This isn't an official list kept by Oceania Athletics Association and appears to be full of original research. Plus, the tables are incomplete. Besides the senior ranks, World Athletics or continental governing bodies typically only keep an official U20 World Record list ("junior") and a U18 World Best list ("youth"). Having record lists that are incomplete and not official seems like a poor choice. I am not nominating the Europe U23 list and South America U23 list for deletion as these have official records kept by European Athletics Association and Atletismo Sudamericano. It's definitely a lot of work to put lists like this together, so I suggest that whoever made this article save a copy in the event this and the articles below get deleted. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons as above (i.e: unofficial list, original research, incomplete tables):

KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:32, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and Oceania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sport of athletics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment I see two different rationales for deletion; that these are original research, and that there isn't coverage of this type of world record. The continental lists are also incomplete. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep the World list, it's officially maintained by Athletics Weekly here: "World Under 23 Best Performances" That list is outdated, but GBR Athletics was acquired by Athletics Weekly a few years ago and their records went under the AW paywall, so I think that's where the most recent list would be. World Athletics also makes references to "world under-23 bests" in their writing e.g. [28] [29] [30] [31] "Kirdyapkina, the wife of Sergey the reigning and two-time World 50km champion, was rewarded with a World U23 best", so I think they must maintain or reference some authoritative list otherwise it wouldn't make sense to refer to times that way. --Habst (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval on the newly found ones?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 19:11, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep List of world under-23 bests in athletics per explanation of Habst. – Editør (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:29, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Advanced Video Attribute Terminal Assembler and Recreator

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

Fails WP: GNG. I found one short paragraph in a book, but otherwise I couldn't find anything that could be used to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. This is a well-established technical standard from one of the largest computer networks of the 1980s and 1990s. Further evidence of notability will likely be found in contemporaneous digital sources (nowadays hard to find) than in books. The FidoNews archive (not indexed by Google and other search engines due to its antiquated compression format) and terminal/BBS software manuals would be good places to start. —Psychonaut (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Psychonaut (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
Horrible reasoning. Vaguely gesturing to an archive of 4000 zip files and saying "it's probably in here" is not a valid argument. If this is such a well-known standard, you should have no issue finding sources that provide in-depth coverage to back up what you're saying. Are you seriously asking me to download thousands of zip files written by a stranger on the Internet onto my own computer? HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:31, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to do anything. I'm saying that the topic is likely notable and have provided pointers to anyone who has both the time and interest to help find sources that further support this notability. I have the interest but unfortunately no time at the moment, particularly given that any reliable sources that do exist probably aren't readily available on the Web. (Case in point: the documents you have balked at examining were not written "on the Internet"; they simply happen to be archived there.) If you do want to help, you might provide details of the book you found. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
I do not care whether they were initially published in a print format. I would like to see specific quotations from source material that show significant coverage. If you are not going to do that, I have nothing to discuss with you. No WP: SIGCOV, no article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
It belatedly occurs to me that the two sources already cited in the article probably already meet WP:GNG in that they are reliable (both having been adopted as FidoNet standards), have significant coverage of the topic (one of which describes in detail the protocol and an independent implementation of it, and the other of which describes an extension to the original protocol), and are independent of the subject (since they were written by someone who was uninvolved in the design or initial implementation of the protocol, other than having suggested a name for it). Having freed up some time this evening, I found a few further sources with more than trivial mentions of AVATAR:
- PC Interrupts: A Programmer's Reference Guide to BIOS, DOS, and Third-party Calls by Ralf Brown and Jim Kyle (Addison-Wesley, 1993) has a paragraph about the serial dispatcher of the AVATAR driver in Chapter 7 and several pages' worth of API documentation for the AVATAR driver in Chapter 36.
- "ANSI-TERM 4", an article about the eponymous terminal software by its author Richard VanHouten, appears in the September 1992 issue of Computer News 80 (Vol. 5, № 9), and includes a short paragraph discussing AVATAR and which terminals support it. (Similar information is recapitulated elsewhere in the issue in an independent review of ANSI-TERM 4 by Gary W. Shanafelt, though this one may be too brief to count.)
- The Opus Technical Reference Manual by Trev Roydhouse (2nd edition, 1991) has a comprehensive description of all AVATAR commands in §4.4.2. (This source may or may not be fully independent; although Opus and AVATAR were designed by Wynn Wagner III, the manual was not written by him.)
—Psychonaut (talk) 03:37, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
No, absolutely not. In one of the sources, the author describes making a phone call to the developer of AVATAR. This would not realistically happen unless the two were already in close contact with one another. (Note: there's two sources on the article currently, both written by George Stanislav.)

You also propose that these sources are independent of the subject "they were written by someone who was uninvolved in the design or initial implementation of the protocol, other than having suggested a name for it". This, of course, is unreasonable. Under this interpretation of independence, it would okay for my friend to write a Wikipedia article about my high school programming assignment because they never looked at the code before the project was completed.

You need to provide specific quotations from the other sources not in the article. Technical documentation usually does not qualify as significant coverage, because most documentation is authored by someone participating in the development process. At this point, you have done nothing to show that any source provides significant coverage. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are mistaken. There is no such rule here about technical documentation, no one is under any obligation to quote third-party sources (which, as I've indicated, total many pages of material on the topic), and with the probable exception of Roydhouse, the authors we are discussing (Stanislav, Brown, Kyle, VanHouten, and Shanafelt) had no prior relationship with AVATAR's creator and were all documenting something that they had, at their time of writing, no involvement in developing. We do not discount sources simply because the author may have telephoned someone connected with the subject in order to gather information, a practice that is routine in journalism and not uncommon in scientific and technical writing. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
You're missing the point. Stanislav is not an independent source. They are a software developer that works in close collaboration with the author of AVATAR, Wynn Wagner. The sources are technical documents about the software:

When I started working on my TinyTerm communications program, I had the idea that if Opus-CBCS could send the "oANSI" codes directly over the phone lines, it would speed up the communications considerably. A typical ANSI sequence contains 4 times as many bytes as the codes developed by Wynn Wagner. A phone call to Wynn resulted in two things: TinyTerm can interpret the "oANSI" codes and translate them to ANSI, then send them to stdout where they are converted to colors by ANSI.SYS [and] Opus-CBCS, starting with gamma version 1.10.iii, will send the codes without converting them to ANSI sequences. (It will still send ANSI codes to users without the proper terminal software.)

Even if you know absolutely nothing about software development, you obviously know that this is not written for the New York Times. These are two software developers working in close collaboration to decide how a piece of software should be implemented. Their relationship is not journalistic. The fact that Stanislav came up with the name of AVATAR further establishes that their relationship was not journalistic.

I also found this page written by Wynn Wagner that states "The last version of Opus that I wrote was v1.03. ... George Stanislav took over Opus development when I finally turned off my PC. He completed several utilities." It's not just about a single phone call: it's about a standing collaboration. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and if you don't want to give us quotations from those other sources, the article will be deleted. The onus is on you to show significant coverage, and you haven't done that. If you don't want to complete your argument, I'm not going to stop you. You told users to download thousands of zip files onto their computer for fun, and you wrongly claimed that George Stanislav, a close collaborator of the author of AVATAR, was an independent journalist. Nobody here should trust what you're saying. HyperAccelerated (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
Weak delete I can find a few articles in scholar that mention it, and amazingly the tech description (and/or code) can be found online, mostly at thebbs.org. As I recall there were BBS-specific magazines and a fair amount of BBS discussion in things like PC Magazine. But content from that era will be very hard to find. I'd be happy to !vote keep if something can be found. Lamona (talk) 16:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
The PC Interrupts book has nearly a full page with technical specs and a small amount of explanation. It doesn't seem enough to create a stand-alone article, and doesn't cover some of the unreferenced statements in the article. I'm wondering if we can find a merge target, something like Bulletin board system or ANSI_escape_codes or Advanced Video Coding (or anything else appropriate). To User:HyperAccelerated: having a phone call or even working with someone does not mean that the source cannot be independent. Journalists interact with the subjects of their writings, sometimes intensely, and can still write independent stories. Knowing someone does not erase independence. Also, please be civil; at no time did User:Psychonaut tell anyone "to download thousands of zip files onto their computer for fun." WP:AGF, right? Lamona (talk) 23:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with any of those merge targets. I have also yet to see convincing evidence that Stanislav is a journalist. The literature I have found suggests that they are a close collaborator of the author of AVATAR. HyperAccelerated (talk) 04:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways (talk) 23:21, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is still no consensus. There is some support for a Merge but it would help if a single Merge target article was identified and agreed upon.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete — soft — I don't outright disagree with Psychonaut's contentions. However, I do find HyperAccelerated's arguments more compelling. Additionally, I agree that Stanislav might not qualify as an independent source, but I would want to see other arguments regarding him before I made-up my mind. Assuming Stanislav is indeed independent, for now, I do not see how two technical documents from 1989 equates to "extensive coverage." Furthermore, is FTSC.org a RS? It matters not if Stanlisav is or is not; if FTSC.org isn't, we shouldn't be utilizing it. If there are more sources — which, in all fairness, there does appear to be — they should be properly (and quickly) added. Despite potentially being on the chopping block, this article has not been edited since AfD nomination, despite no less than two re-lists. However, as-written, it's a delete, for me. I would support a merge to ANSI escape codes, given how AVATAR is described as "Its basic level was designed explicitly as a compression of the much longer ANSI escape codes." The article, as-is, makes several entirely unsourced assertions. (As an aside, I would also contend that this article may be skirting the bounds of being too technical, though this is not necessarily grounds for deletion)MWFwiki (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete due to lack of reliable independent sources having been provided so far. There are only two sources cited, both of which are technical documents written from a personal perspective rather than an independent perspective: "I took over the coding of the part of Opus handling the video codes. I realized the codes were offering us much more power than just translating them to ANSI escape sequences. I proposed to call the codes AVATAR, the Advanced Video Attribute Terminal Assembler and Recreator." [32] "Both Joaquim and Jason have assured me they would put the new commands in their programs, thus nothing will be broken. With that assurance in mind, I feel confident no chaos will result from adding these new commands." [33] FTSC.org has some documents labeled "Fidonet Technical Standards", but the two cited here are not among that group; see http://ftsc.org/docs/ where they are assigned to the "Fidonet Reference Library" section instead. Maybe there are independent sources (particularly secondary sources; see WP:SCHOLARSHIP) about this protocol, but it's the responsibility of the article's supporters to find them and cite them in the article. If User:Psychonaut or someone else wants additional time to look for sources, the article can be userfied instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:01, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
- I did look for additional sources and posted them elsewhere in this discussion. What's your assessment of them? —Psychonaut (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

PC Interrupts: A Programmer's Reference Guide to BIOS, DOS, and Third-party Calls by Brown & Kyle is not available online (that I can find), so I can't assess it. I'm well aware per WP:SOURCEACCESS that online availability or the lack thereof does not affect the quality of a source; I'm just saying that I can't assess it.
I found the issue of Computer News 80 you mentioned at the Internet Archive. The coverage of AVATAR there is insignificant. Page 9 says that ANSI-Term 4 uses the hi-res graphics screen to do such things as "Control the screen using AVATAR control sequences. AVATAR (Advanced Video Attribute Terminal Assembler and Recreator) is a set of control codes designed to be faster than ANSI codes are, and is in use by some BBS's. To the best of my knowledge, ANSI-Term 4 is the ONLY TRS-80 terminal program to support AVATAR." Page 20 says regarding ANSI-Term 4, "In addition to supporting the major ANSI codes (no, you can't get a color display with it!) it also supports the similar AVATAR standard." Those are the only mentions of AVATAR in the issue.
I'm just going to provide a link to the Internet Archive version of The Opus Technical Reference Manual because I don't understand it well enough to comment on it.

I'm not being Randy from Boise here, despite my lack of expertise in this topic; I can see that most of the content of this article is uncited. Nor, as far as I can tell, could Computer News 80 or The Opus Technical Reference Manual be used to source most of the current content. Basically, I'm looking for citations in the article itself, not a list in the AfD discussion of sources that might possibly be used which may or may not have anything to do with the current content of the article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:28, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Vampirefreaks.com

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

Does not appear to be a notable company. The only reliable sources I could find that covered it were passing mentions to the website as a result of the Murder of Carly Ryan. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment references 1, 2 and 3 are the subjects websites. Ref 4, passing mention. Ref 5, they've organised a festival which is a 3 day event and touted as 'America’s largest 3-day gothic-industrial music festival and convention'. Ref 6 is a interview with one of the owners. Ref 7 now points to a casino website. Ref 8 another 'Dark Force event page which doesn't give any real detail about Vampire.com. Ref 9 is another interview. I will have another search before voting, but there doesn't seem to be anything indicating notability per WP:GNG. (Further edit) I've had a look gor referencs. I've added one from Kerrang about the network site closure. The only other references I can find are a tenuous connection to the murder mentioned above. Knitsey (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:29, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'll be blunt, User:Knitsey, are you arguing for Deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete You're supposes to guess @Liz! Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG Knitsey (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Jamalon

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

Fails WP:GNG; WP:NCORP and NOTCRUNCHBASE very much applies here. Defunct - mostly Arabic - booksales website/POD operation in the Middle East, first in Jordan then the UAE. It started up, it closed down. There is no enduring impact or change in the market that resulted from its existence. The only likely ATD would be a redirect to Fadi Ghandour, but at the most it would be one of hundreds, if not thousands, of investments that Ghandour has made - and it's not really outstanding or worthy of a merge at his page. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Business, Jordan, and United Arab Emirates. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:PROMO, part of a network of questionable articles. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 04:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 04:19, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete: I was heading towards a delete opinion, though reading a web translation of the company's own detailed and frank description of their business history, the impact of Amazon acquiring into their market, etc. made me wonder if some form of WP:ATD towards the wider view might exist? The decent coverage of this and other e-comm firms in Christopher Schroeder's 2017 MIT Technology Review article encourages that view, though I still see no suitable target. AllyD (talk) 09:31, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

2009 Aéro-Frêt An-12 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:02, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Think it's enough to keep. Some news, large and well-known kind of aircraft crashing with fatalities. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:42, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Whatever the aircraft type and whether the accident had casualties or not is not an argument based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines. There was news coverage, but that alone is not a reason to keep. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2024 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, @Aviationwikiflight, has a final report for this accident been released yet? if there has it might determine the notability of this accident (uniqueness etc.)

Anyways besides that, my vote as of current is a weak keep, seeing it was an illegal flight on a heavy aircraft makes it somewhat notable as illegal flights (especially on heavy aircraft such as the Antonov An-12) are generally rare and notable, the above will determine a possible sway of my vote. Lolzer3k 15:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)
To my knowledge, no final report has been released (if an investigation was even started). I don’t necessarily see the release of a final report, nor the opposite, as indicative of notability since it should be common practice among investigative agencies to release them. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:45, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Delete. The fact that it happened and was documented does not make it notable. It needs more than a brief burst of news coverage. Keep rationales to this point have been based on things that are not relevant to notability. Open to a selective merge if a merge target is suggested. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment - GoodMusicRadar doesn't have any author credits or seemingly that much info on the ownership, Earmilk appear to be a more professional operation and there was an article on it until literally a few days ago, the Cultr piece lists an author with no bio and I can find no info on the ownership on site (if anyone knows if its reliable, please tell) Iostn (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lord Roem ~ (talk) 02:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:35, 26 December 2024 (UTC)