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 11:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Score
Siege of Smoluća (2nd nomination)	15 days ago	1	17183	1412.12
Luc Peters	14 days ago	1	3713	1375.86
Aminul Islam Rabel	13 days ago	1	4853	1327.8
Milo Runkle	13 days ago	1	4078	1326.94
The Cane as a Weapon	13 days ago	1	9490	1293.65
Blue Underground	15 days ago	4	4775	1279.61
European Watch Company	12 days ago	1	3145	1275.64
Michael Robert Watson	13 days ago	1	8994	1271.03
MIST (satellite)	14 days ago	2	3299	1269.89
Wileńska street (Bydgoszcz)	13 days ago	2	6738	1221.12
Kaoli Isshiki	28 days ago	5	23232	1210.62
Bluebird International	13 days ago	3	4989	1194.13
World's Worst Boardgame	13 days ago	3	3755	1181.12
Mattin	12 days ago	2	4018	1168.38
Hykeham Memorial	12 days ago	2	5820	1157.72
Cordillera Negra (Chile)	13 days ago	3	5773	1148.56
Neon Hunk	13 days ago	3	9081	1117.29
August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods	12 days ago	3	4471	1087.4
Jeff Radwell	11 days ago	2	5990	1047.38
List of transiting exoplanets	11 days ago	3	6983	1024.77
List of exoplanets detected by radial velocity	11 days ago	3	7665	1024.39
Stephen CuUnjieng	11 days ago	3	4720	1002.81
Hyperintensity	10 days ago	2	5937	1001.51
Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change	10 days ago	2	8155	995.96
Cole Stratton	8 days ago	1	3422	980.96

Siege of Smoluća

AfDs for this article:

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

This siege, its relief and the evacuation of the population is covered in a short paragraph in the comprehensive two-volume US history of these wars, Balkan Battlegrounds. It doesn't include much of what is in the current paragraph headed Order of battle, and when summarised would amount to a few sentences at best. A Google Books search adds very little in terms of possible reliable sources, none of which constitute significant coverage. I could trim it down to just what the source does say, but the editor responsible has done this before, and therefore this is a classic WP:TNT candidate. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I should add that this was a minor action in the overall fighting for the Posavina region from March 1992 to January 1993, and might be mentioned in a larger article on those operations. But it is definitely not notable on its own. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

prolonged back-and-forth with a user who is now blocked as a CU-confirmed sock.

Hello, i can add sources to this article if you let me. It will take a little bit of time because i am finding sources for another article Wynnsanity (talk) 09:14, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion you are not right. This is a sige and if we have siege of žepa and another smaller cities we should have for this also. Its not the minor action because a lot of civis were saved and both sides took heavy casulties. There are also not so much books about this war in english because nobody cares to be honest about balkans. I agree that is bad if we have only 1 english and 10 serb sources on english wiki but the other articles for other side also have just some tabloid blogs and they are not deleted or even marked as "bad sources", is it a coincidence? I would not say so

All the best Wynnsanity (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

All you need is significant coverage in reliable sources. They don't have to be in English. telegraf.rs isn't a reliable source, neither are blogs, fora, local town news portals with no real editorial oversight, or fanboi websites. Most of the articles being created about the Balkan wars of the 90s at the moment are incredibly poorly sourced. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:12, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I totally agree that telegraph is not good source. Can you give me a day or two to find better? I think that they are very badly sources because people from that area dont write or talk about it much, its "taboo". Thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 10:18, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker, i will undo your text edit today if its okay for you because it will be a lot easier for me to work on this article if i have first version not this one, i will also add content and relevant sources to it right after. I hope you understand and dont mind. Best Wynnsanity (talk) 12:31, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

No need, I was caught up with other things and neglected this article. As peace maker said, it does not need its own article since this was a part of a wider Bosnian TO campaign in Lukavac. I might also add that when I first made this article, I was very inexperienced and didn’t know anything about copyright. Orhov (talk) 14:50, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

i made changes and fixed the problem that peacemaker suggested, if you are the editor its up to you, best Wynnsanity (talk) 16:25, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe the article should be retained if more is added, like a prelude or aftermath, that is if it is backed up by reliable material. If not, then that is fine with me. Orhov (talk) 17:33, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I will try to include that, thanks Wynnsanity (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:15, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

The citations that have been added, like "Fooian & Foo 2002, p. XXX" are not verifiable as they don't provide the title of the book, or publisher etc. No-one can look at it and then check if it is reliable and accurately reflects what is is supposed to be supporting. Unless the full citations are added, we cannot be assured that significant coverage exists in reliable sources, and therefore the article should be deleted. Also, the removal of the material about the Serbs evacuating and withdrawing due to ARBiH pressure and the town being occupied by them is directly relevant to the subject, and deletion of it could be considered censorship to only indicate one side's version of the engagement. I strongly suggest you re-instate it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:40, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry but this is totally absurd. First of all, in Bosnia people are all Bosnians(muslim, orthodox and catholic) and you cant look at them "black and white" like you do and in every article saying "Bosnians never did anything", "Bosnian atrocities i dont think so" etc. When we few people(editors) who are benevolently editing wikipedia will be deprived of your non-existent criteria where you always want more and more and more and then delete our works and add stars to your main page for contributions, cringe. This is not "one side" POV because here in the article they only explain what happend during the siege and shelling wich is fair and totally honest and you cant as wiki admin look to this topic like that one side never did anything bad and want a milion sources to be "assured", thats not serious. And when one neutral editor "Fanboi" as you called him posted yesterday all that you have asked for(siege, civis..) you have ofcourse ignored and continued with your agenda. Article was in bad shape until we make it be a lot better with our good faith edits, i personally have a big collection about this topics and this is not Naoleonic War to have thousand best sources. I will undo my edits because i dont know how to add and you will have another sources from other editors wich are also not your taste but every article with "Sanjak NEWS, BLOGSPOT" is okay and "reliable" to you because one side is always the victim and we are all "Fanboi", says who? Bill Clinton? Pretty sad to be honest. Wynnsanity (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

what are you on about exactly? I have never done anything of the sort. I have rarely edited articles about the Yugoslav Wars of the 90s because I was there for some of it, but the sudden flurry of poorly sourced articles about obscure events drew my attention. Have you even read the reliable source policy? The verifiability policy? These are fundamental to what we do, as is WP:NPOV. All en WP expects is for these many newly created articles on the Yugoslav Wars to be notable in their own right and reliably sourced. If that is too much for you, then perhaps en WP is not for you. If you tell me what the titles are of the books you provided short citations (authors and year of publication, but nothing else) for, I can check them for reliability and that they actually support what you say they do. If they are reliable and do what you say, then perhaps the article will meet WP:N. I know it can be frustrating when other editors question your work, but that is what we do here. It isn't a blog or forum. In any case, take a chill pill, good grief... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I did a Google search for Borojević and it quickly identified him as a self-published author of aviation books (in the main), and results also indicate he served in the JNA then VRS during the Bosnian War and continued to serve in the VRS afterwards. So, for starters, he's not a historian; secondly, he's self-published; and he's closely affiliated with the VRS given he served in the VRS and the VRS were involved in this engagement. The perception (if not actuality) of a conflict of interest and a likely axe to grind is pretty obvious. I cannot see how his book can be considered reliable, and it certainly can't be used to demonstrate the notability of an article. I will now remove the citations to Borojević from the article. If you believe the book is reliable, feel free to ask for a community opinion at WP:RSN. I have also posted this to Wynnsanity's talk page. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

You tell me to take pills to calm down, knowing that I'm right in everything I said, but it doesn't matter, I'm used to it here. This is isnt blogforum but is also not your forum to whatever you want. I apologize because I did not write in English how to get to the book, so it turned out that I was manipulating, which is not the case. I think the editor wrote according to that book, I didn't know it was self-proclaimed because it seemed official to me Wynnsanity (talk) 09:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Let’s be really clear here. Nothing I am saying is MY “policy”. Everything I have observed reflects English Wikipedia policy. Now we have more “references” without a title or publisher. What are the titles of the books please? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 20:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I see that is impossible to talk with you. You can sell that story to someone else, not me. I don't want to waste my time on insignificant things when anyone with a wrong woldview of can destroy my hard and good work. I'm done with this so delete and do whatever you want. goodbye 2A00:10:990A:F501:40F6:9E0D:C07D:A148 (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 13:14, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete for this kind of contentious and contested topic I’d expect sources of the highest quality. Failing that I don’t think we should take anything on trust. There’s too much POV-driven Balkan rubbish on this site anyway. Mccapra (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
This article has already been to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Update I have now removed all the material that is not supported by the two main sources (separate chapters in the same book), both of have barely a paragraph or less on this siege, and some concluding material from the CIA history of the Balkan conflicts. I have removed material supposedly supported by the bare citations with no long citation, as I can't conduct verification. I have also cleaned up the infobox to remove material not supported by the sources. The image has been removed, as it is obviously just a screen shot from a video on youtube or whatever, and is therefore a blatant copyright violation. Other than some minor additional detail from the CIA history, this is the sum total of what is in the verified sources. Please do not restore unsupported material, I will just delete it. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 13:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67, are you still in favour of deleting the article? -- asilvering (talk) 00:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I’m just working through the additional sources, so not sure yet. My view is that the main body (not background) needs to have more than one good source that gives this siege significant coverage, in order for it to meet WP:N. Once I’ve checked everything, I’ll review my nomination and see if I reckon it should still be deleted. Thanks for following up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep the edited down version by Peacemaker as it passes WP:SIGCOV and removes the WP:OR. If there are future problems after this AFD, I suggest a topic ban be imposed on Red Spino and Wynnsanity and some kind of Protection added to the page. I hope the closing admin will continue to monitor the page and pursue that course of action if there are recurring problems.4meter4 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:51, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Normally we only relist a debate twice, but I am making an exception here due to the filibustering of the first week of debate by a user now confiormed to be a sockpuppet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:38, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Luc Peters

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 05:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment unlike the many other darts players that came here because of mass-rejected prods, this person actually has news articles about him and not just a place in stats databases like the others. [1] [2]. I'll comment back with a !vote once I finish my WP:BEFORE. Molecular Pilot 06:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
It's just routine reporting of him getting a tour card. 20-30 players do this annually. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 12:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:27, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. A search in google news found 2 relevant sources but they are from darts related media. LibStar (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:16, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Aminul Islam Rabel

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

Non notable Pourosova (aka municipality) mayor. The article has some refs, but all of them are basically interview masquerading as article, WP:PRIMARY. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, fails WP:POLITICIAN, WP:GNG আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That's too much! He isn't a former mayor but also politician featured in lot of Bigg press News. He was the Mayor of Golapganj which was indeed featured in various bigg news like The Business Standard and The daily star although Aminul Islam Rabel was not featured primarily but as Mayor of Golapgonj. And first finish the discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mayor of Golapganj Therealbey (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

In any case, it is not ready for the main space. If he is noteworthy, you will certainly be able to find information about him to write an article that is not just an infobox. In that case, move to Draft, improve, and ask for a review. If there is nothing else, delete without delay. 93.65.245.63 (talk) 19:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
i didn't written that doesn't mean ge isn't important! there is much info about him on internet but not written in Wikipedia Therealbey (talk) 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Still there is no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. Our guidelines for local politicians are pretty strict. A mayor of a relatively small town like Golapganj Municipality is not notable. The news coverage would need to be national or global in scope and not just local to justify an article under GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:37, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep vote here in this discussion so I don't think a Soft Deletion is appropriate.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:27, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Milo Runkle

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

Research shows Milo helped launch a fund called Joyful Ventures to invest in food sustainable companies and co-founded non-profit Mercy for Animals. The mainstream news coverage where his name appears are about the fund launch (and then very little else), and he is only mentioned as one of the cofounders, and there doesn’t seem to be mainstream coverage of Mercy for Animals in connection with him (or in general really). Not clear he has enough mainstream coverage to hit the notability bar. Jenny8lee (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Jenny8lee (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
would a Move to Joyful Ventures be a possibility worth considering? I see some references, some are WP:ROUTINE or passing mentions. [3] Andre🚐 22:47, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Redirect to The Good Food Institute per WP:ATD. As the co-founder of that non-profit that is probably the best outcome rather than deletion. Otherwise fails WP:GNG/WP:BASIC.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd redirect to The Good Food Institute but the subject isn't mentioned at that target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

The Cane as a Weapon

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

Neither the book nor the author appear notable. This is a book summary. ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Martial arts, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment I don't see anything immediately referencing this on Scholar or Newspapers, so this appears to be a factually correct nomination... but I wonder if we're missing something. This is clearly a real book, short though it may be, from 112 years ago. It's in the public domain. Why should we delete this solely on notability grounds? Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I guess because merely existing, no matter for how long, doesn't satisfy WP:BK. I searched too, and didn't find any coverage of this. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 13:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Guidelines are there to help us write the best encyclopedia possible. They don't exist in a vacuum, and in large part they are designed to keep people with COI from misusing Wikipedia for (passive or active) self promotion. This is so old that isn't a consideration. Jclemens (talk) 06:40, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I know. But just being old doesn't make this automatically notable. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 15:32, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
And non-notable content may be kept in the encyclopedia on a case-by-case basis when exceptions are compelling. That's why it's a guideline, not a policy. Jclemens (talk) 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
The main point of requiring topics to be notable, per WP:WHYN, is to ensure that editors create articles that comply with major content policies. More broadly, it's a form of quality control/way of maintaining encyclopedic standards. Can we create quality content that abides by our policies here? TompaDompa (talk) 20:58, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Based on the improvements made to the article since nomination, it appears the answer is clearly yes. Jclemens (talk) 04:06, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I found a source in the NYT - I also found this book that mentions the author. If there are more like this, we could probably make this an article about Cunningham and have a section about the book. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
This description of the book is kind of hilarious. It's a favorable advert, of course, but kind of tongue in cheek. With the other source I didn't realize that was put out by the American Society of Civil Engineers. Is that a society along the lines of the Royal Societies? Would membership in that count towards notability? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The ASCE website says it has over 150,000 members so it doesn't appear very exclusive. I have no idea how impressive it was to be a member over 100 years ago. Papaursa (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I was afraid that would be the case, but wanted to ask. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:18, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Huh. There was a very strong, promising start but I can't really find anything else. I get the feeling that there's probably more out there, just tucked away in various archives and not indexed in any substantial way on the internet. At the same time, I don't really have a ton of proof to back that up, other than the NYT source and a handful of other things, much of which are put out by organizations associated with Cunningham.

So unless someone can provide sourcing, I'm leaning towards a delete. I don't want to make an official judgement call on my end because I'm admittedly hoping someone will find something. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:24, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I found a review of the book in the Saskatoon Daily Star, Feb 1913. Does that help? Toughpigs (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Every bit helps! I'd like a little more ideally before I'd be super comfortable arguing for a keep, but this is a good step in the right direction! ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Saskatoon + NYT are ok. I also found this from the Newark Advocate. The Army and Navy Register bit seems ok. Found an article on NewspaperArchive (NewspaperArchive is kind of annoying so they're hard to read but you can if you use the resource and zoom in), clipped here [4]. Could maybe be better focused as an article on the author, but no strong feelings. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:12, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. This is an interesting discussion and you all have uncovered some interesting sources. But we still have to have some arguments for a particular outcome. But y'all have another week to consider where you stand on this article or whether you might refocus it to be about the author.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:26, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Blue Underground

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

There doesn't appear to be enough coverage of the subject for it to meet WP:NCORP. A possible alternative to deletion is a redirect to founder William Lustig. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Companies. toweli (talk) 19:16, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:51, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The fact that releases from this boutique label appear in Sight and Sound best of the year lists[5][6] (among other things) should be sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --wooden superman 15:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Benison (talk) 19:59, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. The company is notable enough (though the article could use some sources that help establish this fact, like the ones my colleague above found).TH1980 (talk) 00:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Unlikely to meet NCORP, but could do a redirect to William Lustig as a compromise.-KH-1 (talk) 02:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to William Lustig as a viable ATD per nom. and KH-1. Fails WP:NCORP. WP:NOPAGE applies. Sal2100 (talk) 00:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

European Watch Company

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

The company is not notable (NCORP) the sources are paid and of bad quality not being reliable and independent with deep coverage of the company; 25lucky (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:09, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep - This and this both listed on the page are neither paid or bad quality. They both seem to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Unless there is something I am missing you can point out. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:10, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Michael Robert Watson

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

Hello - recommending this article for deletion for the following reasons.

Seems like a promotional page by a very ocassional contributor to some industry news, with plenty of links to his own website (cited as a source) and references to prominent or notable collaberators who are all not listed on wikipedia.

Suspicious edits by 81.175.147.23 who appears to only be active on this page (this IP address is based in the same town as Mr Watson) as well as https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Special:Contributions/DorianRichard1985 which also appears to be the subject, and created this article. There have been no meaningful edits except by these two contributors, who both appear to be Mr Watson.

This is a promotional page with poor source links, some unverifiable, created to promote the career of an ocassional opinion columnist. Does not meet Wikipedias standard for notability, nor source quality — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ieusuiarnaut (talk • contribs) 10:12, 4 November 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 November 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:46, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Arts, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. No GS trace at all for "Michael Robert Watson", so either he publishes under a different name or his work has received no attention. The detailed education history without sources usually says the article was written by someone who is/knows the subject. Does anyone know if "ZerO books" is the same as Zero Books? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:43, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Per comments below, I checked GS for "Mike Watson"; the highest-cited works I could find had 21 citations (Can the Left Learn to Meme?: Adorno, Video Gaming, and Stranger Things) and 13 citations (The Memeing of Mark Fisher: How the Frankfurt School Foresaw Capitalist Realism and What to Do About It), but I might well have missed something as there are so many other Mike Watsons; I don't think these citations would meet WP:PROF, but reviews should be sought to address potential notability under WP:AUTHOR. If the article is kept it needs to be moved to "Mike Watson ([disambiguator])". Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Concern here is the article appears to be self-authored, with two key accounts in its creation having only ever edited this article (one IP, one logged in). This would be less of an issue if it was an especially noteworthy subject but at the moment Wiki runs risk of being a promotional page or 'find my articles online' site. Many many academic / media figures who are more prolific, many more citations, do not have wikipedia pages. Also there is some unsourced biographic information here. All in I think it should be deleted unless new high quality sources can be found and more credible evidence of Mr Watson's relevance / impact 85.68.25.118 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Until the encyclopedia actually prohibits writing autobiographical content, rather than strongly discouraging it, suspicions that the article might be authored by the subject are not valid grounds for deletion. However, I've just put all four book titles into JSTOR and come up with nothing, so I'm not arguing for retention unless someone can show that WP:AUTHOR is met by reviews that JSTOR does not index, or GNG is met. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:05, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment. Indisputably they are one and the same. They have often used that stylising for many years and the content mentioned in this article would make it obvious anyway. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment. @Espresso Addict: He publishes as "Mike Watson", hence all the references mentioning that name.
Yes, "ZerO books" = Zero Books (sometimes styled "Zer0 books").
(I don't have, as the Brits say, a dog in this fight. I chanced on the article because Mike Watson had a column in the London Guardian.)
Angusta (talk) 08:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@Angusta: Ah, thanks, so it looks like he is this Mike Watson[7]. (The piece mentions a further book, by the way.) Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:04, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:27, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Gosh everyone seems to be dancing on the fence here and it's as clear a fail as GNG as I've seen for a while. "Watson completed his PhD thesis at Goldsmiths College, University of London, in the department of Visual Cultures, under the supervision of Alex Duttmann, moderated by Howard Caygill and Peter Hallward." Oh the loving detail! Fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

MIST (satellite)

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

Single cubesat project of which i could find only a single news article and a few blog posts outside of the project itself Firestar587 (talk) 07:55, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spaceflight and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep I found a few articles as well: [8], [9], [10], [11]. The DN article is a bit below SIGCOV level of the project but together I think it meets WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 15:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:20, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Merge with KTH Royal Institute of Technology It's a student cubesat project and not inherently notable. The coverage presented is not getting it over WP:GNG for me in any case. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 12:58, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Wileńska street (Bydgoszcz)

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

No reason this street is notable, only coverage is routine sources. Allan Nonymous (talk) 17:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment. It would help if a Polish speaker were to go through the sources in detail and explain what they are. While I see some that look routine, others look plausible, and I'm seeing no pressing need to delete this article. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Wondering if @Piotrus might have a moment to provide some insight, or if they know someone else who does. They're the main Polish speaker I know of, but happy for anyone's input. Star Mississippi 00:34, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
@Star Mississippi I am suprised this has no pl wiki article. It's creator, @Wikibenchris, is fluent in English, and I expect they should provide the answers we need. I am concerned about OR in this article (ex. the claim of earliest mention is sourced to a 1876 map...). GNG is an issue, the only SIGCOV I was able to locate is this article on a local Polish portal [12]. The article would be fine except OR and GNG issues... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:22, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your time @Piotrus. @Wikibenchris unfortunately hasn't edited since before the AfD but I'd see no issue with providing the text should this close as delete and they return to editing and request it to improve. (Not saying it should be deleted, I cannot read any of the sourcing to fairly assess it) Star Mississippi 14:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like a lot of work has gone into this, and if any (out of policy) OR could be pruned out, it could be a valuable article. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

@Star Mississippi Side-note: machine translation is very good these days and one click away in most browsers... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:02, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment is there a possible merge or redirect target for this under WP:ATD? Seems a shame to lose some of this content.4meter4 (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: is there really nowhere we can transwiki something like this? Seems to me to obviously not be a Wikipedia article as such, but isn't there somewhere it can go? -- asilvering (talk) 21:42, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. I'm just going to say keep because nobody wants to delete this who is commenting here. It may be an WP:IAR vote, but having it is better than losing it.4meter4 (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. Unless someone wants to write an individual article for each of the listed buildings along it, which are all notable in their own right per WP:GEOFEAT, we should desist from deleting information. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Kaoli Isshiki

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I looked as promised, don't know yet. Solo appearance at the BBC Proms is at least something. I added some external links to check out. Her repertoire seems off the beaten track, plenty contemporary, and we might want to support that. I found the ref from which most of the article was taken and reworded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
adding: the French article has 24 references. I guess that some are those I also found (now in external links). Will look closer tomorrow, but someone knowing French might be more more successful. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I haven't looked at those yet, but the English article is now referenced. For me, she is notable enough, having made interesting recordings, with notable ensembles and conductors, and only favourable reviews. She is not a diva-type soprano: that should not be a reason to delete. The article serves many links to music that is not normally in focus, both Baroque as contemporary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
For the French sources, I need help to not misread the French:
1. [13] This Le Monde article says that she won a prize.
2. [14] This is a more detailed review of her singing (not just "outstanding").
3. [15] recital
4. [16] recording --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt I don't think this in-depth enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. The last source is selling her CD and is not independent or significant coverage. The prod-s.com website also lacks independence. The Le Monde article spends half a sentence on her, and is a smaller not all that notable prize. The main prize went to another performer, Richard Rittelman, who deservedly is the focus of that article. Only the anaclase.com source approaches significant coverage (and honestly it isn't long enough to be considered in-depth as it devotes less than a paragraph of the article to her performance). Laurent Cuniot is the main subject of that article not Isshiki. There's not enough here to pass WP:NSINGER or WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Is Wikipedia only for those who win first prize? - This is a performer of several unusual recordings, and performances in Paris, Brussels, Proms, ... - Aldeburgh could be added. - Deborah Sasson was kept, but achieved less in the music world. She knew how to attract the press, however. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt This has nothing to do with the evaluating the worth of prize winners, but evaluating the quality of coverage of Kaoli Isshiki in sources. A half sentence of text is not significant coverage, and if the award were significant we would expect more coverage in independent media or academic publications. We can only build articles based on our notability guidelines which requires that we support articles with extant sources that contain significant coverage. That does mean that what journalists and academics choose to pay attention to directly impacts the types of articles we can create because we can't engage in WP:Original Research. That is both a limitation and a strength of writing on wikipedia. The fact that you have yet to locate any sources directly about Isshiki where she is the primary subject indicates that she isn't notable for wikipedia's purposes. This indicates that a journalist or an academic researcher needs to do some work before we can have an article and it is WP:TOOSOON for wikipedia to write on this person.4meter4 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe that our coverage should depend on one reviewer's or academic's personal attention or lack of that, when her contributions to music are facts. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Then fundamentally you have missed the point of wikipedia's core policies at WP:No original research, WP:VERIFIABILITY, and WP:SIGCOV. We can't build articles largely verified to primary and non-independent sources. Best.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Informations about concerts and recordings are facts, not original research. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:56, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

See WP:PSTS which states, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources, and to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. The issue here is that there is not enough secondary coverage of her performances and recordings to establish the notability of those performances and recordings, and to make sure the "facts" are presented in an encyclopedic and neutral manner. Building an article from primarily primary materials and sources closely connected to the subject does not match the policy language at PSTS. At this point we have found zero secondary or tertiary sources with significant coverage. That makes the topic both not notable, and any article built from the current sources in evidence a violation of PSTS policy on the no original research page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

(Please educate me on my talk, not here. - Edit conflict, response only to the beginning of the comment above.) I didn't write this article, and probably would not have created it. But now it's there. I don't think we need "research" to agree that The Proms are notable, and that singing all of Monteverdi's Vespers (not just solos) is an admirable feat. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Quoting policy language here isn't about educating you Gerda (although if it does that is a bonus). It's relevant policy language to the discussion. Providing textual evidence for an WP:AFD argument is what we are supposed to do at an AFD for the benefit of all participants. I have provided a detailed source analysis below, showing how none of the references constitute independent significant coverage as required by WP:Notability.`4meter4 (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion process#Relisting discussions
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Liz, could you please notify relevant projects, such as Opera and Women (in Music, in Red), - Song is not relevant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
Le Monde	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Non-notable award that receives only a half sentence of coverage in the article. The article is mainly about another person who won a different award which is notable. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Anaclase.com review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	Article is primarily a review of Laurent Cuniot and the TM+ ensemble at the Maison de la musique. Isshiki is only mentioned in passing, and the paragraph she is in is primarily not about her performance but about the song cycle by Jonathan Harvey. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recital at prod-s.com	N	N	Y	N	N	The PROD-S company is the production company which produced the recital concert by Ishki. As they are a production team directly connected to the recital, and promote their events on their website this lacks both independence and significance. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
recording	N	N	Y	N	N	Vendor selling Isshiki's CD. Does nothing but verify a recording exists. It does not provide any information on the recording, and the website also lacks independence as it is selling a product featuring the subject. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ruhrtriennale.de	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of Festival der Kunste which employed the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Ensemble William Byrd	N	N	Y	N	N	Isshiki is listed as one of four sopranos in a chamber choir on the website of the choir itself. This is either neither independent or significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
KAOLI ISSHIKI at ludusmodalis.com	Y	N	Y	N	N	Artist bio at the website of the Ludus Modalis website which employs the singer. These bios are usually written by the subject or their paid talent management agency. Lacks independence. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Review at musica-dei-donum.org	Y	Y	N	Y	N	Review from a WP:SELFPUBLISHED non-notable blog. Not a reliable source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Philharmonie de Paris	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the Philharmonie de Paris. Verifies she performed with the orchestra in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
BBC Proms	N	N	Y	N	N	Performance archive of the BBC proms. Verifies she performed with the BBC proms in a primary source, but this is neither significant or independent. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Voce.de	N	?	N	N	N	Voce.de is a WP:SELFPUBLISHED personal website of Hans-Josef Kasper. Not reliable. May or may not be independent. No way to tell with a self-published source. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Brusseks Philharmonic	N	N	Y	N	N	Website of the Brussels Philharmonic. It's the orchestra's performance archive and is both a primary source and lacks independence from the subject as the orchestra employed her. Can be used to verify the performance but is not usable towards proving notability. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Res Musica review	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent secondary source, but Isshiki's performance is only given a half sentence of attention. It is not in-depth enough to be considered significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
conservatoire-orchestre.caen.fr/	N	N	Y	N	N	This is an advertisement with ticket sale pricing and links for purchasing. It is not a review, not independent, and not significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
musicweb-international.com	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review of album on which Isshiki performs on a couple songs as a guest artist. However, her performance was not reviewed at all by the reviewer who did not mention her at all in the review. She is only listed as a performer on the couple songs to which she contributed. Without any text reviewing her work, this is not in-depth coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
French Anthologies	N	Y	Y	Y	N	This is an independent review in a reliable secondary source. However, the review of Isshiki's performance is only a half sentence long. It's not in-depth enough to constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
www.recordsinternational.com	N	N	Y	N	N	This is the website of a record label selling one its albums. Not independent nor significant. Fails WP:SIGCOV.
Total qualifying sources					0	There must be multiple qualifying sources to meet the notability requirements

I am travelling, and busy with other subjects, sorry for a late reply. Thank you for diligent analysis of sources, 4meter4. My issue is that it sees every item only on its own, not in context.

Of course there are, in general, biographies around that were written by the person in question or by a publicity specialist, but in this case I see the things mentioned there (studies in Europe, award, performances, recordings) also supported by trustworthy other references. I also don't see any items in the biography (which is repeated by other sites) that I'd consider far-fetched or sensational claims.

I see a singer performing in high quality and in teams, be it ensemble or with other soloists. I like that approach. I see her performing the lesser-performed music, both old and new, and would like to showcase that instead of deleting it. As John pointed out (below), there are different ways to establish notability according to Wikipedia:Notability (music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I found this Amazon listing which has her credited on all but one track. The main artist seems to be Pascal Dusapin. Then I found that her artist page at Amazon has four albums listed, one of which is under her own name. Here is another listing, from the Ensemble Vocal de Pontoise.Wikipedia:Notability (music) says our benchmarks for a standalone article on a musician include "Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable)." Maguelone (her record label) claims to have released work by Reynaldo Hahn and André Jolivet, who are independently notable, and to have been around since 1993. Overall, (and the coverage of her prize in a major French media source counts too) I think that this artist (just) meets WP:NMG, so I think this is a (fairly weak) keep from me. John (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this discussion another relisting. But right now, I see no support for deletion other than the nominator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: The article lacks mention of significant coverage or critical acclaim. There is also no information provided regarding the subject's record sales, chart placements, or awards, despite claims to the contrary. Fails WP:SIGCOV.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:44, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Record sales, chart placements: not relevant for classical music. Recordings are, and recordings are there. Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

The SNG is tied to the notability of the record label. Albums made with an obscure small record label probably aren't notable. It's not like she recorded for a significant classical music label like Decca, Naxos, or Deutsche Gramophone which have international distribution. We don't even have an article on the label she recorded with which is telling. It looks to me like she is only active with a tiny French independent record label that doesn't appear all that notable. 4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relisting. Comments on the sources provided would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, voorts (talk/contributions) 02:14, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete; fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NMUSIC. I find 4meter4's source analysis convincing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reverting my close, and relisting for a clearer consensus, per the nom's request.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete: Most of the sources in the Fr article are concert listings, FNAC is an online store... I don't consider any of them RS. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Bluebird International

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

Fails WP:NOTPROMO and fails to meet WP:NCORP Amigao (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Software, and Hungary. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:10, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I have added some new sources to the article, from 24.hu, index.hu, hvg.hu and others, please check. I am not an experienced at editing wikipedia, please guide how to improve the article so it meets WP:NCORP nad WP:NOTPROMO. Thanks! Nosret Hocane (talk) 16:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 22:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete Looks like a WP:PROMO. A search in google news did not yield anything significant. LibStar (talk) 01:46, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

LibStar, what about sources added to the article since its nomination? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't speak Hungarian so hard for me to assess. LibStar (talk) 23:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep per WP:HEY. The sourcing has significantly improved, and the nominator and subsequent delete voters have not been able to provide a source analysis of the new sources. I say err on the side of caution and keep the article for now. If a Hungarian speaking editor comes in and offers a different opinion ping me.4meter4 (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
So have you provided a source analysis to support your keep vote? LibStar (talk) 10:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: I think we can keep it, it has keepable content, but is surrounded by shell of unnecessary details, wp:promo and primary sources which needs attention. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I have removed the shell as I saw it. ExclusiveEditor _{Notify Me!} 07:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

World's Worst Boardgame

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG. No secondary reliable sources, secondary sources seem to be YT WP:USERG. A quick WP:BEFORE on Google doesn't show any media articles of note. Some unsourced statements. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep-ish: I have rewritten the article, which I found a bit disjointed, and found another source which seems to have an independent editorial stance. I would fall on the side of a "week Keep" for the article. If another independent source could be found, I would upgrade to a strong Keep. Guinness323 (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks so much for updating - with all respect, stuff like GotGameTesters and anything on BoardGameGeek would seem to be WP:USERG? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 11:08, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete - Dicebreaker is the only reliable source but the article is not significant coverage, there's only a short paragraph talking about World's Worst Boardgame. --Mika1h (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JuniperChill (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep but only because WP:ILIKEIT. I know this is an WP:IAR vote, but this honestly was such an entertaining little article. I'm still chuckling.4meter4 (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Anyone want to transwiki this to https://board-games.fandom.com/wiki/Board_Games_Wiki ? -- asilvering (talk) 21:45, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Mattin

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources, and the external links in the article don't help establish notability (as they're either Mattin's website or interviews). Interestingly, the article was created by User:Mattata, whose only mainspace edits involve creating this article. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Literature, Music, and Spain. toweli (talk) 17:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: There is some coverage in The Wire, albeit paywalled. From the magazine's index, issue 267 (2006) looks to have the most coverage of the subject. More recently, there was a book review a year ago, in issue 476. AllyD (talk) 12:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:29, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:05, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Soft keep, I would be inclined to delete normally, due to the probable conflict of interest noted by the nominator, the sources shown by AllyD appear to display notability. -Samoht27 (talk) 21:31, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete (for now). I did find two books with some content: 1) Audio Culture, Revised Edition: Readings in Modern Music. United States: Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017 - pp. 406-409. 2) Kádár, Dániel Z.. Politeness, Impoliteness and Ritual: Maintaining the Moral Order in Interpersonal Interaction. N.p.: Cambridge University Press, 2017 (one page). I don't think this rises to notability at this time. He did write a chapter in a book but it doesn't seem to be a book that has had an impact. Lamona (talk) 00:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Hykeham Memorial

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

Hykeham Memorial is not a place, certainly not a "suburb". It is a ward for elections to North Hykeham Town Council. There is nothing more to say about it, although some demographic statistics exist. It is not notable. (The one mildly interesting thing about it might have been an explanation of its name, as the North Hykeham Memorial Hall is within the ward and presumably gave it the name, but this has not been included.Perhaps the mentions of the Memorial Hall and park in the North Hykeham article could be enhanced with a "(which gives its name to Memorial ward)", but that's all that's needed.)

I note that North Hykeham#Governance does not mention the individual wards, and suggest that a list of wards there would be more appropriate than this article and others, for wards which have no existence except as lines on a map to define, for now, the electorate for lowest-level local elections. Hykeham Memorial is not notable, and Wikipedia does not need this article. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and England. PamD 14:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment while we're at it, what's with Hykeham, an utterly pointless "article" that began as an attempt to avoid a railway station from being a red-link, and now attempts to join the substantial urban area of North Hykeham with a couple of country lanes on a map that are south of it and identified as South Hykeham, but really have nothing much in common apart from being adjacent. The railway station that engendered Hykeham is nowhere near South Hykeham and should better have been redirected to North Hykeham. Elemimele (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Apologies to the residents of South Hykeham, which does indeed exist. I have nominated Hykeham for AfD as an unnecessary dab with only two targets, unhelpful to readers. As for Hykeham Memorial, I personally see no value in articles covering the demographics of this low level of electoral region, but I defer to those who enjoy such things. Elemimele (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete We have no need for articles about wards of parishes and it is not a good use of anybody's time to be creating them. Rcsprinter123 (orate) 22:32, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep I agree there should not be articles for parish wards, but Hykeham Memorial (formerly North Hykeham Memorial) (https://statistics.data.gov.uk/atlas/resource?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fstatistics.data.gov.uk%2Fid%2Fstatistical-geography%2FE05014436), with the same boundaries as the parish ward (https://www.lgbce.org.uk/sites/default/files/2023-04/north_kesteven_order_map.pdf), is a ward of North Kesteven district. Peter James (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep or Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:59, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:03, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Cordillera Negra (Chile)

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

This seems to be a mountain, not a mountain range, in Chile. In any case, I cannot find any references to this mountain except a dot on a map which refers to Wikipedia as its source. Fails WP:NGEO. Please note there is a mountain range with the name Cordillera Negra in Peru, but that is a different story. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Chile. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 00:57, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete for reasons discussed by nominator. I cannot find any additional information and sources.

Paul H. (talk) 02:56, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete couldn't find sources for Chile one Who am I? / Talk to me! / What have I done? 14:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

~~Delete~~ Neutral Searched for book and scholar sources but could not find any. Probably a hoax. Note the article creator is permabanned: his creations should be reviewed. --Bedivere (talk) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

I've had a closer look at the topic and it seems to have been covered/mentioned in some publications, including this one by SERNAGEOMIN (geological and mining service of Chile). Also there's an offline work named Carta Geológica de la Décima Región (SUBIABRE & ROJAS, 1994), cited in this thesis, which also refers to the Cordillera Negra. --Bedivere (talk) 17:11, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Well found, @Bedivere! If I read it correctly, the Chilean Cordillera Negra then lies in Futrono municipality, between Caunahue River to the north and Calcurrupe River and Curinilahue river to the south, between Llifén in the west and Huilo-Huilo Biological Reserve in the east. More to the west lies the Cerros de Quimán, another article created by the same permblockied user @Dentren. If this is right, I propose to redirect both Cordillera Negra (Chile) and Cerros de Quimán articles to the geography section of Los Ríos Region, where both Cordillera Negra and Cerros de Quimán should be mentioned in the paragraph on Precordillera. Or should it be under the subtitle Andes? Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Precordillera would do IMO. Bedivere (talk) 00:41, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Withdraw The references provided by Bedivere and Fluorescent Jellyfish are enough to sustain a stand-alone article.Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 21:11, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. The nomination has been withdrawn but there are outstanding arguments to Delete this article and a proposal to Redirect it so it can't be closed at this moment until there is a consensus for a specific outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep. Refs. 1 and 2 are sufficient to indicate that this place exists and has that name. I can't check ref. 3 because I haven't got access to the book. Athel cb (talk) 09:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Neon Hunk

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Neon Hunk

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

I believe this article should be deleted for a few reasons; the first and most major is notability. I do not believe, at least as of this time, this duo is notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia. The article lacks sources, only featuring one that was put in the article in 2015. I've searched for sources to add to the article and can only find one article, a Pitchfork review, on an album they published, rather than the duo themselves. The article uses non-neutral language, such as "other noise/freak weirdos". It also contains a lot of unsourced speculation, stating that part of the duo is working on a full-length album, but this has never been published or confirmed by any source. Most of the wikilinks on the article go to non-existant pages, and no pages for the discography of the duo exist at all. This page has existed for years (since 2004 according to the edit history) and in that time, no verifiable and trustworthy sources have given notable information about the duo. Beachweak (talk) 11:27, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Comment there's a Pitchfork review ([17]) and an AllMusic review ([18]). toweli (talk) 11:52, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

These reviews are focused on an album created by the duo, Smarmymob, rather than the duo themselves. Beachweak (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was just noting the existence of two reviews. Leaning delete, unless more sources are found. toweli (talk) 18:37, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

delete no sources to establish notability. --Altenmann >talk 18:07, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Weak keep. Also found reviews of Smarmymob in Stylus Magazine [19], Dusted Magazine [20], Suburban Voice [21] and this more trivial output: [22] and this one: [23] @Beachweak of course reviews are of albums. Albums are what musicians make. Do you propose an article is written about the album instead? Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I think if there are enough reviews of the album (which there are proving to be), an article could be written about Smarmymob; however, the article on the duo themselves doesn't seem notable enough to be kept, at least as of right now. It's ten years old and only has one, weak source. Beachweak (talk) 21:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Do you agree that Neon Hunk then should be preserved as a redirect to Smarmybob, failing a keep outcome here? Geschichte (talk) 11:53, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Not a bad idea to turn the page into a redirect rather than deleting it entirely; somebody would have to write the article on the album, though. Maybe delete the page until an article is published and then turn it into a redirect? Beachweak (talk) 12:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Note that under WP:A9, if the band/musician is non-notable and has no article, then an article for their album needs solid evidence that it has significance. I'm not sure if the few scattered reviews for Smarmybob will suffice. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

How many would it need? As far as getting reviews go, it doesn't get much more significant than Pitchfork, and I think the other ones look very promising in sum. I'm somewhat struggling to take the proposition seriously that an album with Pitchfork, Allmusic and other reviews would be regarded as a speedy candidate. Geschichte (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

In my view, WP:A9 is there for a reason. An album article is not particularly encyclopedic when an interested reader cannot learn more about the band because they're not notable enough for their own article. That's my take on this side discussion about the album, and otherwise I am undecided about deleting or keeping the band and will have to leave it at that. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue isn't about the album; my proposition is to delete the page ABOUT the duo. In the future, there could be an article written about the album, but the duo Neon Hunk, at least right now, are not very notable source wise. If you review the article right now, there is one source that isn't very descriptive (and currently leads to a 404). Apart from that, the entire article is unsourced. I still think it should be deleted unless more sources about the duo are found. Beachweak (talk) 20:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I was replying to Doomsdayer Geschichte (talk) 12:25, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:55, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments: as a rule, I ask that proponents of new sources to keep an article be included for me to evaluate the results for WP: HEY. Bearian (talk) 05:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

August 2023 mid-south U.S. floods

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

Nominating yet another one of my articles for deletion for the same reasons: it fails WP:NSUSTAINED too. Most of the coverage for this event is only when the flooding took place, and that's about it. There's this article regarding the aftermath, but other than that, there's nothing else to be found. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge to Floods in the United States (2000–present), but given that this event kinda occurred in a localized area, I'm unsure if that's a good alternative for deletion in this case. Either way, this fails WP:NEVENT on the basis of sustained coverage, which this article doesn't really have. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Environment, Alabama, Kentucky, Missouri, and Tennessee. ~ Tails Wx 04:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present), which seems to be an appropriate place to mention this (and again, shocked it’s not already there.) However, unlike July 2023 Western Kentucky floods, there might not be enough to put in there, thus I’m not opposed to outright deletion. 74.101.118.218 (talk) 14:46, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Merge into Floods in the United States (2000-present). Agreed that this fails WP:NSUSTAINED as a standalone article, but the list article allows for shorter descriptions of the rainfall records and disaster response details contained here. ViridianPenguin 🐧 ( 💬 ) 20:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:57, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:43, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Jeff Radwell

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are about his company, Canouflet, with few pass mentioned in some journals. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, China, Hong Kong, England, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi lbjaja055,

Thank you for your careful review and dedication to Wikipedia’s standards. I do want to acknowledge this is my first attempt at creating a biography for a living person, so I may not be fully versed in all nuances of the guidelines. However, I’m committed to refining the page to meet the standards set by WP and would welcome any guidance on improvements. I do respectfully disagree with the proposed deletion and would like to clarify the sources used and their relevance.

The assertion that “most of the sources are about his company” is not entirely accurate. While there are a few references to his company, Camouflet, they represent a minority of the sources and were included primarily because they are recent publications. The majority of references come from reputable scientific journals and independent media outlets that focus on his personal contributions to the field, particularly his pioneering research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These sources highlight his impactful discoveries and advancements, which have had a verifiable influence on public health and scientific understanding during a critical time. His work meets the notability criteria outlined in WP

through these reliable, independent publications, which underscore his standing in the scientific community and the lasting significance of his contributions.

I hope this clarification provides a fuller picture of the subject’s notability, independent of his company, and trust it will support reconsideration of the deletion proposal. Thank you again for your commitment to maintaining Wikipedia's high standards. Stichodactyla (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Comments: 3 of the sources cited (3, 6, and 10) are basically press releases. Some of the others are either primary sources or more directly about the company, with only a passing mention of him. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Hi Bearian,

Thank you for your review and for bringing up these concerns. I've removed the majority of sources that seemed like press releases. There are, however, additional independent, reliable sources. I'm committed to editing, including re-evaluating cited sources and removing or reworking content that may appear overly promotional. Stichodactyla (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete The references appear to be about topics separate from the subject, as stated above. I was unable to find additional references. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 15:09, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:05, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. AI in medicine is the next big thing. But I can’t see how or why he’s notable. We need much more about him. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

List of transiting exoplanets

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

Was a useful list in the past, but it became outdated and is hardly updated. The number of transiting exoplanets has grown massively, so it is nearly impossible to maintain this list. Just to fill up the missing entries it would take a huge effort of many people and months, and given that only 200 people see this list every month this effort would not be rewarded. The Exoplanet Archive already do the job to catalog these planets, making this list useless. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:17, 5 November 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 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Normally the incompleteness of a list isn't a reason to get rid of it. We have some absurdly long lists in astronomy, and they will never be fully complete. That being said, sites like the Exoplanet Archive are going to be better at processing and maintaining this information. Why do we need to reproduce them? Praemonitus (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep, listing only notable entries (that is, with an article). I see no policy-driven deletion reason here. The maintainence argument, which is not a reason to delete, does not hold: if we have articles about these planets, we can include them on a list; the argument would maybe make sense if we needed to include every object discovered by transit, but we don't. The existence of an external website listing such planets has no bearing at all on being the list appropriate for Wikipedia.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: (copying my comment from the RV deletion discussion) from a practical standpoint, Wikipedia shouldn't try to replicate massive lists of objects that are better kept elsewhere (e.g. the Exoplanet archive). If we have a page, someone has to maintain it. Better to focus on things where wikipedia is a value add, instead of just trying to be a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Of course it shouldn't try to replicate the Exoplanet archive. But "the same information is elsewhere" is not a cogent argument: all information on Wikipedia is elsewhere almost by definition, since we collect information based on sources. We have different selection criteria to make the list relevant for Wikipedia as, for example, listing only notable entries. We are indeed not a directory, but that is why we have the selection criteria above. cyclopia ^speak! 09:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Since this list is potentially unbounded, we may want to consider segmenting the list by discovery date. This will make it more manageable, since each date range can become a completed list. A precedent for this is the list of minor planets, since the numbering is approximately chronological by discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep, I agree with User:Praemonitus. We could then edit this by segmenting the exoplanets' discovery dates, and it would not be misleading even if it were to be slightly not up to date, and thus buying us time to edit(of course, we would still have to update this list). As for the argument that the same information is found elsewhere, the fact is that you cannot just get to Wikipedia articles on exoplanets simply by clicking links on the Exoplanet Archive. Pygos (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Delete per multiple points of WP:NOT.

RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 05:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. Please base your arguments in policy and refer to sources. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

List of exoplanets detected by radial velocity

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

With the number of planets detected by radial velocity growing more and more every month, it will be very difficult to maintain this list. It barely get updates and views and has little utility, anyone searching for radial velocity planets could search the NASA Exoplanet Archive instead, which is far more complete than this list. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:24, 5 November 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 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep, listing only notable entries (that is, with an article). I see no policy-driven deletion reason here. The maintainence argument, which is not a reason to delete, does not hold: if we have articles about these planets, we can include them on a list; the argument would maybe make sense if we needed to include every object discovered by radial velocity, but we don't. The existence of an external website listing such planets has no bearing at all on being the list appropriate for Wikipedia.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
The issue is this: we have a list that is forgotten and incomplete to the point of being unreliable. To resolve this, we either fill the list or delete it. I'll do what's easiest as the losses will be minimal. Lack of completeness can still be an argument for exclusion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue. Even if we are going to include notable discoveries only, at least 637 notable planets exist, this list has 354, so 284 planets to add, quite a lot. The effort to fix this list should be instead be directed to other activities, such as writing a new article or updating popular, widely-viewed ones. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Again: all concerns you bring up are valid, but they are to be met by editing, and in this case policy explicitly says we should not delete. We indeed have a huge amount of incomplete lists, which is only normal. It's not like we have a deadline. cyclopia ^speak! 10:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Delete: from a practical standpoint, Wikipedia shouldn't try to replicate massive lists of objects that are better kept elsewhere (e.g. the Exoplanet archive). If we have a page, someone has to maintain it. Better to focus on things where wikipedia is a value add, instead of just trying to be a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
(copied from the reply to the same comment in the the other analogous AfD) Of course it shouldn't try to replicate the Exoplanet archive. But "the same information is elsewhere" is not a cogent argument: all information on Wikipedia is elsewhere almost by definition, since we collect information based on sources. We have different selection criteria to make the list relevant for Wikipedia as, for example, listing only notable entries. We are indeed not a directory, but that is why we have the selection criteria above. cyclopia ^speak! 10:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Since this list is potentially unbounded, we may want to consider segmenting the list by discovery date range. This will make it more manageable, since each date range can become a completed list. A precedent for this is the list of minor planets, since the numbering is approximately chronological by discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep, I agree with User:Praemonitus. We could then edit this by segmenting the exoplanets' discovery dates, and it would not be misleading even if it were to be slightly not up to date, and thus buying us time to edit(of course, we would still have to update this list). As for the argument that the same information is found elsewhere, the fact is that you cannot just get to Wikipedia articles on exoplanets simply by clicking links on the Exoplanet Archive. Pygos (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Stephen CuUnjieng

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

This was a pending "draft" in articlespace. The sources in the article are of low-quality, and the WP:BEFORE search was questionable at best. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 08:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and Philippines. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 08:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Keep: Passes WP:BIO and WP:GNG. However, it is recommended to enhance the content by incorporating additional reliable sources, which are available online and can be appropriately cited to improve the article.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:41, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
The reason why I wanted to draftify is that I couldn't find any reliable sources, and unfortunately, in my experience, without draftification, the article gets abandoned. The draft might get abandoned as well, but can be G13-deleted (basically, a "soft delete" where someone can get the draft "refunded" or bought back). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 17:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Which sources? Geschichte (talk) 10:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete The articles a whole NOTCV mess, but as of the 7th of this month, he hosts a TV show on Philippine TV (ABS/CBN). It's arguably WP:TOOSOON and also arguable that one weekly business show anchoring gig is not the stuff of notability. Borderline, but I'm still not sure there's enough here to keep. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 10:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak delete per Alexandermcnabb above. The only secondary coverage I can find is routine coverage of him doing his job. The new weekly talk show is a limited series according to this announcement, and might well vanish after a few weeks, so I agree about that being WP:TOOSOON. The awards and recognition section is too vaguely worded to find any reliable sources to verify. Wikishovel (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Hyperintensity

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

Is mostly a fork of White matter hyperintensity Bluethricecreamman (talk) 18:40, 6 November 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 November 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:00, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Keep. White matter hyperintensity is a redirect to Leukoaraiosis which is only one disease that has pathology involving Hyperintensity. Leukoencephalopathy, hypoxic brain injury, etc. also have T2 hyperintensity imaging results. Not really seeing a need to delete this as they are different by related topics with WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 19:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
hmm... saw Leukoaraiosis mostly talking about WMH, but you are right. I think its the a subcategory of WMH, so surprising it takes up the whole WMH redirect.
There is some weirdness happening here.
- Leukoaraiosis is a subcategory of WMH, and I think does not appear much often at all in literature (only 20k hits on google Scholar).
- WMH is the more widely used supercategory to define a presentation. (>100k hits on google scholar)
- Hyperintensity by itself does not mean much, just abnormal increase in intensity of something, this article is more about White matter hyperintensities.
I might be in favor of a merge Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

The overbolding of every other term in the first few paragraphs of hyperintensity definitely suggest a lack of focus for the page. Bluethricecreamman (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

That’s more of a style issue which can be fixed (although redirected words should be bolded under MOS). Honestly I think it’s best to leave the article where it is because hyperintensity, while more common in white matter, can also occur in gray matter. Gray matter hyperintensity is associated with Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and can also be a sign of a stroke.4meter4 (talk) 03:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

those are fairly different clinical bases in general even if they show up similar in MRI.

a similar analogy would be high body temp… maybe its cuz person has a fever maybe they have heat stroke, but the measuring instrument says they have a very high temperature… even if there is a similar mechanism of the body overheating the underlying aspects are different enough they should not be combined into a single wikipedia article Bluethricecreamman (talk) 05:13, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Undoubtedly there’s different clinical causes between hyperintensity appearing in gray matter versus white matter, but that’s not really relevant to what is essentially an article on an imaging term. Hyperintensity on an MRI scan is hyperintensity on an MRI scan no matter where it happens in terms of the kind of tissue it presents in. It seems to me you are confusing an imaging reading term used for diagnostic analysis with the pathophysiology of the diseases often associated with the imaging term. They are related but separate.4meter4 (talk) 11:32, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change

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

Fails WP:NCORP. No in-depth significant coverage of the organization. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Italy. C F A 💬 20:30, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi, I am the head communication office at the Euro-Mediterranean Center on Climate Change (CMCC). The Center is an international research center that collaborates in many international projects and initiatives, such as

-- the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that have selected us as the Focal point for Italy

-- the European Environment Agency for which we coordinate the European Topic Centre on Climate Change Aaptation and LULUCF (ETC CA)

-- we provide climate predictions and forecasts for Copernicus Climate Services and for Copernicus Marine Service

-- we have research collaborations with leading research centers around the world, the latest one is with Princeton University High Meadows Environmental Institute

We will add this information, other international relevant activities, and related sources to the page. I hope this is enough to maintain the article on Wikipedia. Buonocoremauro (talk) 10:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Buonocoremauro. Thanks for that info. Please take a look at the message to you and User:Manusantagata79 I am about to leave on the talk page of the article about some guidelines English Wikipedia has about Wikipedia:Conflict of interest which might seem strange to academics or might be different on Italian Wikipedia. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

UTC)

Keep Although I would not be able to cite all the content I have added a couple of cites and should be able to find more if needed to show notability Chidgk1 (talk) 07:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

None of the sources you added help with WP:NCORP notability. C F A 💬 15:27, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

OK I have now added ^[1]

I don’t speak Italian but hopefully someone from the Italy project can take a look Chidgk1 (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me, but that's one source. We'll need more than one to show notability. C F A 💬 16:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

References

^ "Il meglio della scienza del clima è al Cmcc". la Repubblica (in Italian). 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2024-11-11.

Weak keep I’m seeing a large number of climate science books and journal articles citing data/research generated by the CMCC internationally in examining EBSCOE, JSTOR, google books etc. There a lot of passing mentions of the organization in that kind of literature. While technically not enough to meet WP:NCORP this is a case where I think the topic is encyclopedic based on its broad scholarly impact along the reasoning at WP:NACADEMIC. Lastly, it’s possible there are foreign language sources not easily found in searching in English as this organization does research globally. I grant you that this is not the strongest argument, but international scope is covered in our WP:SNG at WP:NONPROFIT. I'm not really seeing any benefit in deleting an article on a government funded/founded climate research organization attached to multiple Italian universities.4meter4 (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:NONPROFIT says Organizations are usually notable if ... The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. and The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization., but if this is an IAR keep I'm not going to debate it. C F A 💬 00:11, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 20:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Cole Stratton

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

Non-notable performer; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:NACTOR / WP:GNG. All references are mentions of subject in articles about podcasts/live appearances, no significant coverage found in Google News. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:29, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and Michigan. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Weak keep or redirect to SF Sketchfest as an WP:ATD. Here is one good source example from San Francisco Gate: [24]. There are bunch more there in this search result; most of which are related to the SF Sketchfest, but some also reviews of his performances as a sketch comic. As the founder of a notable festival in San Francisco there is a certain degree of notability, but it might just be better to redirect to the festival page.4meter4 (talk) 02:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 21:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

[1] "Il meglio della scienza del clima è al Cmcc". la Repubblica (in Italian). 2023-05-06. Retrieved 2024-11-11.

[1]