Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

27 December 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 26	December 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Where Is Gilgamesh?

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

The film doesn't seem to have notability. NameGame (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NameGame (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seem you have selected every single article related to this film to be deleted. And can you define " notability" reason? Naderjamie6 (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How much " notability" is need for a Kurdish film produced independently? Or only big budget Hollywood film are allowed to to have Wikipedia article? Can you please explain. Naderjamie6 (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Latino belt

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

While there is some small news coverage of a "Latino belt" in Pennsylvania, this coverage starts in February 2024 and there doesn't seem to be any indication that this WP:NPLACE is used other than as a shorthand in a handful of political news articles in the last cycle. It seems WP:TOOSOON to say whether this is actually a notable region - will there be coverage of it outside of the 2024 election? And if it is merely political, it hardly stands up to all the other pages in Category:Electoral geography of the United States. At very least, it should be draftified until it can be fleshed out to more than one sentence. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is virtually nothing in the article beyond This Place Exists. It is much shorter than the nomination! Athel cb (talk) 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nine words is not an article, do not do this. Reywas92^Talk 17:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Informationless stub sourced to a passing mention. The term was used by Steve Kornacki in a much-hyped commentary back in October: [1], but there are no sources that define precisely where the region is or its demographics or economic history or anything. Just a term that a pundit invented one day. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 18:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karzan Kardozi

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

The director doesn't seem to be famous enough to own an article on Wikipedia. NameGame (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Actors and filmmakers. NameGame (talk) 17:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you define what "doesn't seem famous use Enough?" mean and what standard you go by? If you delete articles by the "doesn't seem famous use Enough?" reason, more than one third of articles in Wikipedia will have to be delete. Naderjamie6 (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And how much "Famous" is enough for a Kurdish filmmaker to have its own article on Wiki? Can you provide rules and regulation for such "Fame?" Naderjamie6 (talk) 17:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given "doesn't seem to be famous enough" is not enough to have article deleted. The filmmakers is Kurdish, what kind of fame would required by Wikipedia standard to have article listed? Wendy2024 (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Magnus Torall

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

Appears entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Norway. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Dominik

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

No WP:SUSTAINED notability here and highly promotional Amigao (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, China, Poland, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitney Awards

AfDs for this article:

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

After 15 years, this remains of borderline notability; pretty much all the sources are LDS-specific, and many of the references are not independent in any way. We're not quite in "coveted Silver Sow Award" territory; but close. Orange Mike | Talk 16:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Awards, and Latter Day Saints. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IREDES

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

Orphaned artcile without any verification of notability. Website is defunct, no evidence this is a notable standard, if even ever used. ZimZalaBim ^talk 16:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is promotional in tone about a nonprofit, and has been unsourced since its 2008 creation. Search turns up no independent coverage of subject. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 17:30, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Engineering, Computing, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:27, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in Gscholar mining journals [2] or [3] were the first two I pulled up. Oaktree b (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This as well is about the "thing" [4] Oaktree b (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All seem like just passing mention, not any significant coverage or engagement. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:25, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find significant coverage for this. It exists/existed, but fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Pando

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with apparently only one notable role rather than the multiple ones called for, and subject apparently requests deletion (see the Talk page), which should give a lean in a marginal case. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Louks

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

Seems like a WP:BLP1E candidate - "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event", the individual does not meet WP:NACADEMIC and as such seems to be otherwise low-profile, and going viral on social media is not per se a substantial event. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Literature, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see that this article borders on WP:BLP1E and WP:TOOSOON (this only started one month ago). But the coverage is from a large variety of sources, and they aren't just paraphrased carbon copies of one article. Multiple articles discuss her at length as the subject of the article, not just a passing mention of "Hey, this person did something newsworthy, thanks for the click." The article is well sourced and is as WP:NPOV as can be when discussing a divisive topic. Angryapathy (talk) 16:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Banaras Flyover

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

Does not meet WP:GNG as well as WP:NGEO. Article needs a rewrite as well. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is terribly written, I wholeheartedly agree, but I don't believe this is a candidate for WP:TNT. A quick google search (in English only) pulls up enough results to meet WP:GNG. I'm sure there's much more in Urdu. Also, I think it may have also been named the Varanasi Flyover at one point? Angryapathy (talk) 15:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't mean the reason for the nom was its poor writing, it was actually about it not meeting notability criteria. Although if there are reliable sources, I may as well withdraw the nom TNM101 (chat) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the Varanasi Flyover. The lack of details in the initial description may have led to confusion, making it seem poorly written. However, the actual information we gathered through a detailed survey was perceived as promotional by some individuals, which may have added to the misunderstanding.Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)Abdul Muqtaddir Khan[reply]

Delete. I don't see enough in the way of independent sources to regard it as notable -- as far as I can see references 6 to 9 are the same, accounting for almost half of all the references. Why should any flyover be regarded as notable? Only if something important happened on it. As it happens the city where I live (Marseilles, France) has a flyover about 3 km in length, the avenue Alexandre Fleming, over the district of Belle de Mai, and it's not the only one, but I'd be very surprised if anyone wanted Wikipedia articles about them. Athel cb (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but that's not made due to the rapes and the killings in Qasba_Aligarh_massacre Abdulmuqtaddirkhan (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)AbdulMuqtaddirKhan[reply]

GuiXT

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

Google search doesn't show many hits outside of SAP/Synactive. Suggest deleting or, at best, merging into SAP Graphical User Interface. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Salavatabad (mountain)

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

I struggled to find a single non-Wikimedia related source even mentioning this mountain range. Article is unsourced as well. Most mentions are indirect, such as through a local village with the same name. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This seems to also be transliterated as two words, "Salavat Abad", I haven't found much more with this but there are a few examples e.g. | (PDF) A GIS-based logistic regression model in rock-fall susceptibility mapping along a mountainous road: Salavat Abad case study, Kurdistan, Iran this might at least give us enough to merit a mention in Sanandaj or Sanandaj County JeffUK 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most references are indeed to the village that I was easily able to find in a quick search. However per WP:GEOLAND there's enough there for a stub, we just need to be able to verify it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lantau Link Visitors Centre

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

Even after addition of sources, topic still seems unimportant. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries and Hong Kong. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: GNG is clearly fulfilled after I deproded the article. The two Oriental Daily News articles (source 1 and 4) and the am730 article (source 5) are full-length articles with detailed coverage on the centre's history and current condition. "topic still seems unimportant" is not a deletion rationale but a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Tsing_Ma_Bridge#Tourism - I don't think the sources constitute significant coverage, Source 1 and 4 are basically the same article from the same source, Source 5 is barely in-depth and just those two sources don't reach the level required; this article will never be able to expanded upon based on the available sources. I think merging into Tsing_Ma_Bridge#Tourism would be better. :JeffUK 14:01, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Tsing_Ma_Bridge#Tourism: "Seems unimportant" is not a reason for deletion, but everything I found (with the help of Google translate) ties it into the bridge. Length isn't an issue, so I think a merger makes the most sense here. Star Mississippi 14:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @JeffUK and Star Mississippi: I am interested to hear more detailed comments on the sources from you guys. Even if articles from the same media outlet count as one like Jeff suggested, the Oriental Daily News articles are a still decent source that detail the development and current condition of the visitor centre's lack of maintenance. The am730 article is barely in-depth? The 1,800-word article is entirely about the centre, ranging from its construction history, to its tourism development, and to the recent public discussions about revitalization. I would really like to hear what Jeff thinks this article is about if you believe it is not focused on the visitor centre, and how does it relate to the bridge when it was only briefly mentioned for four times throughout the article? GNG only requires SIGCOV from multiple sources, and these two articles already meet the criterion, not to mention other sources currently listed in the article, like the Sing Tao Daily article (source 9) which is also entirely about the centre and viewing platform. I think a potential factor leading to our varied analyses of the sources may stem from the disregard for the mentions of the viewing platform in those articles. The official name of the location is actually Lantau Link Visitors Centre and Viewing Platform[5][6] (like the Chinese translation suggested: 青嶼幹綫訪客中心及觀景台), and they are the same place. (I believe a move is much needed if this article is to be kept.). —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 14:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  As WP:GNG says "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page." I think it will look great as a part of the Tsing Ma Bridge article. On the specific source, barely means 'it is in-depth, but only just', the fact it's 1,800 words long isn't relevant, it's a lot of talk that says very little, the reason we have WP:SIGCOV is, partly, to ensure there is enough unique information available for us to create an article. JeffUK 15:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I agree with @JeffUK here @Prince of Erebor. The reader wants to learn about the bridge, which includes this viewing area. They are the same subject and it makes sense for them to be covered together. WP:NOPAGE is also helpful here. It would be different if there was information independent of the bridge and/or there was a length issue. I think the official name isn't a strong issue, it can be addressed with a redirect should this close as merge or be retained as a standalone. Star Mississippi 15:28, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  [Edit conflict] JeffUK, I apologize if my emphasis on the article's length caused confusion. I understand that your initial comment was about the article lacking SIGCOV on the subject, which I respectfully disagreed with, as the article is entirely focused on it. I do not believe your interpretation of SIGCOV aligns with what SIGCOV means. SIGCOV refers to a source that addresses the topic directly and in detail, rather than providing only a passing or brief mention, so I do not think the am730 article fails to meet SIGCOV. I think you are more likely referring to WP:NOPAGE, and I understand your perspective and the rationale that notability alone does not guarantee a standalone article. If the current article were a stub with only two sentences and only two sources just to bypass GNG, I definitely agree with you. But the article has sufficient notability, especially with a revitalization project underway and ongoing news coverage, including articles published as recently as this year (the Our China Story source). Therefore, I do not agree with your assertion that the article has no potential for expansion, and I do not see a need to merge it. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Sorry, Star Mississippi, we were writing at the same time, and my comment was only addressing Jeff's arguments. However, I also thought you guys were leaning towards the NOPAGE side, and imo, the revitalization project mentioned in the am730 source already indicates the subject's independence from the bridge. I realize I may have failed to express my final comments regarding the official name of the Centre. What I meant to convey is that the viewing platform is also part of the subject, so perhaps you guys overlooked the lines discussing the viewing platform or observation deck and thought they referred to the bridge instead of the Centre, because I was a bit confused when multiple editors found that article lacked in-depth coverage of the subject. Apologies for the confusion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 15:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Anyway, thanks both for clarifying things for me and I now understand the arguments from you guys, which focus not on the sources but on the lack of independence of the subject. Let's see what other editors have to say about this. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:11, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  All good @Prince of Erebor and we'll see where this lands. I'm not against retention, I'm just not sure it's the best solution for readers. Thanks, as always, for your detailed input. Star Mississippi 19:15, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages

Wikipedia:Notability#Whether to create standalone pages says:
When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic).
The guideline says to consider three questions:
1. Does other information provide needed context? Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page" – I do not think context would be lost by covering Lantau Link Visitors Centre on its own page.
2. Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page – I think that a brief mention of Lantau Link Visitors Centre in Tsing Ma Bridge#Tourism is sufficient and that merging the entire article about the centre to there would not allow relationships to be "better appreciated than if they were each a separate page".
3. What sourcing is available now? Sometimes, when a subject is notable, but it is unlikely that there ever will be a lot to write about it, editors should weigh the advantages and disadvantages of creating a permanent stub. – there is a lot to write about. This article is already much larger than a "permanent stub". It could be further expanded with the additional sources I've presented here.
There are multiple possible merge targets:
1. Tsing Yi island – this bridge is on the island
2. Tsing Ma Bridge#Tourism – sources mention that this bridge can be seen from the centre
3. Kap Shui Mun Bridge – sources mention that this bridge can be seen from the centre
4. Ting Kau Bridge – sources mention that this bridge can be seen from the centre
When there are this many merge targets, I'm inclined to support a standalone article. A merge to any of those pages would result in undue weight. The sources discuss the centre's history, the various government entities that managed it over the years, why it became in disrepair and the plans to fix it, the three bridges that can be seen from it, the contents of the centre ("the information models, photos, and interactive games about the bridges"), and the flowers around it ("It is the place with the largest number of Rhododendrons planted in a single location in Hong Kong"). There is sufficient content and sources to support a standalone article about the centre.

Sources
1. "am專訪｜青嶼幹線觀景台活化正收集建議　葵青DO鄧顯權：公眾參與最重要　冀善用潛力搞旺設施" [am Exclusive Interview｜Suggestions are being collected for the revitalization of the Lantau Link Observation Deck. Kwai Tsing DO Tang Hin-kuen: Public participation is the most important and we hope to make good use of the potential to develop facilities.]. am730 (in Chinese). 2023-11-24. Archived from the original on 2024-12-23. Retrieved 2024-12-23.
  The article notes: "坐落青衣島西北角落的青嶼幹線觀景台及訪客中心，坐擁青馬大橋和汀九橋的海景，與青馬大橋一同在1997年啟用，初時吸引大批市民到訪一覽新橋景色，惟熱潮過後人流不再，公共交通服務在緊接數年亦縮減至每小時一班專線小巴。在疫情前的2019年，觀景台有約11.6萬人次到訪，而今年截至上月31日訪客人次已達53,280人，約為疫前的一半。為吸引更多遊客，葵青民政事務處今年8月推出「青嶼想想」計劃，就活化觀景台收集市民意見，包括在區內擺街站、舉辦工作坊和邀請遞交建議書等。"
  From Google Translate: "The Lantau Link Observation Deck and Visitor Centre, located at the northwest corner of Tsing Yi Island, has a sea view of the Tsing Ma Bridge and Ting Kau Bridge. It was opened in 1997 together with the Tsing Ma Bridge. It initially attracted a large number of citizens to visit and enjoy the scenery of the new bridge. However, After the boom, the flow of people stopped, and public transport services were reduced to one green minibus every hour in the following years. In 2019 before the pandemic, about 116,000 people visited the observation deck. As of last month 31 this year, the number of visitors had reached 53,280, about half of the number before the pandemic. In order to attract more tourists, the Kwai Tsing District Office launched the "Think About Lantau" project in August this year to collect public opinions on the revitalization of the observation deck, including setting up street stops in the district, holding workshops and inviting submissions of proposals."
2. Lung, Ngai-cheung 龍藝祥 (2012-12-09). "青嶼幹線觀景台拍照一流" [The Lantau Link Observation Deck is great for taking photos]. Sing Pao Daily News (in Chinese). p. A6.
  The article notes: "青嶼幹線訪客中心及觀景台位於青衣島西北角，是香港一所介紹青嶼幹線的展覽館，佔地19,000平方米，訪客中心是於1997年5月隨青嶼幹線通車正式對外開放，觀景台設有青馬大橋、汲水門大橋、汀九橋組件戶外展覽及訪客中心。訪客中心設有介紹大橋資料模型、相片和互動遊戲；從螺旋式的小路繞著圓柱形的觀景台而上，遊人便可以較近距離或高角度，可遠眺青馬大橋、汲水門大橋及汀九橋，訪客中心設有行人天橋連接停車場，公廁設在停車場。"
  From Google Translate: "The Lantau Link Visitor Centre and Observation Deck is located in the northwest corner of Tsing Yi Island. It is an exhibition hall introducing the Lantau Link in Hong Kong, covering an area of 19,000 square meters. The visitor centre was officially opened to the public in May 1997 with the opening of the Lantau Link. The observation deck has an outdoor exhibition and visitor centre for the Tsing Ma Bridge, Kap Shui Mun Bridge and Ting Kau Bridge components. The visitor centre is equipped with information models, photos and interactive games about the bridges. Going up the spiral path around the cylindrical observation deck, visitors can overlook the Tsing Ma Bridge and Kap Shui Mun Bridge from a close or high angle. and Ting Kau Bridge, the visitor centre has a pedestrian bridge connecting the parking lot, and public toilets are located in the parking lot."
  The article notes: "訪客中心最初由新機場工程總署負責管理及運作，該署於1998年解散後，展覽中心交由民政事務總署葵青民政事務處負責管理。此外，訪客中心種植大量洋紫荊、羊蹄甲屬、杜鵑花等植物，是香港單一地點種植最多杜鵑花的地方。"
  From Google Translate: "The Visitor Centre was initially managed and operated by the New Airport Works Department. After the Department was disbanded in 1998, the exhibition centre was managed by the Kwai Tsing District Office of the Home Affairs Department. In addition, the Visitor Centre is planted with a large number of Bauhinia spp., Rhododendron spp., Rhododendron and other plants. It is the place with the largest number of Rhododendrons planted in a single location in Hong Kong."
3. "山水兼備風景優美回歸紀念徑青衣頭等風光" [A Blend of Mountains and Water, Beautiful Scenery: Top Views at the Return of Sovereignty Commemoration Trail, Tsing Yi]. Hong Kong Daily News [zh] (in Chinese). 2014-12-19. pp. Q16–Q17.
  The article notes: "若大家想一覽可青馬大橋、汲水門大橋及汀九橋，青嶼幹線訪客中心及觀景台是值得一去的地方，它位於青衣島西北角，是一所介紹青嶼幹線的展覽館，佔地19000平方米，於1997年5月隨青嶼幹線通車正式對外開放。"
  From Google Translate: "If you want to take a look at the Tsing Ma Bridge, Kap Shui Mun Bridge and Ting Kau Bridge, the Lantau Link Visitor Centre and Observation Deck is a place worth visiting. It is located in the northwest corner of Tsing Yi Island and is an exhibition hall introducing the Lantau Link, covering an area of 19,000 square meters, was officially opened to the public in May 1997 with the opening of the Lantau Main Line."
  The article notes: "觀景台設有青馬大橋、汲水門大橋、汀九橋組件戶外展覽及訪客中心。訪客中心設有介紹大橋資料模型、相片和互動遊戲；從螺旋式的小路繞著圓柱形的觀景台而上，遊人便可以近距離或高角度眺望青馬大橋、汲水門大橋及汀九橋，訪客中心設有行人天橋連接停車場，公廁設在停車場。青嶼幹線訪客中心及觀景台訪客中心及觀景台免費入場。"
  From Google Translate: "The observation deck has an outdoor exhibition and visitor centre for the Tsing Ma Bridge, Kap Shui Mun Bridge and Ting Kau Bridge components. The visitor centre is equipped with information models, photos and interactive games on the bridge. Going up the spiral path around the cylindrical observation deck, visitors can view the Tsing Ma Bridge, Kap Shui Mun Bridge and Ting Kau Bridge at close range or from a high angle. , the visitor centre has a pedestrian bridge connecting the parking lot, and public toilets are located in the parking lot. Lantau Link Visitor Centre and Observation Deck Admission to the Visitor Centre and Observation Deck is free."
  The article notes: "此外，訪客中心種植大量洋紫荊、羊蹄甲屬、杜鵑花等植物，是香港單一地點種植最多杜鵑花的地方。每年二、三月期間，萬朵杜鵑花盛開的時候，到來賞花也是一樂也。另外亦種有一棵逾百年的細葉榕。"
  From Google Translate: "In addition, the Visitor Centre is planted with a large number of Bauhinia spp., Rhododendron spp., Rhododendron and other plants. It is the place with the largest number of Rhododendrons planted in a single location in Hong Kong. Every year during February and March, when thousands of azaleas are in full bloom, it is a pleasure to come and enjoy the flowers. There is also a fig tree that is over a hundred years old."
4. "青嶼幹線觀景台欄杆日久失修　破爛穿窿訪客靠近有危險" [Railings of Lantau Link Observation Deck Deteriorated Over Time, With Holes and Damage Posing Danger to Visitors]. Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2021-01-17. Archived from the original on 2024-12-23. Retrieved 2024-12-23.
  The article notes: "青嶼幹線觀景台屬本港重要地標之一，訪客可看到青馬大橋、汀九橋以及馬灣海峽，惟當局未有妥善管理，令觀景台日久失修，危機處處。本報接獲讀者投訴，指觀景台欄杆驚現大量裂紋，更有部分欄杆表面破爛，原本空心的內部積藏垃圾。有區議員直言擔心有潛在危險，促當局盡快處理；有測量師則指，當局應趁現在進行一個較完整的維修。當局回覆本報查詢時表示，正安排維修欄杆。"
  From Google Translate: "The Lantau Link Observation Deck is one of the important landmarks in Hong Kong. Visitors can see the Tsing Ma Bridge, Ting Kau Bridge and Ma Wan Strait. However, the authorities have not properly managed it, causing the observation deck to be in disrepair over time and full of dangers. This newspaper received complaints from readers that a large number of cracks appeared on the railings of the observation deck, and some of the railings were tattered, with garbage accumulating inside the originally hollow interior. Some district councilors bluntly expressed concerns about potential dangers and urged the authorities to deal with it as soon as possible; some surveyors pointed out that the authorities should take advantage of the opportunity to carry out a more complete repair. In response to this newspaper's inquiry, the authorities stated that they were arranging repairs to the railings."
5. Cheng, Yuk-kwan 鄭玉君 (2020-04-07). Siu, Ching-man 肖靜文 (ed.). "賞橋又賞花" [Enjoy the Bridge and Flowers]. Hong Kong Commercial Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-23. Retrieved 2024-12-23.
  The article notes: "位處青衣島鑊底灣西北面的青嶼幹線訪客中心及觀景台，週末便有數百人前來觀賞。若想人少一點，最好在平日的早上。在晴朗天氣登上觀景台，景色一絕，宏偉的青馬大橋及汀九橋就在眼前，亦可遠眺馬灣一帶景色，3 月時節，洋紫荊及杜鵑花還未凋謝，賞橋又賞花，襯上藍天白雲，可謂良辰美景。"
  From Google Translate: "The Lantau Link Visitor Centre and Observation Deck, located northwest of Wok Di Wan on Tsing Yi Island, attracts hundreds of people to watch it on weekends. If you want fewer people, it’s best to go in the morning on a weekday. On a clear day, you can go up to the observation deck for a stunning view. The majestic Tsing Ma Bridge and Ting Kau Bridge are right in front of you. You can also overlook the scenery of Ma Wan in the distance. In March, the redbuds and azaleas are not yet withered, so you can enjoy the bridge viewing. And admiring the flowers, against the blue sky and white clouds, it is a beautiful scene on a good day."
  The article notes: "訪客中心於1997 年8 月啟用，20 多年來成為外地旅客了解機場核心計畫工程之一的青嶼幹線港的橋頭堡，觀景台也展出青馬大橋和汀九橋的組件。在青衣機鐵站專線小巴站搭乘308M 線可到達訪客中心。"
  From Google Translate: "The Visitor Centre was opened in August 1997. Over the past 20 years, it has been a bridgehead for foreign tourists to learn about the Lantau Link Port, one of the core projects of the airport. The observation deck also displays components of the Tsing Ma Bridge and Ting Kau Bridge. Take the 308M route from the Tsing Yi Airport Green Minibus Station to the Visitor Centre."
6. "每年多近13萬人到訪青嶼幹線觀景台　欄杆破爛危險亦影響觀感" [Nearly 130,000 people visit the Lantau Link Observation Deck every year. The broken and dangerous railings also affect the viewing experience.]. Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2021-01-17. Archived from the original on 2024-12-23. Retrieved 2024-12-23.
  The article notes:" 不少旅遊團均會到訪青嶼幹線觀景台，是1997年隨着青嶼幹線通車正式對外開放，佔地約1.9萬平方米，除可看到青馬大橋及汀九橋，因每年春天杜鵑花盛開，亦是拍照打卡的好地方。據葵青民政事務處數字，在2017至2020年，每年到訪人次介乎8.3萬至13.3萬。當區區議員表示，欄杆破爛不但影響遊人觀感，更擔心有潛在危險，促當局盡快處理。"
  From Google Translate: "Many tourist groups will visit the Lantau Link Observation Deck. It was officially opened to the public in 1997 with the opening of the Lantau Link. It covers an area of about 19,000 square meters. In addition to Tsing Ma Bridge and Ting Kau Bridge, it can be seen every year. Rhododendrons are in full bloom in spring, making it a great place to take photos. According to figures from the Kwai Tsing District Office, from 2017 to 2020, the number of visitors per year ranged from 83,000 to 133,000. The district councilors said that the broken railings not only affected the perception of tourists, but also worried about potential dangers, and urged the authorities to deal with it as soon as possible."
7. Ling, Wai 凌薇 (2008-09-20). "世上最長行車鐵路雙用懸索吊橋/青馬大橋" [Tsing Ma Bridge, the longest dual-purpose suspension bridge for railways in the world]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-23. Retrieved 2024-12-23.
  The article notes: "青馬大橋是香港道路重要的一部分，它聯同汲水門大橋，共同擔當連接大嶼山、赤鱲角香港國際機場與市區的唯一行車通道。同時也成為香港的重要地標和景點，吸引了世界各地的遊客前往參觀。因此，政府在青衣西北部設立青嶼幹線訪客中心及觀景台，讓遊人可以較近距離或高角度遠眺青馬大橋、汲水門大橋及汀九橋。訪客中心及觀景台於1997年隨青嶼幹線通車對外開放。"
  From Google Translate: "The Tsing Ma Bridge is an important part of Hong Kong's roads. Together with the Kap Shui Mun Bridge, it serves as the only driving channel connecting Lantau Island, the Hong Kong International Airport in Chek Lap Kok and the urban area. At the same time, it has become an important landmark and attraction in Hong Kong, attracting tourists from all over the world. Therefore, the government has set up a Lantau Link Visitor Centre and Observation Deck in the northwest of Tsing Yi, allowing visitors to view the Tsing Ma Bridge, Kap Shui Mun Bridge and Ting Kau Bridge at a closer or higher angle. The visitor centre and observation deck were opened to the public in 1997 with the opening of the Lantau Link."
8. "遊車河攝影勝地青嶼幹線半日遊" [Half-day tour of Lantau Link, a great place for driving and photography]. PC Market [zh] (in Chinese). 2005-11-15. p. A82.
  The article notes: "青馬大橋除創造世界最長同類型吊橋紀錄外，包括青馬大橋在內的「機場核心計畫」也於1999 年榮獲美國建築界權威及編輯選為「二十世紀十大建築成就獎」得主之一，與巴拿馬運河、英法海峽隧道及三藩市金門大橋等其他九項工程齊名。位於青衣島西北端的青嶼幹線訪客中心及觀景台，是了解及觀賞這項壯觀建設的最佳地點，在訪客中心亦展出了幹線的模型，圖片及建築物樣本，於觀景台可將青嶼幹線的宏偉景色一覽無遺。"
  From Google Translate: "In addition to setting the world record for the longest suspension bridge of its kind, the "Airport Core Project" including the Tsing Ma Bridge was also selected by American architectural authorities and editors as one of the "Top Ten Architectural Achievements of the 20th Century" in 1999, along with nine other projects such as the Panama Canal, the Channel Tunnel and the San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge. The Lantau Link Visitor Centre and Observation Deck, located at the northwest end of Tsing Yi Island, is the best place to understand and appreciate this spectacular construction. Models, pictures and building samples of the link are also exhibited in the visitor centre, and the magnificent scenery of the Lantau Link can be seen at a glance from the observation deck."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lantau Link Visitors Centre and Viewing Platform (simplified Chinese: 青屿干线访客中心及观景台; traditional Chinese: 青嶼幹綫訪客中心及觀景台) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:31, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you found this @Cunard. I almost pinged you before I read @Prince of Erebor's user page and realized the extent to which they also had access to Chinese-language sourcing. Happy holidays and thanks as always for your detailed sourcing. Star Mississippi 15:44, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I extend the same appreciation to Cunard! You are always able to locate a variety of offline sources! Four of the sources you found are currently unused and are definitely good additions to expand the article. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 16:20, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It always great to see both of you! Thank you and happy holidays and New Year to both of you! Cunard (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think consensus above is that this Visitors Centre is notable, but there remains the question of merging/PAGEDECIDE. I personally see more than enough sourcing to create a proper article here, far beyond permastub territory, and I agree with Cunard that there isn't a great merge target. Probably Lantau Link would be the best merge target, but all suggestions above were for merging to Tsing_Ma_Bridge#Tourism. For these reasons I lean towards keeping this as a standalone article. Toadspike [Talk] 12:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:06, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This article fulfills WP:GNG, and as other editors have argued, there are too many targets for a redirect. In this case, I think a standalone page is appropriate and also necessary to avoid undue weight.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alessia Aureli

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Italy. Bgsu98 (Talk) 12:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage found, is only what amounts to rankings, subject of the deletion discussion is listed among others [7]. Nothing otherwise to suggest notability. Lack of sourcing isn't helping. Oaktree b (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She does exist, but there is very little coverage of her. She had some minor success, but never won anything that would warrant notability, as the lack of WP:SIGCOV shows.

Plateau (game)

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

Contested PROD. Non-notable board game, seemingly authored by its creator. Lacks significant coverage from reliable sources to establish notability. ✗plicit 11:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as not being notable. Kovcszaln6 (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article is currently unsourced, but if it helps at all here is a review in Abstract Games Magazine, a review from The Dice Tower (review begins at 31:06), and a review from Ken Tidwell's Game Cabinet. Here is also a link to the rules which are mentioned on the page but not cited. BOZ (talk) 01:17, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but trim significantly I am satisfied that the game is notable, however, the article should not basically be the rule book for the game hosted by Wikipedia. This could be a 3-4 paragraph article and would be sufficient. I was going to be WP:BOLD and trim it, but I'll see if anyone else agrees. Angryapathy (talk) 15:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It also would need references - it has none at the moment. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 16:43, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Angryapathy (talk) 16:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Borges (footballer, born 1973)

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

A clear WP:A7. There are no references; same happens in ptwiki. Always played for 2nd tier clubs and has no news article mentioning his name. Reference 1 is over 10 years old and from a local newspaper where he is mentioned as an "Assistant manager" of an, at the time, League 3 side. Not even mentioned (Ctrl+F) on the 2nd reference.

Delete: No sign of notability through examination of ~~reliable~~ sources. — 01:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RJ Sarithiran

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, trivial coverage and passing mentions in media. There are zero sources that provide WP:SIGCOV to this personality. Nxcrypto Message 13:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Nxcrypto Message 13:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HomeLane

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

This article is a puff piece, the subject fails WP:NORG and the sources are horrible and fail WP:SIRS, the coverage is typical sponsored churnalism lacking WP:CORPDEPTH. Nxcrypto Message 13:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Nxcrypto Message 13:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural Close‎. The article is already deleted (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:07, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mohammad Salah

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Death of Mohammad Salah

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it does not meet Wikipedia's standards for notability, verifiability, or quality.

The article fails to demonstrate the notability of the topic as a standalone subject. The content is directly related to the existing article on the 2023 Egypt-Israel border shooting incident, and there is no evidence to suggest that this event warrants a separate article.

The article does not cite any sources, which is a violation of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. Without reliable, secondary sources to support the claims made in the article, it fails to meet Wikipedia's content requirements.

The article is poorly written, vague, and lacks context. It consists of a single sentence that is incomplete and unclear. It does not provide sufficient information or detail to justify a separate article.

The topic is already covered in the main article on the 2023 Egypt-Israel border shooting incident. Any relevant information from this article can be merged into the existing article, as there is no unique content here that cannot be incorporated there (if it can be verified).

The article contains a statement (“so the Israel Border Police got commanded to shoot Mohammad Salah”) that is potentially non-neutral and obviously an unverified claim. Wikipedia articles must adhere to a neutral point of view and avoid presenting speculative or accusatory claims without proper evidence.

In its current form, this article does not meet the standards for inclusion on Wikipedia. I recommend deleting this standalone article. Nyxion303 (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Events. Nyxion303 (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Egypt and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete You are right Codonified (talk) 12:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Top Third Ventures

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Tagged for notability issues for years. Imcdc Contact 10:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Business, Companies, and Mauritius. Imcdc Contact 10:22, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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 10:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NCORP / WP:SIRS) criteria. The sources provided are not WP:RS / WP:IS, making WP:V difficult. QEnigma talk 12:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find WP:SIGCOV of this company to confer WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Astra Tech

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

Blatant advertisement. Only coverage is press releases/companies announcements. No secondary coverage. Probable COI. Fails WP:NCORP. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Technology, and United Arab Emirates. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:52, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Bakhtar40: if it's blatant advertisement, it would be eligible for CSD G11 Unambiguous advertising or promotion. Killarnee (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Killarnee, You might be right. Since it was already marked as afd. How can we move it to the G11 standards now? Bakhtar40 (talk) 13:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is superior to SD, so we should wait for the outcome of the AfD. I also did not mean that it is blatant advertising, but only what would be appropriate if it is so. Killarnee (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When I saw the plethora of refs, I thought, "How could this subject not be notable?" But as the nom states, it's a collection of press releases (whoever wrote the article carefully left out the name of the sources, which a large proportion seem to come from "Gulf Business", which is just an outlet for press releases from the company, and confer no notability). The company has products, yes, but the sources don't discuss the parent company. So I agree that this topic is not notable. Angryapathy (talk) 15:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cashfree

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Besides the usual PR-announcements, sources are mostly churnalistic in nature, fitting the description at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The article carries a promotional tone and was created by a WP:SPA. Yuvaank (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Most of the sources are press releases and undisclosed sponsored articles. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article has a lot of mentions because it was raided by the government...along with a bunch of other similar services. While the subject is mentioned in the articles, they do not actually discuss Cashfree, just the raids. I don't see any coverage specifically of "Cashfree." Angryapathy (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amstel City F.C.

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

This was moved to draft and then declined but moved back to mainspace by the creator, who seems to have some sort of COI/UPE. This article is about a brand new club formed in Amsterdam with ambitions of knocking Ajax off their perch and entering the Champions League but with no independent WP:RS cited in the article for this. I did a few quick Dutch news searches and couldn't find any meaningful coverage of the club. WP:NTEAM says that there is no presumed notability for football clubs and that they should meet WP:GNG but I can find no evidence that Amstel City FC meets GNG. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amateur side founded last year, no notable achievements - Arjayay (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:NSPORT, WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:NTEAM criteria. Sources are either WP:PRIMARY or user generated/social media. Does not feature in popular football monitoring sites. QEnigma talk 12:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per previous comments, and references that are connected to the article's subject. Ira Leviton (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't see any potential draft for this new amateur club. By the way, please provide some examples of WP:SIRS when it comes to football clubs. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This article does not have any WP:RS and does not meet WP:GNG. All the sources are WP:PRIMARY. --DesiMoore (talk) 15:48, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manvee

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

Film does not meet notability guidelines for film. It is lacking significant coverage and the claimed award in the article is from award mill type monthly festival that does not appear to be a notable award or festival itself BOVINEBOY2008 10:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Sexuality and gender, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:NFILM and WP:NFO criteria. Provided sources are not acceptable as WP:V. Unable to find proper sources for verification. QEnigma talk 12:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Hindi films of 2022 -Mushy Yank. 13:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BuiltX

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

Non-notable company. None of the sources seem to be reliable, and the article is promotional in tone. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Companies, Engineering, and India. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 09:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. Does not satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. Regards, BoyTheKingCanDance (talk) 09:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:NCORP, in particular WP:CORPDEPTH is lacking in the coverage. Coverage also seems to be sponsored so would fail WP:ORGIND besides. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:23, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jet Age Nation Builders

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

Sources does shows that this company meets the criteria for corporations. The sourcing lacks the significant coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Nigeria. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. Ibjaja055 (talk) 12:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:NCORP criteria. Sources available are too limited for WP:V. QEnigma talk 12:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful...

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

This biography about a famous person is not notable enough on its own for an article. It's notable enough for a couple sentences on the subject's article at most. PianoUpMyNose (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm kind of torn. I have three reviews on the page, so it does pass NBOOK. However biographies are a bit of an odd duck in that it kind of has to satisfy two things: first it has to show notability. Once that's done, assuming the subject has an article, the article then has to show that it's more than just a rehash of the biography page. There are a handful of reviews, but I'm not pulling up that much. I've got the impression that there's likely more but it's not as strong as an impression as I'd like. I'm somewhat leaning towards keeping this, but I'd rather look for more sourcing so I'm going to refrain from making that an official stance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There looks to be a review here, but I can't verify all of it. This is making me lean towards the thought that there's probably more out there. I'd just like to have more critique of the book, as that is going to be what helps this stand out from the main Mariott article. If we can find interviews about the book, even better. I think notability is established, but what I want to prove is that it would be able to stand on its own. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Ayer's unrealized projects

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offtopic fightpicking.
"In my opinion"... Wikipedia is not about opinions, son. Quit while you're ahead, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. "Power trip", good description to whomever said it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to David Ayer – it makes more sense to discuss these projects in the context of his larger career (or to omit certain projects if their coverage is too trivial, but that can happen after a merge). Regardless of notability, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (WP:PAGEDECIDE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Few editors are willing to take responsibility of it. No issue in keeping the article for some more time unless there are no significant improvements. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that "Perfectly standard" or "No issue in keeping the article" are not guideline-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PKHeX

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

Non-notable utility for Pokemon games. On current sourcing, the article is pretty plainly non-notable as it's entirely sourced from user-generated content or primary sources like the repo itself. However, doing a search, there is some minor reliable coverage on its use in Polygon, Kotaku, VG247 and eSports.net on (1) it being the main way people get hacked pokemon; (2) use of the tool briefly caused a save bug; and (3) its use turns up in eSports cheating [8][9][10][11]. That said, given the current state of the article, and taking the sum of the coverage as a whole, that coverage is not really significant to really describe what the tool is to justify an article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 07:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

relatively easy fix then Charliephere (talk) 12:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the sources said by the nom is the following: from SI, Kotaku Polygon. Quality of the article aside, base on sources given, it might be a case of a borderline notable or not notable. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - leaning towards a WP:TNT delete or draftify. This article is almost entirely written to unreliable sources. There are reliable sources, but I'm not certain they're really significant coverage, as there's only a few, and they are brief and center more around the general theme of cheating in Pokemon. Almost none of the article's current form can be sourced to what the reliable sources cover on it either. It's a weak case for notability that would need an entire rewrite. Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I've been doing research on competitive Pokémon lately and there is a lot of coverage discussing cheating in the competitive scene. However, PKHeX is only one tool used for this. Notability for PKHeX is not inherited from the wider subject of cheating in competitive Pokémon. I plan to rewrite the competitive Pokémon article to include some coverage on cheating at some point, but as of now there's no real viable redirect target for this subject, and not much content that needs preservation here, on a non-notable subject. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Bet-David

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, News media, and Entertainment. Zenomonoz (talk) 08:13, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:09, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This was passed through the WP:AFC process[12] and WP:G4 presumably doesn't apply. This doesn't mean a guaranteed keep, but it does mean that the nomination should be closed as Speedy Keep WP:SKCRIT#3 (unless Zenomonoz can update their nom with an proper rationale ref WP:DEL-REASON before someone gets to it) ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 13:06, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Have updated. Thanks. Zenomonoz (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - struck. Pinging AFC reviewer Grahaml35 for comment. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 02:29, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also pinging Snowman304 for comment, who rejected Avaldcast's initial draft for this article. Zenomonoz (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please reiterate what the problem with the article is again?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Strong Keep Meets WP:ENT and certainly not a WP:1E case. Has interviewed polititians and played a small role during the election. Deleting would be odd. Wikisempra (talk) 13:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Chamber of Commerce in Turkey

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

List of inorganic reactions

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

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

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

There are lots of academic sources dealing with inorganic reactions as a whole: e.g. [13], [14], [15] etc.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Weak Keep base on the title, this can be a useful and informative list so it's satisfy WP:LISTPURP. Though the article is in garbage shape as of now. Someone whose familiar with chemistry should fix it. Deleting this is a bit of an overkill, an alternative to this is draftfying it until someone fix it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting Point Directory

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment - looking through the default Google Books results, most are false positives, few are single sentence mentions, there is one book with maybe 3 pages on it, but I can't read it. Looking through the default Google Scholar results, some are false positives, and some are studies using the website for phishing related research in finding legitimate websites, but these are just mentions of Starting Point Directory rather than a detailed discussion of Starting Point Directory. With around 3 pageviews per day and less than 50 edits to this page in total, it is certainly questionable how prominent this is. Won't vote yet before reviewing Google News and other sources. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Philtranco

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

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

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

Delete per nom - Jjpachano (talk) 08:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeon San-hae

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, South Korea, and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Ruiz (born 1996)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gjorge Gjorgiev

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and North Macedonia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 09:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:NSPORT, WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:FOOTYN. No mention of the player in popular football monitoring sites. Fail in WP:V. QEnigma talk 13:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reindorf Review

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Social science, and England. – The Grid (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Merge to University of Essex#Academic and Professional Integrity. Edited per discussion below. There are allegedly 10 sources on the page, but 4 are just from the review itself so ignoring those, I looked at the 6 remaining:
- Sex Matters [16] is certainly significant coverage, but looking at who they are, they call themselves a human rights charity, and the very name of the charity leads me to believe that this source is problematic because it is clearly advocacy. I am not sure exactly where this one falls down on GNG to be honest. It is independent, secondary and with significant coverage. I have no reason to say it is not reliable, but the advocacy is an issue. ?
- The Times [17] Lawyer demands inquiry into trans ‘gag’ by university is news reporting. A primary source. N
- The Guardian [18] is on topic generally but I cannot see any mention of this review or of Essex. N
- The Telegraph [19] As for the Guardian, no specific mention. N
- The Irish Examiner [20] And another one that doesn't mention it. N
- Impact [21] How can universities promote academic freedom? has significant coverage across two pages (23 and 24). It is independent, reliable and secondary. This one is very good. Y

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment - in response to relist comments, I am not suggesting a substantial content merge. The mergeable content is reasonably small, but it is still, I think, a merge and not a redirect. The redirect target needs some writing out if it is to make sense. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also will comment that my redirect !vote isn't an explicit endorsement of the language that's currently in the university article, so I've updated my !vote to include selectively merge as well. The extent of the merge and which language to prioritize is something better discussed on the target's talk page anyway. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject of the article, "The Reinsdorf Review", has very little coverage. Only one source specifically discusses it. The WP article is filled with information from primary references. If you removed the primary sources, this article would be 2-3 sentences. And that shows that the subject did not receive significant coverage to warrant a WP article. I feel like someone bootstrapped a marginally notable event with primary sources. Angryapathy (talk) 16:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are three secondary sources that address the subject in the discussion above. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Urartian people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aaron Refvem

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Mavis Ma

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the nom that the article currently documents too many "controversies" which potentially violates NPOV. Some minor incidents, such as the subject being scolded by her father in public or her endorsements of candidates, are totally UNDUE and can certainly be removed. However, I believe most content can stay, as much of the subject's political career involved dirty work, supported by numerous sources and opinion pieces like the one from Apple Daily by Neil Peng (source 33). Although NPOV is a serious concern, AFD is not cleanup, and I do not think notability is an issue for the subject. Currently, there are more than 30 sources listed in the article, with even more in the zhwiki one. I scanned through the first 10 sources, and sources 2, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10 all provided SIGCOV on the subject and are certainly enough to pass GNG. Not to mention a simple Google News search can already yield many full articles about the subject, such as these articles from Central News Agency[22] and ETtoday[23]. I also think that her case regarding the violation of conflict of interest should be sufficient to meet WP:PERP. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Niteon

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

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

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

Dennis Mukoya

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Entertainment, Africa, and Kenya. Ednabrenze (talk) 04:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Engineering, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:ANYBIO / WP:POLITICIAN) criteria. Available sources are mainly user generated content and social media pages. Lack material for WP:V. QEnigma talk 08:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this does not establish or properly source any credible evidence that he had preexisting notability for other reasons besides an unsuccessful election campaign. Bearcat (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL as a failed candidate. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NGC 1165

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

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

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

Mark Spain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Miyu Takahashi

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Great Road Style

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Tennessee, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack context. No references provided. Unable to WP:V. WP:NOR. Fail to meet WP:GNG / WP:SNG criteria. QEnigma talk 08:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can find lots of hits for the book by Betsy White, but nothing else. The concept appears to have originated with the book, from one person. Yet it isn't even cited. Still, lack of coverage by other sources suggests this isn't a widely-recognized "style". WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artan Dulaku

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

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

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

San Anselmo de Canterbury University

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

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

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

Oasis Restaurant

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Asset.tv

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

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

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

Anastasia Galyeta

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

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

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

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

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

Cantata Singers and Ensemble

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

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

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

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

Strong keep: meets WP:GNG. I'm seeing a wealth of coverage, mainly concert reviews but also full articles:

From The Arts Fuse: 1 2 3
From Boston Classical Review: 1 2 3
From The Boston Globe: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
From The Boston Musical Intelligencer: 1 2 3
From The Hudson Review: 1
From New York Arts: 1

They are mentioned in many of these as one of Boston's premier choral groups (WP:MN#7). I think this is enough evidence to clearly chow WP:SIGCOV. Best, UpTheOctave! • 8^va? 09:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Broghamer

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

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

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

Woodside, Telford

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

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

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

Comment: The article obviously needs referencing. There's three pages on Woodside in this book on Britain's new towns [24] and this [25]; part of a study, here [26] Rupples (talk) 02:24, 27 December 2024 (UTC) Also this: [27] Rupples (talk) 03:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:29, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an OS settlement[28] but I can't fine much coverage online so maybe it should be merged with Madeley, Shropshire, its parish. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Deletion of this article will confirm that council wards are not inherently notable, a clarification which we need. PamD 09:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two URLs given as "sources", which were bare dead links, both have archived copies available online so I have added those. This place seems, with the links provided by Rupples above, to be rather more notable than many wards and "suburbs" about which articles have been created. By all means let's clean up such articles by merging them into their parent parishes or towns, as the reader will generally be better served by a broader, well-sourced, article. PamD 10:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Initial impression is the article should be kept or merged into Madeley. Rupples (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment"'. I have created newer articles for the borough and categories for parishes. I also made sure to update the articles accordingly and if the Domesday Book and older books confirm the presence of the said settlements such as St George's, Shropshire, Priorslee, Beveley, Leegomery etc... they are all notable as they have their own Landmarks or history. Whereas Brookside, Woodside etc are estates built when Telford was. As opposed to say Stirchley, Dawley and Malinslee which existed years before. DragonofBatley (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Zeinali

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Im the creator of this article, honestly doesnt seem worth the effort, unless @Nyxion303 see it as notable. I wont see it as notable as well Codonified (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

UP! (Forrest Frank and Connor Price song)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Christianity, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Child of God (album) as an alternative to deletion. Per nom, does not meet WP:NSONG or WP:SIGCOV - but that doesn't stop this particular author from creating articles that fail to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC criteria. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]