Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

4 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 03	December 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Ticket to Heaven (Thai TV series)

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

Non-notable TV series. No independent sources and too soon. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Pretty much too soon, as it was only just announced, so there won't be any third-party coverage beyond that repeating the announcement. Likely to generate plenty once it's released though. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Time (Doctor Who)

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

A box set that released various Doctor Who serials that had episodes missing. The article is predominantly uncited and contains almost entirely primary citations, and a brief BEFORE turns up very little outside of watch guides for missing episodes. I can see a redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes as an AtD, but overall this is a largely non-notable DVD box set release not separately notable from the concept of missing episodes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete per nom; not even significant enough for a redirect. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 12:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
It's not a term that barely anyone would search, but User:Redrose64 has shown it's unique (even though no reliable source mentions that, the uniqueness is evident at a glance). Redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:07, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes, redirects being cheap, and all. While there is obviously no content for a merge here, the "missing episodes" article does very briefly touch on the content of the set. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 10:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Redirects are cheap, but "Lost in Time" is so insignificant, searching for it with Doctor Who appended gives results mostly for the game of the same name(and there are lot of missing episode boxsets, so this isn't special. No need for redirecting. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DoctorWhoFan91: This one is special, see my keep !vote below. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This DVD set was unique, as it gathers together in one package all of the odd episodes which couldn't justifiably be released as a single-story DVD. The criterion at the time that it was compiled was that if a story had more than half of its episodes in the BBC archives, it would get a standalone release; if it had 50% or fewer, the episodes went into Lost in Time, together with any associated clips. Also included was all surviving material for those stories where no complete episodes remained. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for mentioning this, as this info is not at either page. Though, is there a reliable source for this? I couldn't find one in a google search. Also, still would not meet WP:GNG, so it should a redirect at best. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some time between 2004 and 2009, I found that information at one or more of the following - I only recorded access dates for a few of them:
BBC Shop

DVD.CO.UK

Doctor Who on DVD (accessed 2 April 2008)

DVD Times

Find DVD

Doctor Who Restoration Team

Time Rotor Fault Locator (accessed 28 July 2008)

Time Rotor Hidden Danger (accessed 31 July 2008)

The TARDIS Library
All are now dead except the last one. IIRC, the Doctor Who Restoration Team link gave the most comprehensive information, hopefully it's been archived somewhere. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:15, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked all of them on the Wayback Machine- a couple are dead, but the ones with archived versions do not mention this info (though looking through the list does make it clear that its true). Doctor Who missing episodes actually does mention it, but its unreferenced. Also, its the only significant bit about it, with all necessary info already at DW missing episodes- a redirect at best. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:02, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64 Sure, the release was unique, but being a unique release doesn't automatically indicate a subject is notable standalone. All of your links have been to fan-sites, fan projects, and shopping sites. None of these are reliable, secondary coverage which shows this subject is notable. Regardless of its release status, it needs coverage to justify being a standalone article, and none of that has been shown yet. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 01:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a reliable source for the orphaned episode mention- [1], Lost in Time, a triple DVD set containing ‘orphaned’ episodes from the series. Redrose64 - It's still not enough for a 'keep'. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:43, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've got a bit of trouble parsing the meaning, but I think Who's 50 p. 54 backs up the summary of the approach for content selection of these DVDs by Redrose64. Daranios (talk) 11:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have arguments to Delete, Keep and Redirect this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Liz I think the consensus is "Redirect"- I changed my !vote to redirect (prior to the relisting), the nom is fine with a redirect, and Redrose64's !vote does not show it meets WP:GNG, only that it's unique. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Can anyone with more knowledge say if the chapter "Lost in Time" in Alan Kistler's Doctor Who: A History, starting p. 81, refers to this DVD set or not? Daranios (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately not; it's just a two-page subsection of a different chapter. It addresses the missing episodes generally, but not this DVD set. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Doctor Who missing episodes for now: I've seen mentions in a number of secondary sources like The Doctor Who Error Finder, Who's 50, p. 54, Die Dechiffrierung von Helden, p. 155, which would not support a stand-alone article, but would lend themselves to some expansion of the brief mention at the target. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:SIGCOV. There is a paragraph on the DVD set in: [2]. There is a lot of coverage sprinkled throughout this academic book: [3] See pages 34, 45, 51, 65, 69, 70, 80, 83, and 98 for coverage of Lost in Time. See pages 13, 15, 42, 45, 57, 64, 68, 69, 71, 72, 82, and 83 for coverage of The Missing Years which was a documentary unique to this DVD set. Pages 81-82 of this book cover this DVD set. There is also coverage in this journal article: [4] 4meter4 (talk) 17:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Through Time is decent, but is written by Andrew Cartmel, a former script editor for the show, so I'm not sure how separate that is from coverage of the program. The Doctor Who Error Finder is primarily trivial mentions; it only refers to the CD as a source for their coverage of missing episodes, and does not actually dictate discussion to the CD that could be considered significant coverage. Doctor Who: A History only briefly mentions the CD; the section "Lost in Time" is used as the name of the section covering missing episodes, and does not focus on the CD bar brief mention of its existence. I can't access the journal; could you get a quote of what mention of Lost in Time it has?

Regardless of the above, none of this really dictates the problem of this being a separately notable subject of Doctor Who missing episodes. Per Wikipedia:NOPAGE, "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." Lost in Time is inherently a missing episodes collection, and all coverage of it is in relation to missing episodes and how to view them. This is inherently a topic that makes more sense covered with the context of the missing episodes and why being able to watch them is important, especially since a lot of the article currently used is inherently about the wider missing episodes topic already covered at the main missing episodes article. What coverage that exists can be merged without issue per Daranios. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 02:14, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist to see of we can reach a clearer consensus, since the thread was pretty active till last week.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bettina Valdorf

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

There is no evidence of WP:SIGCOV and after doing a search I could find any additional of coverage in reliable sources. I did find some passing mentions, but nothing in-depth or evidence to prove notability. Grahaml35 (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Germany. Skynxnex (talk) 03:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - For winning a bronze in the ISSF World Cup [5] , [6] Ayokakesy2023 (talk) 11:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uncharted (EP)

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

A contested redirection. The restoring editor claimed that "plenty of coverage exists", but I'm not seeing it. I'm seeing mentions that the EP was released and coverage of the singles released from it, but no in-depth coverage in news articles and more importantly, no reviews from noteworthy sources. While I acknowledge that the release is recent, it also did not chart on any US Billboard charts this week and what it did achieve in the UK chart-wise is fairly insubstantial. Ss112 01:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: WP:NALBUM notes that an album may be notable when it is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works". The reviews from Kerrang! and Distorted Sound Magazine should suffice for this, given that both are deemed reliable per WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. While I can't seem to find any other sources at the moment, and while it is true that none of the other album notability criteria currently apply to this EP, I believe it's still enough for a presumption of notability. Leafy46 (talk) 17:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Leafy46: Ah, those have been added since I nominated the article. I agree that the notability is looking better from those alone. Ss112 09:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bolun Shen

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

Seems entirely promotional and resume-like Amigao (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Besides being an artist in residence [7], I don't see sourcing we can use. The Ted talk where the photo is from comes up, but that's all. The artist in residence link is primary anyway, so we can't use it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep There are at least three sources:

https://theinitium.com/zh-hans/article/20150831-mainland-unmarried-mother is an article about his personal life, but contains key biographical details
https://zqb.cyol.com/html/2015-10/21/nw.D110000zgqnb_20151021_1-12.htm is a profile of him from China Youth Daily
https://cn.nytimes.com/culture/20150526/tc26box/ a NYT China profile along with an interview. I understand that interview articles can be controversial but this is from a reputable paper, and the profile information at top is quite substantive and would support much of the article content

Oblivy (talk) 02:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Theatre, Politics, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The formatting of the references is so poorly done that it will require time to clean up before a source analysis can be made. Looks like a refbomb pile-up, and I don't even understand Chinese. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Leaning towards delete. The lede is purely promotional. There is emphasis placed on the subject's TED (conference)#TEDx talks, which really shouldn't be confused with TED Talks. He has given six TEDx talks in China, one of which was included in the official TED China in 2019. I think this sentence is misleading and I don't think these talks contribute toward notability. There is emphasis placed on the subject's installation Babel Tower, which is a small tower of disused mobile phones displayed in a shopping mall. Most of the references are interviews or calendar listings, or primary sourcing promoting the event. I am hoping someone else will chime in before I tackle source assessment. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 02:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Tian, Chenwei 田晨炜 (2015-05-26). "一位迷茫青年记录同代人的千个问题" [A confused young man records thousands of questions of his generation]. The New York Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "这是+box“回归”全国展的第13场。由26岁的沈博伦发起的视频记录项目+box，用一年半的时间拍摄了全国十个城市1000名年轻人对世界的提问。以这些问题为素材的展览正在全国进行，并将在今年夏天走出中国，前往赫尔辛基艺术节参展。2013年7月，沈博伦24岁，距他离开大学、进入活动策划业仅仅过去一年。在此之前，他走的是一条人人艳羡的道路：生长在上海、北京，考进中国传媒大学，毕业后加入业内顶尖公司，收入可观……一切因素都指向更加美好的生活。但就在这样的路上，他却感到迷茫和无助，他选择停下脚步向自己发问：“这一切的意义究竟是什么？”"
  From Google Translate: "This is the 13th national exhibition of +box’s “return”. The video recording project +box, initiated by 26-year-old Shen Bolun, spent a year and a half filming 1,000 young people in ten cities across the country asking questions about the world. Exhibitions based on these issues are ongoing across the country and will go out of China this summer to participate in the Helsinki Art Festival. In July 2013, Shen Bolun was 24 years old, just one year after he left university and entered the event planning industry. Before that, he followed a path that everyone envied: he grew up in Shanghai and Beijing, was admitted to the Communication University of China, and joined a top company in the industry after graduation, earning a considerable income...all factors pointed to a better life. But on this road, he felt confused and helpless. He chose to stop and ask himself: "What is the meaning of all this?""
2. "Sculpture Made Of Cell Phones Highlights China's E-Waste Problem". Agence France-Presse. 2019-03-31. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "A Chinese artist on Saturday unveiled a sculpture made of discarded mobile phones and shaped like a cell tower in a bid to highlight the problem of electronic waste. The phones were rigged to a metal frame and synchronised so their screens would flash in various colours. "The inspiration of my tower comes from the Tower of Babel in the Bible," artist Shen Bolun told AFP, referring to the origin story explaining why people speak different languages."
3. Wu, Jing 吴婧 (2015-08-31). "请你给我十块钱，众筹"未婚生子"罚款" [Please give me ten yuan to crowdfund the fine for "having a baby out of wedlock"] (in Chinese). Initium Media. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "在吴霞眼中，沈博伦是一个“只能按自己意愿生活的人”。他成长于上海和北京，后考入中国传媒大学读传播学。毕业后，沈博伦进入一家活动营销公司，“天天都在做我觉得没意思的东西”。2013年，工作一年的沈博伦辞了职，发起一个名为“＋box”的项目：他用一年半的时间走访中国的十个城市，在每个城市采访100个年轻人──如果给你一个机会问全世界同龄人一个问题，你会问什么？沈博伦将收集到的问题剪辑成数个短片，在全国各地展览。《纽约时报》中文网曾以《一位迷茫青年纪录同代人的千个问题》为标题报导他的故事。不久前，他携短片参展了芬兰赫尔辛基艺术节。"
  From Google Translate: "In Wu Xia's eyes, Shen Bolun is a "person who can only live according to his own wishes." He grew up in Shanghai and Beijing, and was admitted to Communication University of China to study communication. After graduation, Shen Bolun entered an event marketing company, "doing things that I find boring every day." In 2013, Shen Bolun resigned after working for a year and launched a project called "+box": he spent a year and a half visiting ten cities in China and interviewed 100 young people in each city──If If you were given a chance to ask your peers around the world a question, what would you ask? Shen Bolun edited the collected issues into several short films and exhibited them across the country. The New York Times Chinese website once reported his story under the title "A confused young man records a thousand questions about his contemporaries". Not long ago, he participated in the Helsinki Art Festival in Finland with his short film."
4. Huang, Fangran 黄昉苨; Xu, Peng 徐芃 (2015-10-21). "跳出盒子的年轻人" [Young people stepping out of the box]. China Youth Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "扛着摄像机在南京、深圳、北京等10个城市与成百上千个年轻人交流过彼此的人生困惑之后，沈博伦得出了这样的结论：上一代的人可能有了足够的物质，就会对生活感到满足；但现在的年轻人不会，他们要满足的是不断提升的自我意识。"
  From Google Translate: "After carrying a camera and communicating with hundreds of young people in 10 cities including Nanjing, Shenzhen, and Beijing about their life confusions, Shen Bolun came to the conclusion that people of the previous generation may have enough material resources. , they will be satisfied with life; but today's young people will not. What they want to be satisfied with is their ever-increasing self-awareness."
5. Zheng, Yang (2015-11-09). "Born to Choose". Beijing Review. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "Apart from the choice to freeze eggs as an option, giving birth out of wedlock holds many other challenges. When Wu Xia and her boyfriend Shen Bolun ended their relationship, she was four months pregnant. Remaining friends, the two decided to raise the baby together. This June, Wu gave birth, but she soon realized that the first challenge of motherhood was a penalty from the government. ... In July, Wu and her ex-boyfriend launched a project on crowd-funding website Dreamore.com, asking people to donate up to 10 yuan ($1.58) to help them pay the penalty. The move immediately created a sensation, but the project was removed from the website 16 hours later. Shen explained that what they want to raise is not money, but public awareness of the difficulty confronting the parents of children born out of wedlock."
6. Chen, Wei 陈薇 (2015-12-02). "【中国新闻周刊】单身的权利" [【China News Weekly】The Rights of Being Single]. China Newsweek (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02 – via Jiemian News.
  The article notes: "沈博伦1989年出生，2012年大学毕业，学的是传播学。一年后，觉得工作没有价值，辞职创办了一个名为“＋box”的项目，想向10个城市的1000个年轻人提出同一个问题：“如果给你一个机会问全世界同龄人一个问题，你会问什么？”"
  From Google Translate: "Shen Bolun was born in 1989 and graduated from university in 2012, majoring in communication. A year later, I felt that my job was worthless, so I resigned and started a project called "+box". I wanted to ask the same question to 1,000 young people in 10 cities: "If you were given a chance to ask a question to your peers around the world, What do you ask?""
7. Qiu, Yuchen 秦雨晨 (2014-04-29). "沈博伦和他的PLUSBOX" [Shen Bolun and his PLUSBOX]. 大学生 [University Student] (in Chinese). ISSN 1672-8165. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
  The article notes: "大学时候沈博伦学的是传播学。他是个挺活跃的学生，曾经去公关公司实习过一段时间，所以在毕业的时候，他强烈地知道自己一定不要去干公关行业，当时想做活动行业，于是就去了这样一家公司。但是工作一年之后，沈博伦发现这份工作整体和自己的预期差距非常之大，不论是成长环境、工作内容、人际关系还是薪金，都不是自己想要的样子。"
  From Google Translate: "Shen Bolun studied communication in college. He was a very active student and had interned at a public relations company for a period of time. So when he graduated, he knew strongly that he did not want to work in the public relations industry. At that time, he wanted to work in the event industry, so he went to such a company. But after working for a year, Shen Bolun found that the overall gap between this job and his expectations was very large. Whether it was the growth environment, work content, interpersonal relationships, or salary, it was not what he wanted."
8. Additional sources:
  1. Liang, Lu-Hai (2015-07-04). "How one couple is fighting back against China's financial penalties for unmarried parents. Mr Shen and Ms Wu are using media attention to raise money to pay their fine". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
    The article notes: "In China, new parents Shen Bolun and Wu Xia feel bureaucracy is a reasonable price to pay for the freedom to choose how they live. In the face of social and state pressure, Mr Shen and Ms Wu, who last month gave birth to a daughter, have never married and do not intend to. But their decision has had consequences – not least, in their case, a 43,910 RMB (£4,498) “social maintenance fee” levied against them. The couple are now using the ensuing media attention to raise money partly to pay off the fine, and partly to highlight the plight of China’s single parents, and what they consider a de facto enforcement of marriage imposed by the government. “People don’t see another option,” Mr Shen, 26, a filmmaker and artist, said a week before his daughter’s birth. ... Chinese media have contacted him for interviews, providing a rare platform for a discussion about the children of unwed couples and the rights of single women among China’s younger generations."
  2. Shan, Juan (2015-08-11). "Debate grows over reproductive rights". China Daily. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
    The article notes: "Having a Master of Business Administration degree from prestigious Northwestern University in the US state of Illinois, Wu, 32, broke up with boyfriend Shen Bolun, a 26-year-old photographer in Beijing, in February. Wu was 17 weeks' pregnant at the time, and the two decided to welcome their child."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Shen Bolun (Chinese: 沈博伦) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is leaning towards a keep now, but more input from the community regarding the newly found sources will be greatly appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Estádio D. Afonso Henriques (1965)

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

This is a smaller article that addresses the stadium in some ways in the same way as the other article of the same name. It is, in a way, a copy of the Estádio D. Afonso Henriques, since it was created later, only it wasn't developed further because of the latter's existence. Please pay attention to the facts and references provided in the discussion. 44 Gabriel (talk) 02:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Irish Road Haulage Association

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

Non-notable lobbying/representative organisation. WP:NORG and WP:SIGCOV are not met. This article was created in 2005 (by a single-purpose contributor) with short and clearly promotional text. It was expanded in 2006 (again by a single-purpose contributor) with more quasi-promotional content taken verbatim from the "about" page of the org's own website. While I've removed much of this promotional/copyvio content, I cannot find sufficient independent/reliable/verifiable sources to replace it. Or to expand this sub-stub beyond what we have. Almost all of the coverage I can find is of lobbying statements BY the association. Which includes reports like this or this or this. Being coverage of statements BY the association and not ABOUT the association. And not meeting a WP:SIRS check. In terms of coverage ABOUT the association, all I can find is stuff like this in industry outlets. Or this in local papers. None of which amounts to in-depth/significant/independent coverage. I cannot, for example, find any sources (primary or otherwise) to establish how many members the association has, or (non-primary) sources to support the text about its branches, etc. If there are insufficient independent sources to establish even basic facts (or allow for expansion beyond short text we've had for nearly 20 years) how is WP:ORGDEPTH is met? Guliolopez (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 15:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Leaning towards Keep - I would be wary/reticent to delete this article rather than expand it. Verona Murphy was President of IRHA for a significant amount of time, and holding that position helped launch her political career. When Murphy became a TD, that expanded the media's coverage of the IRHA and the role became considered a bit more notable, similar to how a trade union might become highlighted if someone associated with them gained political office.

You've raised the concern that

Almost all of the coverage I can find is of lobbying statements BY the association

however I don't know that this is anything other than what we would expect. Secondary, reliable sources such as national newspapers would only ever cover an organisation such as this when it is making statements of that nature. The same would go for a trade union or farmer's representative body. I would lean towards those reports, by very reliable sources such as the Irish Times and RTÉ News, as examples of SIGCOV. We wouldn't expect national news sources to do a simple puff piece profile of any organisation where they simply inform us of their purpose and membership number. I think reliable sources covering small trade unions, for example, would not anyways dwell on their membership numbers, but nonetheless those unions would hold some significant.

Another concern raised is that the article was likely promotional in origin, and has not been edited regularly. While both of these are unfortunate, the article starting as promotion but then being fixed is not anymore automatically disqualifying than if Coca Cola's article had first been created by someone doing promotional style writing. While's is bad practice, ultimately Coca Cola would be notable and kept as an article regards of how the article originally started. As far as the lack of regular editing goes; one can reasonably argue and point out that this is typical of less prominent Irish articles. With Ireland's small population, and small body of regular Wiki editors, it is not always the case that lack of editing reflects lack of notability.

I just want to note at this point I'm playing Devil Advocate here rather than having any significant personal interest in the article. I would be interested in seeing the perspectives of other editors on this matter. CeltBrowne (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With thanks for your input (and likely coming as no surprise) I can't personally agree. That Verona Murphy was previously president of the organisation, to my mind, falls under WP:NOTINHERITED (that the organisation had a notable president doesn't make the organisation notable). That newspapers only really cover statements by the organisation (rather than the organisation itself) is exactly the type of concern covered in WP:SIRS and WP:ORGDEPTH (that the article cannot be expanded, because there are no independent/reliable sources to do so, is a core tenet of the guideline). Also, and with apologies if it wasn't clear in my nomination, that the original article was promotional (or that it was created by a possibly COI/SPA contributor) wasn't offered as part of my deletion rationale. Just as background. (I have personally "rescued" more than a few promotional (but otherwise notable) org articles as part of WP:BEFORE and AfD efforts. I do not see how that can be done here however. As there is nothing to rely upon to "rescue" this permastub. If you're aware of reliable/independent sources that can help expand it, then please do add them.) Guliolopez (talk) 13:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - well, a weak delete. There's lots of stuff out there on this industry group in a WP:BEFORE search. I didn't see anything which was a crystal clear WP:NORG pass, and it's likely our strictest guideline, so I can't vote for a keep. However, if someone wants to improve this - currently it's a stub with only one source that isn't the org's website - and can find NCORP sources, I have no problem if this is HEYed or re-written. SportingFlyer T·C 06:02, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In doing a WP:BEFORE search there are a good number of books with coverage of this organization.4meter4 (talk) 18:11, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Can you confirm what books cover or mention the association. I ask because, in my own WP:BEFORE, I could find no books about (or even partially about) the org. The only book results I could find were in The Law of Companies (Courtney, 2017), Contract Law for Students (Forde, 2021) and Commercial Law (Forde, 2021). Each of which are legal text books which afford a few lines to the same legal case. McMahon v Irish Road Haulage Association. Which involved a precedential ruling that "where terms are implied into an organisation's constitution, they are also implied into a statutory contract". But these mentions do not add-up to SIGCOV for the organisation itself. Or allow for the article to be materially expanded. Certainly I couldn't materially expand the article based on these mentions. The only other results, from my own book search, were in directory-style works (like Ireland, a Directory; 2003). Are there any book sources which discuss the org in any depth? (Its history, foundation, operation, etc?) I certainly couldn't find any.... Guliolopez (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 00:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:39, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Costa Rica, London

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sources present do not establish notability. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, United Kingdom, and Costa Rica. AusLondonder (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge somewhere appropriate. Not seeing any urgent need to delete this? The sources seem adequate to support the content provided. If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London, not a single one has ended in delete (most have been redirected to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London, a target that is on my list to improve), a couple have been kept and some merged or redirected to other targets. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did eventually find that useful list; could a column for extra information be added there? It seems to me to be useful and interesting that the Costa Rican embassy converted relatively recently from a "mission", which is supported by a reliable Times source. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a column for that is on my list. Leave a note on the talk page with ideas for improvement so I remember them when I get to it. Thryduulf (talk) 18:36, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the intention is to question the encyclopedia's coverage of all the many missions/embassies, it would seem sensible to start an RfC to discuss how best to cover this topic, rather than picking individual articles off one by one by prod or AfDs that are unlikely to be well attended There have been many, many AfDs for diplomatic missions over several years and very few have been kept. AfD is clearly the appropriate place for each individual diplomatic mission to be assessed on notability. Not sure what's controversial here. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Over the past few months there have been a succession of individual PRODs and AfDs of articles about embassies and consulates in London There have been many AfDs over several years for individual diplomatic missions globally, not just "in London". You may only be interested in missions in London but that's simply a mischaracterisation. You are also inaccurate in suggesting none have been deleted. Despite the very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community they have continued to nominate at PROD and AfD AfD is an appropriate venue to decide a potential merge/redirect. AusLondonder (talk) 20:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is fine, prod not so much, imo. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes some embassy articles have been deleted. So it is false to say very clear consensus that deletion is not desired by the community. LibStar (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources 3-10 confirm former ambassadors and are not about the embassy itself. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:22, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LibStar Genuine question, where exactly in WP:ORG do you consider this falls? Espresso Addict (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only sources 1 and 2 are about the actual embassy. Source 1 is a database list. LibStar (talk) 22:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was that intended to be in response to my question? Not seeing how it answers it. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:40, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The sources do not meet that. There will be no further response. LibStar (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: I'm not sure what your question is. Are you suggesting WP:NORG doesn't apply? AusLondonder (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was attempting to clarify exactly which part of ORG was held to apply -- eg the standards for companies are entirely different from those for non-profits, but there's no specific guidance for embassies. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. If the embassy does not have stand-alone notability then the encyclopaedic content should be merged somewhere. Straight deletion will not benefit the project. Thryduulf (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commment. Normally we would merge this kind of article into a foreign relations page at Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations. However, that article has not yet been created. It probably should be. Perhaps a move to Costa Rica–United Kingdom relations? Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The discussion is trending toward a merge, but without a clearly defined article to merge it into, that makes it kinda tough.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways ^{from this world ..... today} 23:58, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Another relist for a merge target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Single Parents Wellbeing

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

This organization does not appear to meet WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Many of the top results I saw on Google are from the Mental Health Foundation, a partner organization and thus not independent coverage. The best source I was able to find was this article from Wales Online. A found a few other passing mentions, but no significant coverage. I don't think there's enough here to establish notability, but I'm open to input from other editors. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and Wales. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gardner Cadwalader

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

This person is not notable as per WP:SPORTSPERSON and WP:GNG. The only other source I could find for this person was from worldrowing.com, found on Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia, which I don't know if it is a reliable source or not. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and United States of America. Duke of New Gwynedd (talk | contrib.) 01:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Some coverage in newspapers [8], [9], [10], a book mention [11]. First three are probably better than the book mention. Oaktree b (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delaware and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shift Technologies (software company)

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

None of the given sources are either reliable or give significant enough coverage to meet WP:NCORP. Cutlass ^Ciera 01:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, Software, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bank charge

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

A dictionary definition with only one source, discussing a particular controversy apparently already covered at Overdraft fee. The general topic of all charges made by banks its better at Bank or Overdraft fee; a general discussion of all fees possibly charged by banks would be a discussing of the economic model of banking, which would be better at Bank. Mrfoogles (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Bank and/or Fee. Although, I'm somewhat astonished that this article doesn't exist, but from looking, it seems like it was drastically reduced in article size due to OR[12]. The related topic of Bank fee redirects to a small section on Fee, but could equally fit over at Bank. TiggerJay (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Fee now that you suggest it. This mostly works as a sort of summary of the articles on individual fees -- it works as a few paragraphs in the Fee article, assuming citations can be found. Mrfoogles (talk) 03:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Business. Skynxnex (talk) 03:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, possibly rename Bank fees. These fees are regulated and sometimes controversial. See for example the Roosevelt Institute article The Business of Bank Fees, How to Avoid Bank Fees (American Bankers Association), Bank Fees: Federal Banking Regulators Could Better Ensure That Consumers Have Required Disclosure Documents Prior to Opening Checking or Savings Accounts (Government Accountability Office), Bank Fees in Australia (Reserve Bank of Australia). Clarityfiend (talk) 12:41, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]