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

Aleksei Rybin

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

Fails WP:NMUSICIAN on their own, suggest redirecting to Kino (band) as a plausible WP:ATD. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Russia. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adarsha High School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOLS which says they must either pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG. This school does not appear to pass any. On a cursory search, I could not find sources to satisfy the substantial coverage required to establish both GNG and NORG. They're mostly mentions on biography of people who attended the school, and not providing any detail about the school itself. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Bangladesh. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Marmitons

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

No evidence of notability, although it's existed for nearly 2 decades, it's promotional in tone, and likely a copyright violation of [1]. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and Organizations. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, article lacks notability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 06:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sink Cat Based on your rationale, I assume you meant to write "Delete" in bold, not "Support"? It is clearer when AfD !votes are for a specific outcome, rather than just supporting the nomination. The nominator could change their mind, for instance, or (like in this case) not specify the outcome they're seeking. Toadspike [Talk] 10:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes I had meant delete. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sourcing that could be used.[2][3][4] etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:04, 26 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) 13:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco de Santiago y Calderón

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

This article only cites one source, the site to which this source leads is broken and does not open. The subject of this article is also not notable, i was unable to find any reliable/notable sources for Francisco de Santiago y Calderón. This article fails WP:PERSON. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Biyaheng Langit

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

This article has not had any sources for more than 15 years, this film is also not notable. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 14:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kathryn Ballard Shut

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

Article is pretty obviously written by the subject or their employee (it was written by Timkatent (talk · contribs) and that is the name of the label she is president of). It includes a lot of citation templates but if you look at the sources it's more padded than me after Thanksgiving dinner.

Self reference
About her father/doesn't mention her
Doesn't mention her
Doesn't mention her
CD sale site
ReverbNation page (user edited, social network site)
ReverbNation page of her label
Self-published page of her internet radio show
Doesn't mention her
ASCAP top-level site (I know this will come as a tremendous shock but it doesn't mention her)
Doesn't mention her
CD sales site
Youtube
Youtube
Youtube
Youtube
CD sales site
CD sales site
ReverbNation again
Article she wrote
Doesn't mention her
Random blog (not even archived on the wayback machine)
Listing of articles she wrote
Article she wrote
Blurb from an article she wrote
Wikipedia article
Same list of her articles again
Article she wrote
Article she wrote
Top level of the website for "Modern Soul Sauce Radio" (which she might have hosted)

Yeah. None of these are WP:SIGCOV about her, or even remotely close. It's a compilation of her mid-2010s internet presence. Here2rewrite (talk) 13:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. None of these sources qualify toward any applicable guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Colorado. Shellwood (talk) 14:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viktor Kráľ

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

Kráľ played between 14 and 18 minutes of professional level before being sent to lower leagues. The closest thing to significant coverage is SME. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leonhard Grill

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

Problematic academic page. In the high citation field of nanotechnology both his GS h-factor (39) and the number of citations (7751) are low, too low for WP:NPROF#C1. Also of significant concern is that his citations peaked in 2018 but have gone down since, raising the issue of WP:SUSTAINED. While he did receive an award from the Foresight Institute, that was 4 years after his habilitation so I do not consider that it qualifies as a senior #C2. (Other awards are WP:MILL.) Just because he has a page on the German Wikipedia is not an automatic qualification, I think this is WP:TOOSOON, particularly with the troubling (red flag) citation history. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Austria. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the User:Michael D. Turnbull pointed out in a discussion in the Teahouse Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1242#Academic Notability, the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology is sufficient to pass criterion #2. Besides he also meets criteria 5 in full (in Austria an ordenary professor position is of the highest level, and the criteria 1d and 1e.

I therefore opose the Nomination for deletion. RomanVilgut (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer:

I would like to be transparent about my background. I am a communications officer at the University of Graz, the second largest university in Austria with over 400 years of academic history (~28,000 students, ~3,200 academic staff including teaching). My role is not primarily editorial, it is not my main job to edit Wikipedia. However, now that I have a user, I have been asked several times to help with Wikipedia. I have therefore marked myself as a 'paid editor' in order to demonstrate my commitment to maintaining the highest standards of transparency within the Wiki community. RomanVilgut (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I recently removed the notability tag, noting in my edit summary that the award of the Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology confirmed notability. This AfD was the response. I'm not impressed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (an edit-conflict with the above, but this is still relevant): Feynmann prize is indeed sufficient, and he has a full professorship equivalent to a named/distinguished chair. His work (in conjunction with Grant Simpson) was published in Nature[5] and commented-upon in Scientific American.[6] That's about as influential as an academic can get. Elemimele (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subjects published works and citation record in this particular field qualifies for notability under C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 15:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Oganj '92

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

This page only has one source from a book that doesn't even have a link. Everything else that mentions the course of events and the fight has no source. Better quality sources are needed from books, not news reports made +20 years after the event, they are unreliable. There is no mention of this operation in the Balkan battlegrounds

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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Nowak

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

There isn't any significant coverage for this Australian scientist. Fails WP:BASIC SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gail King (disambiguation)

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

No longer disambiguating anything legitimate. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Disambiguations. UtherSRG (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Nichols

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

Doesn't meet the notability criteria for a biography/entertainer due to the lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources / WP:BASIC. The article is based on primary or unreliable sources. Frost 12:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Figured this would end up at AfD. When I was making the article, there definitely wasn't much there in the way of sources despite the channel having 10+ million subscribers. I'll save a draft of this article in my userspace in the event he becomes more notable. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Alaska. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amaru Kaunda

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

There isn't any significant coverage for this footballer. Many sources that exist are profiles or primary (i.e. published by the player's clubs). Frost 12:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 14:41, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strength Sports Australia

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

Doesn't seem to be any good third party sourcing for this - and it 's also a COI edit mess Golikom (talk) 12:16, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Sports, and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Attack on Doboj and Gradačac (1994)

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

This fighting is covered in two small paragraphs that cover not even a third of one page of the source, a comprehensive history of the Balkan wars of the 90s. I have removed all the non-reliable sources and unsupported material and do not consider that what is left meets the SIGCOV bar. Don't be misled by the mention of "corps", these were lucky if they were brigade-sized formations at the best of times. The fact that a principal source on these wars doesn't provide numbers of troops involved, commanders names or casualty figures is another indication the subject just isn't notable. Perhaps if presented along with all the battles in northeastern Bosnia between August and November, but not at this small scale. Yet another of these recently created articles on individually non-notable actions of this war. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Cordeiro

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG - coverage seems trivial, brief career, spell in DC United only yielded 205 minutes of playing time. May be redirected to All-time D.C. United roster. Geschichte (talk) 11:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Kuykendall

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. There is little to write about his playing career, with a spell in DC United that only yielded 9 minutes of playing time (no cup games, and no playing time in New York). Most of the article is either about his family, failing WP:NOTINHERITED, or about his unfortunate death that happened 8 years after he left soccer. While the death did get coverage, so does a lot of terminal patients that inspire others, and the person had to meet general notability guidelines beforehand as not to fail WP:NOTMEMORIAL. May be redirected to All-time D.C. United roster. Geschichte (talk) 11:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Virginia, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sitakunda massacre

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

The article did not meet the criteria for WP:N(E). Both sources provide limited information about the incident. One source even states: চন্দ্রনাথের মেলায় কী ঘটিয়াছে ১৯৫০ সালে, সেখানকার তীর্থযাত্রীদের কী নৃশংস পরিণতি হইয়াছে, সে কাহিনীর সঠিক বৃত্তান্ত আজো অজ্ঞাত। (What happened at the Chandranath Fair in 1950, and what brutal fate befell the pilgrims there—the exact details of the story remain unknown.) [Source: Sinha, Dinesh Chandra, ed. (2012). ১৯৫০: রক্তরঞ্জিত ঢাকা বরিশাল এবং [1950: Bloodstained Dhaka Barisal and more] (in Bengali). Kolkata: Codex. p. 71.]

During a Google search, I came across some social media posts, but all of them were either copied directly from Wikipedia or linked back to it. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 11:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hinduism and Bangladesh. ― ☪ Kapudan Pasha (🧾 - 💬) 11:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possible delete, it certainly looks weakly sourced. On the other hand, the 2 sources agree that a violent event took place; the social media sources add nothing but are not reason for deletion in themselves. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creature (song)

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

WP:NSONG: "a standalone article is appropriate only when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article. A song or single (that has placement on a national music chart) may be notable enough that a search for coverage in reliable independent sources will be successful." This song has a placement on a national music chart but there isn't any significant coverage for it and the article is unlikely to grow beyond stub-class. Also, much of the content isn't about the song itself, e.g. the Background section, and much of the other content is based on primary sources. Attempts to redirect the page were reverted. I recommend deleting or redirecting to Creature#Music. Frost 10:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Frost 10:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalini Passi

AfDs for this article:

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

Not meet WP:BIO. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 09:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is extensive coverage focusing on her role in the art world, her socialite status and her role as a main cast member on a Netflix series, which meets WP:ARTIST & WP:BIO. Vogue India and Economic Times - Profile are strong sources within the article both of which provide in-depth profiles of her career and influence. Additionally, LuxeBook, Architectural Digest and Lifestyle Asia solidifies notability. With these sources and a lot others available, the article is well-supported to pass GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 14:31, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 10:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep GNG achieved per adequate sourcing and Mims Mentor's analysis above. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speed Niggs

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

Only found sources in German-language zines which are likely unreliable. Opening this rather than a PROD on the possibility that someone with access to a German-specific archive could find more on this band than I did, but seeing as all the sources I saw were already German I have my doubts. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

11 Plc

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

Fails WP:ORGCRIT or WP:GNG. All nine of the sources currently used fail WP:INDEPENDENT; they're either routine coverages or run of the mill and public relations. It's either "11 Plc said", "11Plc formerly Mobil Oil Plc has said", "The managing director said", "He added", etc. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Companies, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:38, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Music City Drum and Bugle Corps

AfDs for this article:

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

Article clearly failing WP:GNG and references are also not seems to be reliable. Nxcrypto Message 10:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Music. Nxcrypto Message 10:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very small amount of sources within the article, one of which has no WP:SIGCOV, one which is written like promotional content and another which seems to just be a report about the company itself. Would say it definitely fails WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT specifically. Beachweak (talk) 12:51, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

The article needs more citations. However, the group has reportedly achieved 'world class' status in their field of expertise. Looking at the Wikipedia page for the DCI, which lists this and 20 or so other similar pages of groups of the same calibre, a comparison of notability could be made? AlphaLemur (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Eco-Leadership Institute

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

A7 was requested and contested by an anonymous editor when the article was created about a year and a half ago, but I really don't see how there is any credible claim of significance or importance here, much less notability. Some of the sources don't even mention the organisation, and a BEFORE search turns up maybe a few bare mentions. The probability this meets any source-based notability criteria recognised on Wikipedia appears to be approximately null, without even considering the strictness we require for WP:NORG. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Environment, and Ireland. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:06, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I also can't find anything, and fail to see the relevance of some of the (very brief!) content to the subject. The sentences about other researchers seem irrelevant, as does mention of one particular "organisational member" (where the founder used to work). It should be noted that "institute" is not a protected term in Ireland, where this organisation is based. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:21, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NORG and WP:GNG. The sources in the article do not support the content - not to mind supporting a claim to notability. All representing either trivial passing mentions or (frankly) not even mentioning the subject org AT ALL. A WP:BEFORE search returns nothing else - no coverage in news sources, journals, books, etc. The overt WP:REFBOMBing and clear WP:COI/WP:PROMO issues are also very very difficult to overlook. Has the hallmarks of WP:PAID nonsense. Firm delete. Guliolopez (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lingayat Vani

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

This article is a POV fork of Lingayatism, created using WP:SYNTHESIS of poor sources to glorify Vaishya Vani caste while conflating it with a different community (Lingayats). Most sources and even most of the article only concerns Lingayats and not Vanis. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Hinduism, and Maharashtra. Shellwood (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address the points raised in the nomination and demonstrate how the article meets Wikipedia's guidelines on notability, neutrality, and verifiability.

1) Not a POV Fork

The topic "Lingayat Vani" is distinct from "Lingayatism" and warrants its own article. While Lingayat Vani has historical and cultural links to Lingayatism, it represents a specific community with unique socio-economic and cultural characteristics. This is supported by independent and reliable sources cited in the article.

The overlap with Lingayatism is a necessary background to provide context, but the article focuses on the Vani subgroup, not the broader religious identity. Such differentiation is aligned with Wikipedia's standards for splitting articles where subtopics merit detailed discussion.

2) No Synthesis or Original Research

The content adheres strictly to Wikipedia:SYNTHESIS. Each claim in the article is directly supported by sources. There is no combining of unrelated points to create new interpretations. Where sources discuss Lingayatism as part of the Vani community's background, it is presented as such, not conflated or misrepresented.

3) Neutral Point of View

The article's tone and structure aim to neutrally document the historical, cultural, and social aspects of the Lingayat Vani community. If there are any specific instances of perceived bias, they can be flagged for improvement.

4) To all the respected Administrators.

I believe the article on "Lingayat Vani" satisfies Wikipedia's core content policies and deserves to remain as a standalone page. I am happy to address any specific concerns or collaborate on improving the article further. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This comment is entirely AI generated. Please do not use chatbots, you should convey your views in your own words. - Ratnahastin (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin Yes I agree I used chat gpt for this reply, I avoid using chatbots for such conversations. But believe me It has been a great time since sockpuppets have been trying to delete the article. I used chatbot in my reply as it saved some time. As a matter of fact even for the chatbot to provide a valid response It needs facts from my side. I sincerely apologize for using it and will never use it again on such discussions. I didn't knew we can't use it here. But I still abide by the views I shared in my prior comment. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 14:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you think the article is trying to "Glorify" a community, It doesn't mean it. It is a neutral documentation of cultural aspects of the community. I agree to edit anything if necessary, please initiate it in talk page before, rather than abruptly deleting it. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ratnahastin Please see: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Lingayat Vani

I sincerely agree to further cooperate if anything directly or indirectly tries to glorify or exaggerate something. Please create a discussion for such topics. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bradv Hi again. Please tell how can I remove AFD tag from the article . I made some improvements in the articles that make it better and will keep adding later on. Currently I am a part time editor on wikipedia, I don't know how and when to remove it. @Ratnahastin is also not replying. Thanks for your help ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 17:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It will be removed automatically when this discussion concludes, at least one week from today. – bradv 17:03, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see any need for this article given the main article covers it all. CharlesWain (talk) 12:00, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

hi @CharlesWain @Liz the main article "lingayatism" is about the religious sect. this article is about a prominent community holds a history of its own. This article is also prone to various sockpuppets trying to push their POV. I also need a discussion on this, any sort of debate is welcome. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 14:17, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ponyo @Liz @Bradv Hi! There have been multiple cases of sockpuppetry to vandalize this article earlier too. Please see:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1172 . I am a part-time editor on Wikipedia and always ready to make improvements and at the same time always resist such attacks on wiki pages which are nothing but POV pushing. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 16:44, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for now) I am attempting to unravel the initial reasoning behind why this article needs to be deleted. Vaishya is mentioned only once in the article, so where is the synthesis? I also see 87 references in the article. Apart from a few websites, most appear to be secondary sources. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are poor snippet views and most lack page number making verification impossible. Many are from raj era which are considered unusable for caste articles. Most of the content pertains to Lingayats not Vanis. This article is so poor that it should be TNT'ed for now. - Ratnahastin (talk) 06:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve started reviewing it and will let you know if I feel it’s beyond recovery. LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin Those with snippet views will be replaced when the full documents will be found. That doesn't mean to delete whole page. Even the snippets clearly show the required information. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa Should I remove the tag now? Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 15:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What tag? - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:06, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ratnahastin The AFD notice on page. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LeónGonsalvesofGoa is the discussion closed? PerspicazHistorian (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion will only end when an admin closes it. - Ratnahastin (talk) 18:17, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bradv please close the discussion. Thank You ! PerspicazHistorian (talk) 18:29, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PerspicazHistorian Rather than concluding this discussion, let's explore further: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ALingayat_Vani&diff=1261042027&oldid=1260923834 LeónGonsalvesofGoa (talk) 22:59, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

okay @LeónGonsalvesofGoa, i have no problem with it. PerspicazHistorian (talk) 07:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I almost never do a third relisting, but the article has changed and this discussion is a bit of a mess. Other people's views are needed, clearly citing policy and evidence. Those of you who have dominated this discussion need to restrain yourself (and I commend the decision to take part of the conversation elsewhere). Let fresh eyes see the material and fresh voices weigh in. If you keep responding to everything, you could potentially be admonished or worse for, among other things, WP:BLUDGEONING.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 09:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D-Photo

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

Fails WP:GNG, can't find any significant reliable secondary independent sources. Seems to just be one guys magazine that according to a reddit post he doesn't do anymore TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 08:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

APFIC Objective and Key Achievements

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

Entire article is written like a promotion. Only source mentioning APFIC is its own page and a document at fao.org, its parent organization. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Asia. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 06:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has an entry in this Dictionary, this Dictionary, and an entry beginning on page 627 in International Organizations and the Law of the Sea of which only the first page is viewable. The Encyclopedia of Ocean Law and Policy in Asia-Pacific takes the time to document when various countries became members of this organization. It's organized by nation, so the coverage is across multiple pages. I think this highlighting within an overview of each country indicates some importance. There is also some coverage in [7], [8], Best.4meter4 (talk) 07:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:43, 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) 08:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TNT and because we already have the highly-promotional Asia-Pacific_Fishery_Commission, itself in dire need of clean-up, which already contains word-for-word the same text as the current article. Elemimele (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IDreamBooks

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This article was previously nominated and reached no consensus. There has been no significant improvements to the article since. While there are indeed sources, coverage appears to be routine/centered on company launch and are not independent of subject (include contributions from company founders). Analysis by @HighKing: shows the sources do not meet WP:CORPDEPTH Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Websites, United States of America, and California. Imcdc Contact 08:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and I fail to find any sources providing WP:SIGCOV. Seems unlikely this article will grow from a stub or get more sources in the future. Beachweak (talk) 13:02, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Ulrich Hensel

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

blatant self-promotion. Same COI 15 years ago as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OCEAN Design Research Association --Altenmann >talk 07:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC) --Altenmann >talk 07:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Architecture, Germany, Norway, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birger Ragnvald Sevaldson

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

nonnotable professor. Same COI 15 years ago as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OCEAN Design Research Association --Altenmann >talk 07:28, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Architecture, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norkam Secondary School

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

Nonnotable school --Altenmann >talk 07:22, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moroccan General Labour Union

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NPROFIT. Cannot find any sourcing that confirms the existence of this trade union other than Facebook. Appears to be a single person as acting as a union. Referred to in a number of locations as "Union générale marocaine du travail" (for example, this Danish trade union report on Morocco, but which cites French Wikipedia as source). I also see some reports referencing the French name, but this has been confused with the long establised UGTM (Union générale des travailleurs du Maroc). I've not been able to do an extensive search in Arabic, but French and English draw blanks. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Economics, and Morocco. Goldsztajn (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Does the organization possibly have a foreign language name(s) that it uses? There are many languages spoken in Morroco with English not being the predominant language. My guess is that locating sources would be under a foreign language title...4meter4 (talk) 04:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All Moroccan unions use Arabic and French. The name in Arabic is: الاتحاد العام المغربي للشغل Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I’ve searched in French and Arabic for the union and its founder. Nothing about the founder, plenty about other unions with similar titles, but nothing about this one. Mccapra (talk) 17:33, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

btw the UGMT referred to in the Danish report is not the same body. That was founded in 1960 and is notable. Mccapra (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, see page 31 of the Ulandssekretariatet report, citing French Wiki, last entry on the table, it's referring to the UGMT, not the UGTM. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has been PROD'd so is not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonverifiable notability. --Altenmann >talk 07:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OCEAN Design Research Association

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Business, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep with WP:NPASR. A valid deletion rationale has not been offered. No evidence of a BEFORE, and no evidence is provided that COI cannot be addressed editorially. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:03, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Dclemens1971: with all due respect, I would assert that the fact that the COI has apparently not been addressed for fifteen years is evidence enough that it can not be addressed. I welcome any editor to prove my wrong by so doing. I would offer as an alternative draftifying this article, pending cleanup. BD2412 T 04:09, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone would object if this were stubified. I'm just not going to do the legwork of deciding whether to !vote "delete" or "keep" in a deletion discussion when the nominator has not offered a valid rationale. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WEBHOST is a valid rationale. If the content is COI, then we are being used as a hosting service by the conflicted party. BD2412 T 17:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:WEBHOST's terms apply to userspace. It's not a catchall policy for content in article space; if it were, every AfD nomination could just say "Wikipedia's not supposed to be a webhost for ____" and leave it at that. And WP:COIEDIT is not prohibited, although it's obviously strongly discouraged. In this case, the page creator's conflict is openly disclosed. There's an editorial case for combing through the page for conflicted content, but the presence of COI alone is not a reason to delete a whole page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Note:COI is not a deletion rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

delete self-promotion/advert. No independent confirmation of notability. --Altenmann >talk 07:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robotics Design Inc.

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:36, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP (for the time being)- COI hasn't been discussed on the talk page, as the COI box suggests should happen. Greglocock (talk) 03:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep with WP:NPASR. No valid deletion rationale has been offered, nor has evidence of a WP:BEFORE been provided. There is no reason provided why any COI that may be present cannot be addressed editorially. The WP:WEBHOST policy primarily applies to userspace and is thus not a rationale for deletion, and WP:COIEDIT is not a reason for deletion since such edits are not prohibited (just strongly discouraged). I would encourage the nominator to renominate with a valid rationale and evidence of a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 3 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!} 06:42, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: Ref. 2 is significant, independent coverage. I'm having a hard time finding more but I assume more must be out there since the company has won some innovation awards. If kept, the article needs to be radically chopped, since it's almost all sourced to press releases and passing mentions. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maneater (novel)

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

Fails WP:NBOOK. Couldn't find any reviews, and basically nothing outside of the author's own website. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:40, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is apparently coverage of this in the 2018 book "She-wolf: A cultural history of female werewolves", published by Manchester University Press which though I cannot completely access it looks like it might be sigcov. There is a hit for this in an article titled "Werewolf Studies" by W. de Blécourt in Gramarye, but I couldn't see how long it talks about the book. I could not find anything else. If these are both sigcov it would pass NBOOK, though barely, and I do not know if they are. I have never seen a modern book before that had 0 reviews but scholarly discussion of it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Drysdale

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

Mildly WP:PROMO bio of a non-notable businessman. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, the sources do not meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. They are limited to:

Routine news in WP:TRADES publications ([9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14])
Press releases ([15])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCE Q&A interviews/speaker bios ([16], [17], [18], [19])
A WP:FORBES "contributor" post (i.e., not reliable) and a "citizen contributor" (i.e. unedited blogger) post on a local news site.
And finally, a promotional profile on a website whose stated purpose is promoting the success of executives and their diverse team of business partners and thus not independent.

I didn't find anything else qualifying in the WP:BEFORE search. I also checked on the statement that he won an EY Entrepreneur of the Year Award, which might meet WP:ANYBIO#1, but it turns out he won a New Jersey region EY award (source) Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject may meet notability standards under WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Coverage across multiple sources, including recognition through an EY Entrepreneur of the Year (regional) award, demonstrates relevance and significance in their field. While some sources are primary or publications, they complement others that provide independent context. The article can be improved for neutrality and sourcing rather than deleted. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 05:11, 2 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: 24eeWikiUser (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

@24eeWikiUser, please say which sources meet the test of WP:GNG or WP:NBIO, not just asserting that they do. And the criterion of WP:ANYBIO that allows a subject to be considered automatically notable for winning an award applies to "major" awards like Nobel Prizes, Oscars, MacArthur Genius Grants, etc -- not to being one of 11 people from New Jersey to win a business award. Dclemens1971 (talk) 05:15, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may not yet be convinced that the subject, Doug Drysdale, is notable; however, he has 30 years of experience in his field, including 12 years as CEO of three pharmaceutical companies with global reach Alvogen, Pernix Therapeutics, and Cybin Inc. Among them are a NASDAQ-listed company and another he served as Founding CEO. He has also chaired the boards of other NASDAQ-listed companies and has made widely recognized contributions. Since the sources back up his background and align with the listed awards and recognitions, I reiterate that the article can be improved for neutrality and sourcing rather than deleted.

1. Sustained Attention: Routine mentions, when taken collectively, contribute to notability by indicating sustained attention to the subject's career.
2. Regional EY Award: Regional awards are part of the broader EY Entrepreneur of the Year program, which adds credibility and weight to his achievements.
3. Field Contributions: Detailed coverage in interviews and other publications, provide valuable insight into his influence and significance.
4. Sources Are Not Disqualifying: What you referred to as promotional sites and Forbes articles are not entirely disqualifying when they complement other sources.

24eeWikiUser (talk) 06:58, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have still not answered my question: which sources do you think qualify the subject as notable? Your comments do a lot of hand-waving about routine mentions, when taken collectively and detailed coverage in interviews and complement other sources but you have offered no competing analysis of sources, nor even suggested a mere WP:THREE, that meet the standard here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Please check these sources, [20], [21], [22], and he was also listed among 10 Psychedelics CEOs To Pay Attention To In 2022. 24eeWikiUser (talk) 17:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All of these sources are already discussed in my nomination statement, but here's some more detailed analysis of each of the links you offered:

A local news profile by a "citizen contributor." "Citizen contributor" = community member/blogger, not an actual journalist and thus not someone writing to the standards expected of reliable sources.

A Forbes profile by a "senior contributor." Per WP:FORBESCON, Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors or "Senior Contributors" with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable.

A press release posted by Drysdale's company on BusinessWire. Per WP:PRSOURCE, A press release is clearly not an independent source as it is usually written either by the business or organization it is written about, or by a business or person hired by or affiliated with the organization.

A brief mention in a list of CEOs. This is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION, not WP:SIGCOV. It's also directly copied from his official corporate bio and thus not WP:INDEPENDENT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 06:35, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal parliamentary republic

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

Seems to be a wholly synthetic topic isolating the intersection of Federalism and Parliamentary system for no reason other than it's a phrase often found in infoboxes. There seems to be no discussion of the subject in its own right, and there do not appear to be sources from my checks either. There are likely more than a handful of other articles of this kind. Likely some should be merged somewhere, but the utility of anything seems marginal. Remsense ‥ 论 23:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Politics. Remsense ‥ 论 23:48, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Parliamentary republic. There is coverage: [23] [24] and Cheryl Saunders, "Federal Parliamentary Republics" (2021), which is apparently offline. James500 (talk) 08:49, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Parliamentary republic (with redirect). This is a ~~rare~~ term with less than 150 Google Search results. Yet, these search results include the CIA, which says, without discussion, that Austria, Ethiopia, Germany, India, Iraq, Nepal, Pakistan, Somalia are federal parliamentary republics. The European Union also acknowledges that Germany, a member state, is a federal parliamentary republic. I would suggest that any information that can be reliably sourced should be sent to Parliamentary republic. Only when reliably sourced content becomes too much then we can apply WP:SPINOUT for a separate Federal parliamentary republic article. starship.paint (talk / cont) 02:52, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google scholar shows a large number of journal articles using this term to define the government structures of various countries. This is not a made up synthesis but a real and discussed government structure. Likewise, Federal parliamentary republic is used repeatedly in books. If a WP:BEFORE was done, it was not done competently.4meter4 (talk) 18:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @4meter4: - the term is used in journal articles, yes, but it seems that many of these instances are just quick mentions without too much elaboration of the federal parliamentary republic part. It seems that the true focus of the journal articles are some other topic regarding the country (e.g. Medical Student Wellbeing in Nepal) rather than the federal parliamentary republic part, which is simply used to introduce the country. See below. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Examples from Google Scholar ("X is a federal parliamentary republic" ... and soon the topic changes) starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Higher Education Systems and Institutions Ethiopia - Politically, Ethiopia operates a federal parliamentary republic, with nine regional states and with the government’s official name as the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (FDRE). It is the second most populous nation in Africa...
European Pain Management - Germany is governed as a federal parliamentary republic, divided into 16 states. It is a well-developed and stable economy. Life expectancy is currently 77 years for men and 82 years...
Renal Transplantation in Iraq - Iraq is a federal parliamentary republic with nearly 40 million inhabitants; the country consists of 18 governorates with 3 of those constituting the Kurdistan region in the Northern part of the country. Culturally, Iraq has a very rich heritage and celebrates the achievements of its past...
How did European countries set health priorities in response to the COVID-19 threat - Germany / High / Federal parliamentary republic / 83 / 31.9***...
Cognitive Behavioral Therapy in Germany - It consists of 16 constituent states, and its political system is a federal parliamentary republic. It is a highly industrialized country, which, like many other developed Western countries...
Analysis of recalling the members of Mongolian Parliament by the voters - 9 Gambia Unitary presidential republic + 10 German Federal parliamentary republic + 11 cuba Unitary Leninist one-party socialist...
Water Resource Status of Pakistan - Pakistan is a federal parliamentary republic consisting of four provinces (Punjab, Sindh, Balochistan, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa) and four federal territories. Most of the people believe on Islam (Islam 95-98%, 2-5% Christian, Hinduism and other religions)...
India vs Pakistan An Evaluation of Long-Run Economic Growth - The two countries share the federal parliamentary republic government system, along with a mixed economy. India and Pakistan’s natural resources are also comparable...
Pakistan: a journey of poverty-induced shame - A federal parliamentary republic of over 180 million people, Pakistan has the sixth largest population and 27th largest gross domestic product...
Growing Solutions Through Decades of Droughts - Somalia’s government is a Federal Parliamentary Republic but has recently faced political insatiably and violence (Somalia Country Profile, 2023). Its estimated population is over 17.1 million people...
Medical Student Wellbeing in Nepal - The country has a federal parliamentary republic and is made up of seven provinces (Pradesh) with the nation’s capital located in Kathmandu. The total population is 29675000...

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:34, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Arguments for Merge, Delete and Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:33, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

David Haave

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

Non-notable author. All sources are store pages of his books, most of the article is unsourced, and I found no reliable sources online. Borderline G11. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 06:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Military, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:50, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As with the nominator, I could not find any independent sources. The style of the article reads like a blurb that a work-experience publicist wrote, with phrases such as "The author has taken on writing books to a whole new level" and "David has worked to help one community at a time, one child at a time, and has flourished in helping share love with others across the beautiful Nation of America." Ugh.--Gronk Oz (talk) 13:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly promotional, and badly-done at that. His military service is not notable. Intothat darkness 14:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shalabam

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reliable reviews from Rediff.com and Sify.com [25]. The only 2 reliable sources are passing mentions. DareshMohan (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. -Mushy Yank. 09:50, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2008, a standard solution for articles about released films when cast is notable, content verifiable and the director and writer have no page. Preserves history and can be reverted if sources are found. Thanks (NB- the film is listed there).-Mushy Yank. 10:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing in Google search result to show that this passes WP:NFILM. The two sources in the article gave just single mentions each and with nothing in search result, there is nothing to sustain it. Mekomo (talk) 10:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Malayalam films of 2008, as quoted by Mushy Yank...Jayanthkumar123 (talk) 17:28, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sudheesh#2000s. Lots of evidence that the film exists. The other page List of Malayalam films of 2008 is poor with no sources and that is why redirect to actor's page is more better (imo). RangersRus (talk) 14:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Added some refernce links. I don't know whether the notability pass. The Film exists. Had a theater run. Streaming in multiple online platforms now. That is all. --Ranjithsiji (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Redirect but two different target articles bring proposed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There still has to be a decision between two suggested Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Johri

AfDs for this article:

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

References do not demonstrate significant coverage by multiple sources. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Technology. Brandon (talk) 07:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra, California, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 12:08, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kaizenify (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionism is a cancer that must be opposed at all costs. Speedy Keep 99.122.52.226 (talk) 21:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article appears to fail WP:NPERSON. Sources are essentially PR or interviews. The above comment offers no policy based argument and is solely a WP:ADHOMINEM attack. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:31, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the sources in the article, only two might count as independent significant coverage, cites 2 and 3. But 2 is based at least partly, if not entirely on press releases. This is not enough to meet the GNG. Toadspike [Talk] 09:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lay Observer for Northern Ireland

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

Can't really find any in-depth sources on this, though there is the potential to redirect (after adding a mention) either to Department of Finance (Northern Ireland) or maybe Ombudsman services by country, so thought I'd put it up for discussion instead of PROD or CSD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Organizations, and Northern Ireland. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Universidade Franciscana

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

Ths doesn't seem to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, or have a good WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 08:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul#Education – The article in Portuguese seems developed enough. If someone wants to improve it, a redirect makes it easier to revert. Svartner (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any more support for Redirection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:17, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023–2024 Gaza Strip preterm births

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

This seems to be an overly specific and redundant article given the Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) which already exists and provides key context needed to cover this topic. Very limited coverage on this singular issue as a standalone topic exists with such coverage normally being mentioned in passing as part of the greater crisis. Originalcola (talk) 05:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be deleted as WP:G5; only significant contributions are from two sockpuppets. BilledMammal (talk) 05:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Medicine, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with flying colours. If anything, it should be expanded using the many RS that cover the subject. M.Bitton (talk) 13:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’d strongly argue that this is not the case. Outside of regular news reporting on the crisis where passing mention is given to preterm births there isn’t any coverage of this topic as a standalone, much less significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Originalcola (talk) 04:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily passes GNG, beyond that Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) sits at 89 kB and 14,335 words of readable prose, making it WP:TOOBIG to absorb all this material and this an appropriate WP:SPINOFF for size reasons. And no, this does not qualify for G5, as I myself have a non-trivial edit there. Last I checked I am not a sock of a banned user. nableezy - 18:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did I miss something? As far as I can tell, the only edit you have is reverting a sock? BilledMammal (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is still a substantive edit. nableezy - 13:08, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're misinterpreting the intent of the rule there, although there are other non-sock editors who have made substantive non-revert posts. Originalcola (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A merger would probably only add 100-200 words to whatever article it’s merged with. It might make more sense to merge it with Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip if size is still too great a concern. Originalcola (talk) 04:44, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do you figure that unless you gut the entirety of what is merged? nableezy - 13:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It was a guesstimate but when merging you'd probably not transfer the lead and background. Both articles have a section or a decent amount of information on Gaza preterm births already, so you wouldn't have to copy all 797 words on this page over. Originalcola (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don’t really care if the article is deleted or merged, but I removed several sources that were either live updates from news liveblogs or Tweets. So I think the article needs cleaning up. Also I think it is written in news reporting style: on November 12, X happened, then on November 13, Y happened, etc…. I don’t think Wikipedia is supposed to have so many articles written like this unless I am misunderstanding WP:NOTNEWS. More experienced editors may be able to help improve the article and sourcing. Wafflefrites (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5. Achmad Rachmani (talk) 08:46, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is a raft of relevant coverage from aid agencies, rights groups and all the major newsorgs (just search premature babies Gaza to see) so GNG is easily met, passing mention is simply untrue. The article does need improvement but that's not a reason to delete, I already restored one item adding a secondary to deal with a "newsblog" complaint (these sources are already used in other related articles, btw). G5 was already tried twice and successfully challenged leading to this AfD so "per WP:G5" is not a reason to delete either. Selfstudier (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to another experienced editor on here, “No pages should really be using live blogs long-term as sources. This is a WP:NOTNEWS issue as much as anything else. Because yes, live blogs are just a stream of off-the-cuff news and unredacted commentary.” Per WP:NEWSBLOG, they should be used with caution. Wafflefrites (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "unredacted commentary"? Anyway, I added a secondary to the restored material so not a problem. Just some work to locate secondaries, that's all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to be honest. Everything that CarmenEsparzaAmoux touched leaves a sour taste in my mouth. When we're crying out for neutrality and independence in this contentious area, the consequences of their actions are so destructive and this isn't about sides. It would be similarly damaging if they were making pro Israel edits. Sticking to the facts about this article - I have to agree with the citing of WP:G5 MaskedSinger (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted above, G5 alone is a good reason to delete, as is WP:SOAP. I’m entirely sympathetic to the issues - I created Palestinian law - but we are also primarily a news organization. Bearian (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "we are also primarily a news organization" That is news to me. Since when are we supposed to simply offer news coverage instead of being an encyclopedia? Dimadick (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've already restored most of the deleted content, it wasn't hard to find proper sources to back it up, and I've also added more information. The topic is notable. I don't fully agree with WP:G5 - being a sockpuppet doesn't necessarily means all your edits are trash. We should keep what is salvageable, and in this case, I don't see any significant issues with the existing article, which can certainly be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 01:51, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Kudos to you for doing that, but there's still a complete lack of secondary sources on this page, with non-routine news coverage on the topic of this article not existing. I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule. Originalcola (talk) 03:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Routine news coverage is about announcements and scheduled events. All of the sources in the article are secondary and all of them are non-routine. nableezy - 01:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why I mentioned WP:ROUTINE, I meant to say sources that weren't news articles or similar primary sources. Originalcola (talk) 22:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News articles aren't primary sources unless they are about the news organisation itself.

You mentioned routine coverage because you appear to look for ways to discredit the sourcing, switching arguments whenever someone points out that your arguments are flawed. Cortador (talk) 14:36, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm going to ignore the completely reasonable "I don't think this is the right venue to talk about the merits of the G5 rule". My view is that the G5 condition "...and that have no substantial edits by others not subject to the ban or sanctions" is a mistake. It's a self-defeating strategy that rewards and incentivizes ban evasion by over-estimating the importance of preserving content and under-estimating the importance of having effective ban evasion countermeasures. I think articles created by people employing deception in contentious topic areas where socks are common should be deleted even if there are hundreds of 'substantial edits' by other editors, even if there are tens of thousands of daily pageviews, and even if the article has attained featured article status. If the subject matters, other people, not employing deception, will have the same idea at some point and create it again. There's no deadline for content or need to take a short-term view. Anyway, having got that futile rant out of the way, I don't know what "substantial edits by others" actually means in terms of quantities, but here are the quantities in the form of token counts for the content of the current version of the page.
CarmenEsparzaAmoux 67.3%, Ïvana 15.3%, MWQs 8.9%, Wafflefrites 4.2%, with Nableezy, Pincrete, טבעת-זרם each having less than 1%.

Sean.hoyland (talk) 14:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved admin note, G5 had been brought up and the tag has also been declined twice. Rather than continuing to litigate that procedural element, please focus on whether the subject is notable and/or if it should be merged. The decision will be made on community consensus and not speedy grounds. Star Mississippi 21:26, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies where this is already covered at the appropriate level of detail. We are an encyclopedia, not a news organization, which means that it is inappropriate to cover a current event at this minute level of detail. Being created by a blocked sock does not help. Sandstein 19:24, 18 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!} 20:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ -After looking at the arguments, I still think that deletion is the best approach. There's no significant coverage on pre-term births that could meet the standards of notability as per WP:GNG. At present, all the sources on the page are primary sources (predominantly news reports) and there does not exist secondary sources focused mainly on the topic of this article. Even if such coverage did exist, which is doubtful, no editor has made a convincing reason as to why the content of this article would not be better served as part of another larger article as per the reasons I stated when initially proposing this page for deletion. Originalcola (talk) 01:50, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Double vote Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Selfstudier (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I didn't mean to double vote there and shouldn't have used a bold heading. Originalcola (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Whatever is relevant to the topic can be cited in existing articles on the conflict. It seems totally problematic in WP:BIAS and full of WP:OVERKILL, not to mention being a specific theme just to a small niche. Svartner (talk) 04:25, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ThatIPEditor ^{Talk · Contribs} 10:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:G5 and redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies.4meter4 (talk) 10:35, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
G5 is no longer a reason to delete and redirect is effectively a merge? Selfstudier (talk) 11:46, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

G5 is absolutely a reason to delete. That editor's edits should be completely stripped from the article history and entirely removed from view/access. I support a redirect. Not a merge.4meter4 (talk) 16:58, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have made edits to that article, G5 does not apply. nableezy - 17:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An admin has already stated that G5 won't apply here. Besides, someone already tried to do a speedy deletion and it was contested. Originalcola (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG with plenty of coverage in academia [26] [27] [28] [29] and news media [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. Topic could be broadened to not just focus on 2023-2024, but Gaza overall, as this has been the subject of WP:SIGCOV prior to the war [36] [37] [38]. I'm not seeing any persuasive argument for merging this with parent articles. Levivich (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the academic sources cited seem to include more than a single sentence mentioning premature births. [2] doesn't even include a sentence on premature births, just having the word prematurity in a list. This is clearly trivial coverage in articles in which preterm births are not the main focus. The issue with using news articles is that this article assumes that much of the coverage is in relation to individual events like the raid on Al-Shifa last year and thus don't actually say much about preterm births. These events may or may not be notable, but there still remains a clear lack of depth and duration of coverage of increases in pre-term deaths, premature births or anything similar. With regard to the claim that preterm births in a specific area of a country, I would also disagree, especially since all 3 of the sources are masters theses. These are not only unreliable sources by the standards of Wikipedia but also don't seem to have any reason to be linked to what's going on in Gaza right now. Originalcola (talk) 04:37, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we forget about all the academic sources, it still meets GNG based on the news media sources, and those are appropriate sources for a current event such as this war. The news RS don't just focus on one event/hospital (and the selection I posted aren't all of them; more are in the article). Levivich (talk) 07:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think an article on a topic like this should be comprised mostly or in whole by news articles without a good reason. GNG states that secondary sources should be used, which none of the cited news media articles are; you can't establish notability with just primary sources. The appropriateness of news articles as sources for an article doesn't mean that they themselves form the basis of notability without reliable secondary sources. It also seems that every source currently in the article is a news article and that there are no secondary sources included in the article at present.

I also don't agree with your assertion that the articles "don't focus on one event/hospital". Sources 6,7,9 and 10 are also covering one hospital, those being al-Nasr for 6, Al Shifa for 7 and 10 and Emirati for 9. As it stands the article is currently split up into different sections on different hospitals and as such the news articles cited are predominately focused on each individual hospital or event as opposed to the wider topic of the article. In all articles premature births and deaths are mentioned as part of the wider context of the effects of this war on children in the Gaza Strip rather or individual hospitals. This is mostly the case for the news articles cited as well. Originalcola (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News articles form the basis of notability for all notable current events topics. You can disagree with it if you want to, but it's still Wikipedia policy that news articles are RS. Levivich (talk) 03:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
News articles do not necessarily form the basis of notability for current events for a variety of reasons I hope are fairly obvious, and there is no indication that this event is notable in the articles. My issue is not that I disagree that news articles are reliable, but that the articles included lack sufficient depth and duration to establish the topics' significance. Many of the sources are reliable without doubt, but for the purposes of WP:GNG there needs to exist secondary sources of reliable nature, not just news articles which in this case are predominately primary sources. That's why I put so much weight into the fact that there isn't any academic coverage of this topic, as those are generally the highest quality secondary sources.

TL;DR:Lack of secondary sources, overreliance on primary sources in news reports. Originalcola (talk) 16:12, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist for more commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, FOARP (talk) 12:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies. Per nom, this article is overly specific and redundant, since the topic is adequately covered in other articles.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies. This is article count bludgeoning: yes, it's a humanitarian crisis but writing an article on every aspect when in an actual encyclopedia a sentence at most would be required is quite WP:UNDUE. Mangoe (talk) 23:23, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe you'd look at this article and conclude that a sentence is the most that would be written in an encyclopedia to cover this topic. How could you possibly condense it all into one sentence? What would that sentence be? Levivich (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that this is the only article on Wikipedia on preterm births for a given country, region, and/or time period. Whilst only a sentence might be cutting back too much, it seems quite much without some kind of special assertion of notability, unless one were to make the argument that there should be more preterm birth pages. Originalcola (talk) 16:28, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or not) is not a valid reason to delete, just whataboutism. Selfstudier (talk) 16:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just mean that an aspect of a conflict as specific as preterm births should not have its own independent article without a good reason; there is no presumption of inherent notability for preterm births in a conflict. It's certainly true that it's not enough to say that because other articles don't exist, then this article shouldn't. Conversely, there is no special reason why, in this specific case, preterm births are more notable as to warrant it's own article. Giving this topic its own page gives undue weight to this aspect of the conflict in a way that potentially breaks NPOV, which is what I was trying to get.

Also, a small technical/semantic issue but I'd like to note that this was a comment on merging, not deleting this page. Originalcola (talk) 02:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the WP:GNG reasons listed by others and because of WP:PAGEDECIDE - if we are trying to decide how to present information so that readers best understand it, then merging it into an already huge article seems like it would have the opposite impact. The issue in question has global attention and as others have so capably shown, RS (both academic and journalistic) cover it as a topic in its own right, so I don't see why we wouldn't do so, also. There is research from before 2023-24 that indicates that this is part of a WP:SUSTAINED issue as well. Smallangryplanet (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, children doesn't fit. There is also a woman in every pre term birth. So, it could go there or in the page on women. The ambiguity is a reason to do neither. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 14:25, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree on your point on WP:PAGEDECIDE. IMO in order to appropriately cover this topic, you need to include the wider context of the humanitarian crisis in Gaza. The article proposed to be merged into by others(Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip) isn't currently that large as it stands. Originalcola (talk) 16:39, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I'm trying to WP:AGF but I'm not sure how you can believe this ('wider context') at the same time as you unilaterally blanked a section on embryos, which provided necessary context within the article – one of the things we're supposed to consider for PAGEDECIDE. If anything, this is a sure sign that the article is necessary - it contains separate and important context for a notable issue covered extensively by RS, and merging it with another page (let alone deleting it) does a disservice to the topic and to readers, which, again, is what we're meant to consider. Smallangryplanet (talk) 13:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Topic is too specific for a standalone article. redirect to Effect_of_the_Israel–Hamas_war_on_children_in_the_Gaza_Strip#Premature_babies as suggested above by Sandstein. Whizkin (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Topic is too specific for a standalone article Which policy argument says that? GNG is clearly established. Selfstudier (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did reference the policy he's likely referring to in my original nomination:WP:NOPAGE. There are other similar policies that could also be argued for or against, but it does seem kind of silly to demand policy rules for every little argument. GNG hasn't been clearly established or disestablished through consensus, if it had, then this deletion discussion would have been resolved. Originalcola (talk) 19:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that you have exceeded the 1000 word limit mandated by Arbcom for contributions to formal discussions. Selfstudier (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Selfstudier: Are you saying that rule applies to AfD? jlwoodwa (talk) 06:52, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:PermanentLink/1257490232#Motion_2c:_Word_limits "All participants in formal discussions (RfCs, RMs, etc) within the area of conflict..." Selfstudier (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then this page needs to be expanded to cover the whole topic. Not squeezed into a huge page that only covers half of it. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 21:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That a page needs improvement is also not a reason to delete. Selfstudier (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was saying we should keep it. Industrial Metal Brain (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. There are already articles about the Effect of the Israel–Hamas war on children in the Gaza Strip, Women in the Israel–Hamas war, Timeline of the Gaza Strip healthcare collapse, Gaza humanitarian crisis (2023–present) and attacks on individual hospitals like Al-Shifa Hospital siege. The topic is not in itself more notable than the death of other babies or children in Gaza, especially because it is incidental to the general attacks on hospitals and not a specifically targeted operation that would need its own coverage. This should be merged into the relevant articles, with some more detail included in the article about the specific hospitals. Compare this to the article Child abductions in the Russo-Ukrainian War, which was a specific operation not part of the combat itself. If it were to come out that Israel was specifically targeting palestinian children for demographic reasons (compare Ethiopian Jews in Israel#Birth control) that would maybe make it deserve a separate article. We also don't have an article about the destruction of oncology departments in Gaza because that comes with the destruction of hospitals in general, and those are already covered in articles about the hospitals themselves, in the article on healthcare and the article about humanitarian crisis. This really is not distinct enough to get its own article. Not everything has to get the same level of granularity as the hundreds of "Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on X" articles. — jonas (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the topic is fairly specific, it has also received fairly broad coverage over and extended period of time, including some coverage by academics. Merging this with the article on the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is not reasonable as that article is already huge. If anything, more topics should be forked from it. Cortador (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moments to Remember (XM Satellite Radio show)

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

Article about a radio program, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for radio programs. As always, radio programs are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed -- they need to show that they pass WP:GNG on reliable source coverage about them in sources independent of themselves. But this cites no coverage about the show at all, and instead is referenced entirely to the host's own self-published uploads of old episodes of the show to YouTube, which is not an independent or notability-building source.
Simply existing is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the show from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:12, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miessence

AfDs for this article:

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

Tagged as COI for 15 years. Wikipedia is not a permanent webhost for COI content. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 01:35, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I couldn't find any significant coverage which addresses the product line directly and in depth in mutiple reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 07:48, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Draftify. Fully agree with above, would say it's WP:TOOSOON to warrant an article right now, but it's likely more coverage will come out in the near future. Beachweak (talk) 13:08, 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- [39], 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: [40]. There is a lot of coverage sprinkled throughout this academic book: [41] 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: [42] 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 [43] , [44] 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 [45], 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]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Portugal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:13, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – The relevant content about the old stadium, and redirect to Estádio D. Afonso Henriques. Svartner (talk) 09:05, 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 [46], [47], [48], a book mention [49]. 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]

Delete: puff piece that fails Wikipedia:Ncorp. Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:24, 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[50]. 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]