Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 18 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Sally Axworthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambassadors not inherently notable. Fails WP:BIO, source 1 merely confirms details from an entry about her husband, sources 2 and 4 are primary. Source 3 is a routine announcement from the Vatican. A search for sources found passing mentions of her as ambassador but not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 23:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus‎. I wish those who had argued for Deletion had returned to review these newly found sources but they didn't. But I don't see the point of relisting this discussion so I'll just close as No consensus. Liz 23:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Egbema tribe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub article with only one source, poor formatting. While possibly notable, it should be draftified at the very least to be remade. LR.127 (talk) 10:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawn by nominator - I think these sources brought up are enough to prove notability for a standalone article. I may expand the article myself soon, using open sources (and if anyone has access to The Knowledge (XXG) Library, I would appreciate their help expanding the article with sources they can find as well). LR.127 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Delete or keep . The article is 16 years old. No one is going to fix an article that old if it is draftspace so at that point that's just putting it in limbo. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: While this article needs expansion for clarity, there are multiple publications to keep it from being deleted:
    • Ike, Eruali Ukachukwu (2009). The People and Culture of the Egbema Kingdom. University of Port Harcourt Press. ISBN 9789789003501.
    • Tiemọ, G. O. E. (1968). Egbema-Ịjọ Customs and Traditions. Institute of African Studies, University of Ibadan. OCLC 112682.
    • Williamson, Kay (1974). Reading and Writing Egbema. OCLC 63300648.
    • Onyige, Peter Usutu (1979). The Impact of Mineral Oil Exploitation on Rural Communities in Nigeria: The Case of Ogba/Egbema District (Thesis). University of Birmingham.
    • Alagoa, Ebiegberi Joe (2005). A History of the Niger Delta: An Historical Interpretation of Ijo Oral Tradition. University of Michigan. pp. 42–45. ISBN 9789783731455.
    • Nnadozie, Emmanuel U. (1995). Oil and Socioeconomic Crisis in Nigeria: A Regional Perspective to the Nigerian Disease and the Rural Sector. Edwin Mellen Press. pp. 44–49. ISBN 9780773442405.

I believe that this could be considered as significant coverage. Best, Reading Beans 06:43, 17 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep: The essence of AfD is to determine whether a subject merits a standalone page, which in this case it is clear that Egbema tribe merits one. For God’s sake, AfD is not cleanup and articles shouldn’t be sent to AfD if they are clearly notable. It is also clear that a BEFORE wasn’t done. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    "It is clear that Egbema tribe merits " ... "they are clearly notable" how so?
    I find this comment a bit vague, sorry - could you say more? Cheers. LR.127 (talk) 19:59, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
    I do not have to say anything more. AfD is not a place to tell us an article needs more sources; it is a place to determine whether a subject notable or not. You have to read the WP:AFD page to familiarise yourself with what it is about. The Egbema tribe in Nigeria is clear-cut notable ethnic group, you're not a Nigerian and as such you cannot tell. I hate seeing things like this at AfD, it utterly sucks. If an article relies on largely or entirely on a single source then tag it, if it has already been tagged and you come across it, you either fix it yourself or you leave it alone, or with a good faith, ask at a noticeboard for example the talk page of WikiProject Nigeria where you might find users who would be willing to do the work of researching and finding more details. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep. There are several pages about the Egbema in one of the papers in the book The Izon of the Niger Delta (Google link for convenience; if you have access to Muse via the Knowledge (XXG) Library or otherwise, then the whole book is accessible there). The book The Igbo and the Tradition of Politics also has a paper about "The Political Arrangement of the Egbema Community". Combined with the titles of some of the works given by Reading Beans above, it appears that there is WP:SIGCOV in reliable academic sources. --RL0919 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see further review (as much as possible with off-internet books) of these newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎ all. Daniel (talk) 04:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Ahmedabad–Darbhanga Sabarmati Express (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Since this was dePRODed, I am creating an AfD. In my opinion, the article does not meet guidelines for WP:NOTABILITY. It is just a WP:ROTM service. The article seems WP:INDISCRIMINATEly created and more suited to a rail information website.

I am also nominating the following articles for the same reason:

Arnav Bhate (talk) 10:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Soliciting more participation here to get a stronger consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Diamond Didi Zindabad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. With the exception of one source, everything falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Churnalism and press releases as well as no-bylined articles. CNMall41 (talk) 07:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep - There is not even a newspaper name under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. And the page is well notable. So I think it needs to be kept.
103.127.222.50 (talk) 08:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep- These references ],

],] clearly passes WP:GNG.103.102.136.170 (talk) 20:59, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please review newly located sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you point out which one(s) out of what you added are reliable? I checked the first two from the TOI and both are unreliable and fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA based on a recent RSN discussion. The bylines are "TOI Entertainment Desk." --CNMall41 (talk) 15:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete The cited sources are press releases, so not independent (zee5, editorji, ottplay, timesofindia); have no reputation for accuracy or fact checking (prothomkolkata, tollytales, khabor24x7, calcuttastory); or, although from legitimate news outlets and sometimes having a byline, are almost entirely based on coming-soon promotional materials (eisamay, aajkaal, hindustantimes). The greatest degree of independent analysis beyond a recap of the plot as revealed by promos is a mere two sentences in aajkaal. Searches did not find better sources, so not remotely notable. I'm disinclined in this case to redirect as an WP:ATD because of the extent of promotional editing around Zee Bangla TV series. --Worldbruce (talk) 18:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Harvey Spencer Stephens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Actor primarily known for one part in one movie. Accordingly, fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. There are plenty of sources discussing the one movie and one part, but none for other significant acting parts. Tagged for notability since 2018. Geoff | 14:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Comment: This is an odd one, the sourcing used is about the criminal charge/conviction, but it's in RS. The Golden Globe nomination makes him notable, but the sourcing is about him, but for another reason. I guess it doesn't really matter, the article isn't about his crime, but about him. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep: Keep based on the numerous articles in RS about his arrest; they do go into detail about his prior acting roles, so they are about this person, but not about his award nomination. Oaktree b (talk) 00:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep, there are several sources about him though, many are about his arrest, his acting career was also referenced in the headlines. This goes to show that his acting career was notable and I have brought in some sources about his career not the arrest and sentencing. Ednabrenze (talk) 15:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. If anyone wants this content available to do a rewrite and a refocus, let me know and I will draftify for you. Daniel (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Ecoism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page on a philosophy with only primary sources, and no evidence of any secondary or other coverage. Original editor reacted to notability tags by removing references to Hares Youssef, but not in fact improving notability. It appears to be mainly promo of WP:OR, quite probably with COI as the only other edits by the original author were for Hares Youssef. I see no notability proof, so nominating for deletion. Ldm1954 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Convert to page on the book. The book espousing this philosophy and the primary source used for it passes WP:NBOOK. Reviewed here and here. Probably more but that was from a surface level search. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
An interesting suggestion that I would not be adverse to, but someone would have to rewrite. Lets wait for more comments. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Revising my opinion about changing it to the book; that would have to be WP:TNT. The book is about Ecologism, which is not Ecoism. This article is about an invention by Hares Youssef, and the book quoted as a source is not appropriate or relevant.Ldm1954 (talk) 20:31, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah the author of this page seemed to conflate one guy's invention with the idea promoted by the book, which is notable, so it's kind of half half. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Adding a ping to @Oaktree b and Prof.PMarini: in case they want to comment considering the source of Ecoism. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Well I can't open those from the link to Proquest above, I've tried using the Wiki Library, but I don't know what the book is called to be able to look up these sources... Oaktree b (talk) 17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Library search brings up things related to psychology and what seems to be eco-conscious consumers, so I'm not sure how that could help this discussion Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
There are pages such as this which talk about ecologism. The topic Ecoism is the invention of Hares Youseff, as stated in this link on the page. Ecologism is an established philosophy, but is not the same as Ecoism from everything I have seen.
The topic Ecologism is different, and since 2006 has been a link to Environmentalism. Ldm1954 (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete If we have to sort through sources to try and find some that fit, I don't see the notability involved. We have no sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agreeing with Ldm1954 that Ecologism and Ecoism are different. Ecologism is the better title of an article; though we would still need to WP:TNT this one. The article seems to just introduce the term Ecoism then discuss Ecologism. As noted by PARAKANYAA the article seems to merely conflate Ecologism and Ecoism, in order to lend notability to Ecoism. Ecologism might stand a better chance of having its own article or at least be written as a section under Environmentalism. Prof.PMarini (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was draftify‎. Daniel (talk) 04:36, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Sesh Jibon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Disputed draftification and moved back to mainspace without source improvements. Everything falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA or is otherwise unreliable. A WP:BEFORE shows a bunch of churnalism based on the announcement of the film and the trainler release, but nothing that could be considered significant coverage. Attempted to DRAFTIFY as an WP:ATD hoping more sources would come out once it is released, but here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 19:18, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Again, "may be considered notable" and "notable" are two different things. This is becoming ad nauseam. Can you point out the sources that show this IS notable? --CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Which references specifically? --CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus‎ and no indication further input is forthcoming Star Mississippi 02:34, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

RMA Gold Airways (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am nominating the Knowledge (XXG) article on RMA Gold Airways for deletion because it violates several key Knowledge (XXG) policies, particularly those related to notability, verifiability, and neutrality. RMA Gold Airways never operated any aircraft, had no crew, and failed to launch its proposed services, meaning it did not achieve any significant presence or impact in the aviation industry. According to Knowledge (XXG)'s notability guidelines, a subject must receive significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to merit an article, which this airline lacks. The article relies primarily on newspaper sources that provide speculative and critical commentary, with some citations explicitly referring to the airline as "pretend." This raises concerns about verifiability and neutrality, as the article gives undue weight to an entity that never existed in a functional capacity.

Furthermore, retaining this article violates Knowledge (XXG)'s What Knowledge (XXG) is not policy, specifically the sections that prohibit hosting content about subjects that do not meet notability criteria and that function as promotion. The article presents unverified and speculative content, making it more akin to advertising for an unrealised venture rather than an encyclopaedic entry. By not deleting this article, Knowledge (XXG) risks breaching its own policies designed to maintain the quality and reliability of its content. Therefore, I recommend that the article be deleted. Ansett (talk) 23:00, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 23:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Fairfax Community Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A run-of-the-mill large church. No secondary coverage in the article, and none found. Just called "Fairfax Church" now, which makes searching difficult. Walsh90210 (talk) 22:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Old Four (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has been nominated before for deletion and nothing was decided. There still exists issues on citations and page updates. Google searches of this "conference" offer no notable references or sources. The talk page for the article even indicates discussion back in 2006 on the lack of noatibility amongst the university sport groups. I propose deleting the article. User:R.schneider101 21:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Svärtinge SK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Expanding on Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish club with very modest history meeting GNG. The club has languished on the 6th and 7th tier, and it appeared in a preliminary cup round but not the real cup. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Söråkers FF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Expanding on Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Srbija FF, I don't see this low-level Swedish club with very modest history meeting GNG. The club has languished on the 6th and 7th tier for men and the 5th and 6th tier for women. Geschichte (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Iranian Ghadir Iron and Steel Company (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:CORP, Very ordinary company with nothing special, and no achievements, most of the references are unacceptable: some links from company's website (igisco.ir), some links are company info page in stock websites or profile, some refs are WP:TRIVIALMENTION. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 20:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect‎ to DNA Oyj. History is thereunder should someone want to merge sourced material. Star Mississippi 02:33, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

PlusTV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page doesn't cite any source, doesn't seem neutral enough, and its notability is uncertain. Cornflake000/ 20:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Redirect per @Mushy Yank; not much encyclopedic or verifiable to merge. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Abdullah Al-Marri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any evidence of a WP:GNG pass for the footballer of this name. The best that I can find is a press release from his club, which is neither significant nor independent of the subject. Spiderone 19:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Shirley Ho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC Possible self-promotion page. Does not meet WP:GNG nor WP:ACADEMIC.

  • Regarding WP:GNG: essentially all references point directly to the individual's personal website, personal pages at affiliated institutions (Simons, Princeton, Carnegie Mellon University, NYU), or publications
  • Regarding WP:PROF: the achievements are low compared to the field average (astrophysics), and many claims are not really supported by references even after searching the internet. More in detail, testing the criteria for academic notability:
  1. Impact: citation rates in astrophysics tend to be high, due to membership in large collaborations. Most of the citations come from such memberships
  2. Awards: Giuseppe and Vanna Cocconi Prize and NASA Group Achievement Award are group collaboration awards given to members of a large collaboration; Macronix Prize is also given for "leadership in large, international collaborations" as well; Carnegie Science Award and National Blavatnik Finalist have arguable prestige to justify the existence of a Knowledge (XXG) page
  3. Scholarly association: the International Astrostatistics Association Fellow is not highly selective or prestigious (its Knowledge (XXG) page itself lacks secondary sources)
  4. Impact on Higher education: no evidence
  5. Distinguished appointment: there is no evidence of the alleged Cooper-Siegel Development Chair Professorship, other than the subject's website and CVs. In any case, this is a junior professorship that lasts up to 3 years and can only be renewed once
  6. Administrative post: no evidence
  7. Impact outside academia: lack of broad media coverage
  8. Scientific editor: no evidence

In spite of the brilliant career, the subject's accomplishments and impact do not probably warrant a Knowledge (XXG) page? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 17:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Astronomy. Spiderone 17:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California, New Jersey, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:06, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. There do appear to be autobiography issues here, and that needs to stop, but I don't think that's an adequate reason for deletion by itself. This is a field where participants in huge collaborations get tiny parts in publications with huge citation numbers, and Ho is no exception. My usual strategy here is to look at first-author publications, realizing that this will also produce significantly smaller citation counts. For Ho I find on Google Scholar citation counts of 454 ("Correlation of CMB with large-scale structure I"), 176 ("Clustering of sloan digital sky survey III"), 53 ("Sloan Digital Sky Survey III photometric quasar clustering"), 47 ("The Posterior distribution of sin (i) values"), 42 ("Luminous red galaxy population") etc. If that were all, I wouldn't think it quite enough for WP:PROF#C1. But we also have individual recognition and to some extent in-depth coverage of her with the Macronix Prize , (state-level) Carnegie Science award , Blavatnik finalist , and fellowship of an obscure society. We also have some media coverage of her for her work on AI-based universe simulation . I think it all adds up to enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
    That's true, it seems quite arguable. I am a bit skeptical about WP:PROF#C2 as an additional criterion to satisfy WP:PROF#C1 because it seems hard for me to judge the prestige of the awards. There has been media coverage, but it does not seem to be independent of her affiliations (e.g. CMU).
    • Winners of the Macronix Prize (now OYRA ) generally do not seem to have Knowledge (XXG) pages, and the prize itself does not seem to get much media coverage
    • The Carnegie Science award is at the state level and again seems to be mainly covered by her university, Carnegie Mellon (which is enough to document that she won the prize, but not to judge whether it is prestigious)
    • It is also not clear whether the Blavatnik Award for Young Scientists is important enough to warrant a Knowledge (XXG) page (the wikipedia page itself has not been for a few years)
    • Media coverage of her work on AI-based universe simulation comes from the foundation where she is a group leader, the Simons Foundation, and is not a secondary source
    It seems that secondary and independent coverage would help to confirm the importance of these achievements. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 22:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Keep?. An unusual GS citation record like hers needs to be scrutinized as there are many reports around recently of citation gaming. This is a high citation field but I note that many of her papers have few authors which supports the strength of her contributions for a pass under WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC).
    Trying to understand whether this should be considered extraordinary impact, I just had a look at Web of Science (which usually only considers actual citations to peer-reviewed journals). It reads 9 publications as first author (2 of them with more than 50 citations) and 23 as last author (3 of them with more than 50 citations). In addition, there are ~20 publications with more than 50 citations on GS where Ho is neither first nor last author. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Impact: It should be noted that in Machine Learning (which currently Shirley Ho is publishing in recently this area substantially), the senior author who guides the work are usually at the *END* of the author list, and when there are two senior authors, then they are listed towards the end as well. Notable examples includes the following: Lagrangian Neural Network Discovering Symbolic Models from Deep Learning with Inductive Biases
It should also be noted that while there were multiple large collaboration papers that included her name that may have biased the citation count, the number of participants in these large astronomy collaborations tend to be hundreds to thousands, while most of her papers have small number (~6) of collaborators where she seems to be the senior person.
Awards: National Blavatnik Finalist award is given 28 scientists across the country (including fields ranging from biology, ecology, life sciences, to chemistry, computer science, engineering, physics to applied mathematics). LINK The website seems to point to quite a serious selection process as well.
Media coverage of her work: She is the PI / director of Polymathic AI (which is a collaboration building an AI scientist). The work of Polymathic seems to have received quite a bit of media coverage: a few examples: , , Surelyyouarejoking (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to the 11 edit (all on this subject) for these comments. Do you have any connection with the subject that should be reported under WP:COI? Xxanthippe (talk) 02:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC).
WP:COI: It is indeed an interesting coincidence that "Surely" in User:Surelyyouarejoking is pronounced similarly to "Shirley", and that the page was originally created by a similar single-purpose profile User:Shirleysurely and soon deleted for lack of notability. Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
@Georgebrown5566, you are also a new user account, and nominating Shirley Ho for deletion is your third edit ever. Doesn't this suggest your account to also be a similar single-purpose profile? CaptainAngus (talk) 01:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
It was more of a triggering event. As a scientist too (in a different field) it hurts to see relatively young scientists using this site to boost their notoriety. Instead of complaining, I thought I could make the difference, and more is coming! You can see more contributions on my side (time permitting), I asked my mentor if I am following the right procedure, and yes, please feel free to give feedback or suggest other ways to help! I don't know the person or the specific awards, this is what I could find online, so please double check :) Georgebrown5566 (talk) 06:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Impact: (please see the comment above for the discussion about the questionable impact, considering both first and last authorship); papers should be peer-reviewed to be considered, and , which appears to be only a preprint, does not contribute to WP:PROF#1; according to Web of Science, Ho appears to be the senior person on about 14% of her publications
  • Awards: the question is whether the Blavatnik Prize is a major award comparable with the Nobel prize or Fields Medal, or whether it still conveys a high level of academic prestige; in the case of Blavatnik, Ho is a finalist but did not even win the full award .
  • Media coverage: should we consider the contributions to "Polymathic AI" as general notability WP:GNG? the organization does not have a Knowledge (XXG) page and does not seem to conduct peer-reviewed scientific research (I could only find one published paper of arguable impact). The mentioned articles show media coverage but do not show impact, since they mainly refer to the beginning of the collaboration but not to its achievements; it is written in an interview style and many of the articles come from institutions affiliated with the initiative , probably not independent.
Maybe this could be considered for WP:TOOSOON? Georgebrown5566 (talk) 07:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
TOOSOON is what you say, after justifying a delete opinion, when you think they are on track to become notable later. It is not a justification in itself. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:31, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

  • Keep per NPROF#5. A named chair at Carnegie Mellon is listed here ("She joined Carnegie Mellon as an Assistant Professor in 2011, becoming Cooper Siegel Career Development Chair Professor and tenured Associate Professor.") I consider @David Eppstein's comments on citations and prizes persuasive as well, in lieu of my own capacity to weigh in on their relevance. Oblivy (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
    • That definitely does not pass #C5, though. C5 is for "a comparable level of achievement" to distinguished professor, a step above an ordinary full professorship. A "career development chair" given to newly tenured associate professors does not match that description. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
      That makes sense. In fact, I found the listing of dual-roles (chaired professor and associate professor) confusing. So much to learn... Oblivy (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. The awards (or near awards) all together come very close to meeting WP:NACADEMIC. I would have expected more independent Google news coverage (so as to satisfy WP:GNG), but I think on net this meets the WP:NACADEMIC guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 13:53, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Per the redirect !votes and Rorschacma's comment, there is doubt about whether redirect is a viable ATD here. Any editor is welcome to create a redirect editorially, and if that happens, it can be discussed at RfD. Daniel (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Sharon Purcell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article cites two sources, both of them are unreliable. It is solely comprised of a plot summary with no reception. Nothing else was found via WP:BEFORE. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was merge‎ to Baybayin. ✗plicit 23:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Basahan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just a duplicate article of Baybayin. Remsense ‥ 诉 15:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect‎ to Morley–Ellenbrook line without prejudice against merger. Owen× ☎ 15:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Bennett Springs East railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This station is not under construction and there are no plans to begin construction anytime soon. Therefore, there are very few sources for this station, and it can be adequately covered at Morley–Ellenbrook line. Steelkamp (talk) 14:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. Mojo Hand (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

MTS (group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a dance music band, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The attempted notability claim here is that they had a single chart in specialty charts, like RPM Dance and Billboard Bubbling Under, that are not the primary national hits charts for the purposes of NMUSIC #2, and thus do not constitute an instant notability freebie in the absence of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about the band -- but the only other source here is an unreliable source that contradicts some of the claims in this article (compare our "MTS was a Eurodance project formed in Canada" to ""MTS was an American eurodance project created in Miami, Florida"), and a WP:BEFORE search found absolutely nothing else: apart from more unreliable sources, the only thing I found was a brief glancing namecheck of the song's existence as a song getting played on a radio station in an article about that radio station.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the sourcing from having to be better than it is, especially given the conflict about whether they were Canadian or American in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 12:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Samuel Bagín (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I cannot find any evidence of notability on this young Slovak men's footballer. Search results in news sources only come up with passing mentions and transfer announcements, such as this one, but I'm not sure how reliable the source is. Notability is not inherited from playing for a big club or league. This might fall under WP:TOOSOON, but consider that AS Trenčín is certainly not well-known outside Slovakia anyway, I don't think there will be any significant coverage in reliable sources of Bagín in the coming years. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:38, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy delete per G3 by Bishonen. (non-admin closure)‎ Shellwood (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Sseruwagi Sinclaire Sebastian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a hoax at some level. I doubt this person edited/composed for these major films at the age of 5. The page even mentions “his compositions have been uncredited for years”. and are movie databases that aren’t reliable and any other verification is based off IMDb. Nothing I can see justifies keeping. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 11:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. /Rational 10:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Cyprus–Finland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced for 15 years. The external links provided are primary. No third party sources to meet GNG. LibStar (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect‎ to Merzak Allouache#Selected filmography. as a natural ATD. Owen× ☎ 14:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

On a Bicycle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Simply fails WP:NFILM. Nothing to suggest notability. No critical reception from reliable sources whatsoever. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. Liz 07:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Oleksandr Pshenychnyuk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the same sort of case as Vladyslav Kalyn, Yaroslav Kysil and Roman Savchenko (footballer), all recently deleted young Ukrainian footballers with no significant coverage from independent sources. To qualify for an article, there must be multiple instances of significant coverage to pass WP:SPORTBASIC and WP:GNG. Please note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from playing for a notable club or notable league and that pointing out that other non-notable players also have articles is not a relevant reason to keep. WP:NSPORTS2022 confirms that the cameo appearances for Chornomorets are not sufficient for notability under current consensus. The references included are trivial; UA Football is a mere squad list mention and Sport.ua is likewise just as bad. Likewise, I found Sport Arena, a trivial mention in the match report and goal listing at the bottom, and Rivne, which lists him in the U19 squad list and mentions him once further in the prose. Spiderone 09:09, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Comment: In my opinion it's not true if we talk about the recently deleted article Roman Savchenko (footballer), cause there is a reference which imho provides WP:SIGCOV. The same is about the recently deleted article Vladyslav Kalyn ... the article imho has references which also provide WP:SIGCOV. Furthermore Vladyslav Kalyn as player provides enough notability ... he is a ukrainian youth international (U17 and U18), and the facts have been backed by the appropriate references in the article. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 20:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
"...cameo appearances for Chornomorets..."
What about constant presence in the youth national team (U17, U18) ? I mean Vladyslav Kalyn. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 20:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Youth football appearances have never conferred notability, even prior to WP:NSPORTS2022 they were considered inadequate in the absence of WP:SIGCOV. Spiderone 21:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
The nom has made very clear, citing multiple policy pages, that run directly counter to your opinions about why this article is notable. I strongly suggest reading those pages and making note of what actually defines a subject's notability. Appearances for youth national teams do not count and neither do appearances for a professional team—see the somewhat recent changes at WP:NSPORTS2022. Anwegmann (talk) 04:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
There are plenty of young footballers that meet GNG. Nestory Irankunda and Claudio Echeverri are both the same age as Pshenychnyuk but have achieved way more coverage than him and therefore pass GNG. Age is not the issue, it's simply just the fact that not every professional footballer warrants an article because, simply put, nobody has cared enough to write at length about Pshenychnyuk yet. He may well become notable in the future but he may also disappear into obscurity like tens of thousands of others. It's not our job as editors to predict who will be notable so we are best waiting until they get big coverage like Irankunda, Lamine Yamal etc. before creating an article. Spiderone 12:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Why this protection (=SALT)? Especially if in the meantime the player develops, has a good career, gets media exposure and deserves a wikipedia article. Web-wiki-warrior (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 21:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete and SALT—This is a repeated thing we keep seeing. The editor who created this article and several others has not been following WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG standards, and this article is a good example of how that is a problem. Anwegmann (talk) 03:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete, to Spiderone's point, it is indeed possible for a young footballer of this age to have sustained coverage if they are notable (fun bit of trivia, I have shared a football field with Irankunda on many occasion!). Pshenychnyuk does not reach that threshold of coverage and therefore doesn't meet the notability standards required by Knowledge (XXG). Daniel (talk) 19:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Andrey Rudoy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to fail WP:NBIO. The Russian sources on this person's activities presented in the article are either blogs or very insignificant media. The conformity of WP:POLITICIAN and WP:SINGER criteria are also failed. Dantiras (talk) 12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 07:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Peter Rowley (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One notable Peter, another not so notable and one partial match can all be handled by one or two hatnotes in Peter Rowley. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Information (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Redirect to Controlled Unclassified Information. Knowledge (XXG) is WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Mentions of NNPI are solely in this context ( , not WP:SIGCOV.

NNPI is one of many, many unremarkable categories of Controlled Unclassified Information, to where this article should redirect. Longhornsg (talk) 05:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz 06:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect‎ to Peace Action#Grassroots work. Daniel (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Student Peace Action Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is not WP:NOTABLE. Within the article, there are no reliable, independent sources listed. Until they are found (if they exist), the article should not exist on Knowledge (XXG). AEagleLionThing (talk) 06:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was delete‎. Liz 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Magaya Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Knowledge (XXG) should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was keep‎. Since the editor who placed the UPE tag on this article is now supporting Keeping it, I tend to weigh that in favor of this article. The nominator didn't help his case with a nomination statement that wasn't specific to this article with an assessment on its content and sources and which was copied and pasted on other AFDs. The whole deletion rationale rests on the undesirability of UPE but that doesn't seem to be a problem to the participants here. Liz 03:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Paul Lucas (playwright) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Knowledge (XXG) should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz 02:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Hodara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Knowledge (XXG) should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to clean the article up if the PROF score justifies it. Patiently waiting for the answer to my question. Rest assured that I had read the intro and had taken it into full account before writing my comment. gidonb (talk) 04:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gidonb: See analysis by David Eppstein below. BD2412 T 20:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Delete. I didn't find any evidence of heavily cited works that could pass WP:PROF#C1, and although the article lists many books I found only two reviews of one of them , not enough for WP:AUTHOR. The article lists nothing else that suggests notability. So although there is visible evidence of UPE in the form of the block log of the article creator rather than (as so often) merely the unsubstantiated opinion of the nominator, I think we can delete on the basis of notability alone without considering the UPE. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I’ve reviewed and cleaned up many biography articles recently, and nearly every second article has one or two tags regarding sourcing, promotional tone, and so on. I don’t think that’s a valid reason for deletion. This specific article doesn’t read as promotional in its current form. The COI tag states, "It may require cleanup to comply with Knowledge (XXG)'s content policies, particularly neutral point of view," but this article appears to have already been cleaned up, so I believe the tag can be removed. Whizkin (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Daniel (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Danny Kennedy (speedway rider) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. Only primary sources provided. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV about the guy Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 06:50, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:39, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further input on the sourcing presented, as to if it's significant or not. Late sentiment has been to keep but further input would be great to establish a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

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

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑