Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

17 September 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

< September 16	September 18 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

International Association for Greek Philosophy

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced article created by an editor banned for copyright. The first page of results failed to provide any useful coverage. WP:TNT also applies given the potential this is a copyright violation. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Philosophy. Traumnovelle (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isabelle Poulenard

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 04:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gaëlle Méchaly

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

Tagged for BLP sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 04:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Benares brass

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

"Benares brass" isn't a thing; it's just brass items made/sold in Varanasi. Just like there isn't a page for "Benares trinkets", there doesn't need to be one for Benares brass. Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EyeCarePro

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

I'm not seeing much evidence of WP:CORPDEPTH KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Medicine, Internet, Canada, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1940–41 Primera Fuerza season

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

Only very minimal content inside the article and has no inline citations. The one and only source ([1]) is by the RSSSF, which collects statistics of every football result. Due to it lacking coverage in sources, it fails WP:GNG. Azarctic (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Mexico. Azarctic (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am curious why you picked this season page out of all of them from 1902-03 to 1942-43. Technically there is nothing wrong with the article, it shows a historical table of what was then called an amateur league. However I believe the league did have good coverage in Mexican media. There maybe room for improvement, but in it's current form, I would combined all the league tables into one or maybe two articles. But historically, this league is part of the history of football in Mexico. So... also, how much WP:BEFORE did you do? I guess the coverage would be different in the 1940s due to WW2 and the political situation, so my bet is it's all about the offline sources anyway. Govvy (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These tables are irrelevant anyway. It can’t be that significant if it’s getting 19 views per month either. All these seasonal articles should really be redirected to Primera Fuerza or deleted because there is barely anything in them in terms on content, which is why I picked this one because it has less content than the others, as well as barely any coverage. Azarctic (talk) 11:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:14, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Primera Fuerza - possible search term. Giant Snowman 19:16, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Direct predecessor of the current Liga MX, there is a lack of sources but the notability exists. Svartner (talk) 11:50, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, the article in Spanish has literary sources on the history of Mexican football that seem credible to validate the information. Svartner (talk) 11:57, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A review of sources, and those in the Spanish-language article, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:13, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - just to be clear, deleting this article would also confer deleting every single "Primera Fuerza" season from 1902 to 1943. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as this division is notable, and so are its seasons— important to note that it was the highest-level division in the country. Impossible for me to review and search all the Spanish-language offline sources, but the existence of sources such as Crónica del fútbol mexicano: Por amor a la camiseta and Historia General del Fútbol Mexicano and their usage as sources on the Spanish-language article suggest that they have material related to this specific season and the other seasons of this competition as well. Overall, it does us no good deleting this as it's clearly the highest level for football back then in Mexico, sets a bad precedent for football seasons in other countries too. The only reason this would be deleted is because it's hard to find offline sources, to dissect them, and to use them on Wikipedia. Which would be a shame. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And from experience, the RSSSF tends to be highly reliable for the tables of these older competitions. Svartner (talk) 18:10, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I see No consensus yet. I'll just add that we don't judge notability based on how many views an article gets per month but by whether reliable sources can demonstrate SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:48, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - obviously notable. Article should be improved. No one would propose deleting a 1940s England Division 3 table; nominations like this baffle me. Nfitz (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. I closed this discussion as a Redirect but several editors have challenged the closure (which I will post below this relisting) so I have reverted my closure and given the discussion a final relist and will have another closer review this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:13, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was my original closure of this discussion The result was redirect‎ to Primera Fuerza. Closing this as a Redirect as an ATD. Despite this AFD being open for 3 weeks, editors have failed to add a single reliable source to the article under discussion or bring one into this discussion so I can not close this as Keep. I encouraged editors to review sources in the Spanish language article but that didn't happen either. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ‎ keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Paul (scholar)

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

No notability within the criterium of academic. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 03:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WITHDRAWN DUE TO PAST DISCUSSION Quick, Spot the Quetzalcoatl! (talk) 03:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Donald MacMillan (rugby union)

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

No sources, and seems to have no real notability. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 02:57, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Known as "Ian" rather than Donald, which may assist your searches. Plenty of coverage on Trove and I've added some of them to the page. Got more results for the typo "Mc"Millan.[2] Jevansen (talk) 23:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be helpful to have a review of the new content additions. Also, please do not move an article that is the subject of an AFD discussion during the AFD. It confuses our editing tool, XFDcloser which doesn't understand why the article is at a different name.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vector TDx

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

Got reviews from IGN and PocketGamer, everything else is an unreliable source or trivial mention. Attempts to find significant coverage in magazines failed. Doesn't seem to pass the notability threshold for a new article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Could not find more sources about this game. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think this might get there. Small review from The Guardian [3]. My read of WP:SALON.COM is that it's borderline as a source. ~ A412 ^talk! 15:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly small, so I won't immediately withdraw the nomination, though I do admit that it might push people to "weak keep". Now I essentially have no opinion about whether it should get deleted or not. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dug through the web and found few more sources: Four more passing mentions on IGN, JayIsGames (twice), Four more passing mentions on Kotaku, and a few more articles on PocketGamer (1, 2, 3, 4). Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:38, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An assessment of newly found sources would be helpful to a closer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italy women's national under-18 softball team

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

Unable to find any coverage to meet the WP:NORG or WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Italy. Let'srun (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already nominated at AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore women's junior national softball team) so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basem Al-Shayeb

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

I believe that the above article is a blatant example of self-promotion, and does not meet Wikipedia's notability requirements for articles about people. The article heavily references the accolades and accomplishments of this person, seemingly for no other reason than to make them sound impressive, but their listed accomplishments and scientific contributions, though interesting on their own merits, are frankly not very noteworthy against the backdrop of the molecular biology field. They obtained a PhD from UC Berkeley, got their dissertation work published in some high-profile journals, and co-founded a startup- so what? This is not a singular accomplishment; this person did not discover anything that significantly advanced the field, and to the extent that they did, they did not do so alone. There are many other individuals like them out there for which we do not - and should not - have articles.

Furthermore, the article shows every sign of having been written by either the subject themself or someone close to them, with the intent of misrepresenting their accomplishments for self-aggrandizing purposes; to wit:

1. The article as originally written named the subject as the founder of the listed company; they were a co-founder.

2. The article as originally written stated that the subject "led the discovery of" the various listed topics; they were co-first author on two of the papers and a first author on one, and moreover all of this work was evidently done during their PhD, meaning that their graduate advisor technically "led" the work in question.

3. Following my attempts to correct these misstatements, at least two single-purpose accounts were created which proceeded to revert these changes and call into question my motives in editing. I have little doubt one or both of these accounts belongs to the subject of the article.

I am aware that my actions here may be interpreted as implying some ulterior motive, but I assure you I have none: I simply do not look favorably upon people who abuse Wikipedia for self-aggrandizement and self-promotion, especially (as in this case) while being verifiably dishonest, and I am acting accordingly. Xardwen (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Science, Technology, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree. Wiki analytics indicate that the page has been visited 7130 times, with 13 average visits per day this year. There is significant coverage in reliable third-party sources that are independent of the subject. This suggests some noteworthiness, even if you personally think it undeserved. A quick search also yields further attributions that are not present in the article, including references in two 2024 books: Superconvergence How the Genetics, Biotech, and AI Revolutions Will Transform Our Lives, Work, and World By Jamie Metzl, and The Nobel Prizes 2020 By Karl Grandin.

It appears that the original edits that you mentioned, Xardwen, had deleted relevant news sources. They also included unsourced information, a copyrighted photo and a LinkedIn profile which are all against WP and the edits were addressed by seasoned wikipedians accordingly. It is inappropriate to insert unsourced personal opinions or skepticisms into an article. Your statements also seem to repeatedly violate both WP:AFG Assume Good Faith and WP:PA No Personal Attacks principles with potentially libelous phrases against a public figure?

Considering your edit warring and your statement of being in the same field and in the same city as the subject, can you explain what precisely is your role or personal and financial relation to the subject for COI purposes? You mentioned strong opinions on biographies, but you have not edited any other biography apart this one. In fact, aside pages on erectile dysfunction, this is the top page you have edited. I have no tie to this topic but I hold strongly that Wikipedia is an open-source encyclopedia, not a weapon to undermine persons, nor to push a particular view or to serve a personal vendetta. Pantrail (talk) 23:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your semantic first author comment, you are enforcing a biased personal opinion in contradiction with referenced sources, which state a leading role. A first author in biological sciences is typically the person who led the work on a day-to-day basis and is considered to have made the most substantial contributions to the overall research. In cases of co-first authorship, all co-first authors are considered to have "led" the work. Your edit was inaccurate because you removed this detail in your stated effort to undermine the subject Pantrail (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to preface the following by saying again that I would very much like a senior editor to weigh in on this matter; I believe an experienced and impartial voice is sorely needed here. That being said:

The Wikipedia guidelines on notability state the basic criteria as follows: 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.

The secondary sources cited in the article are as follows: The Independent, GEN - Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, Chemical Engineering News, CRISPR Medicine, Forbes, Arab America, ScienceAlert, IFLScience, SYFY Official Site, TechCrunch, Berkeley News, The Daily Californian, and the Innovative Genomics Institute website (apologies if I have missed any sources). Of these, I would say that only the first four qualify as reliable and intellectually independent of one another and the subject; the subject was listed in Forbes and Arab America's "30 under 30" lists and thus calling these sources "independent" is questionable, and the last three listed sources are affiliated with the institution where the subject did their doctoral research. ScienceAlert is described as controversial and sensationalistic in its Wikipedia article; IFLScience is described as similarly unreliable in the article on its founder; TechCrunch seems fairly reliable based on this analysis by Ad Fontes Media; SYFY is an entertainment company and should not be regarded as reliable when it comes to science reporting, though the subject's mention by them does speak to the extent of their publicity. Indeed, if their work had not been (rather sensationalistically, in some cases) reported by multiple media outlets, and were I not also a researcher in the subject's field, then I would never have heard of them to begin with. I assure you that were I to learn of another researcher in my field with a Wikipedia page that I felt was unwarranted, I would respond exactly as I have here; this was simply the first such example I have come across.

I would like to briefly interject here that I have never stated that I live in the same city as the subject. I am not sure how this misconception arose. I also do not believe that I am obligated to reveal any information about myself beyond what I already have, and I will decline to do so if asked. I have said previously that I have no personal or financial relation to the subject, and that is all I have to say on the matter.

Regarding my other interests as indicated by my edit history, I do not see how this is relevant, but I appreciate you taking the time to look through my prior contributions - I hope that you found them interesting and informative. I cannot help but notice, however, that you have engaged with exactly no articles aside from the one under discussion, and that your account did not exist prior to last month. The same is true for Xerxescience, who has behaved in a more-or-less identical manner. I find this to be extremely suspect.

Regarding your statements about co-first authorship: yes, it is true that co-first authors on a scientific publication are both regarded as having "led" the work described, but regardless, I think it is unfair and misleading not to explicitly give both individuals equal credit in an article that describes their work. Likewise regarding being a co-founder of a company- yes, a co-founder is obviously considered a founder, but listing them simply as "founder" gives an inaccurate impression of their role in the company's history- and, not incidentally, makes the referenced individual sound more impressive, which seems to be a throughline of almost every aspect of this article as it was initially written.

To the extent that my actions have violated Wikipedia's rules: granted, and I aim to do better to avoid running afoul of them in future. I believe that my criticisms and concerns are valid even if I have crossed some lines, or had a bit too much fun at Mr. Al-Shayeb's expense. As I've said above, I would much prefer if someone else was doing this work instead of me- and yet here we are. Xardwen (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to weigh in as an independent observer, as the flag to remove this article caught my eye. I think this article inflates the significance of its subject. There are thousands of people who recently graduated with PhDs from top universities with papers in top journals each year, yet most of these people do not have Wikipedia articles written about themselves. The wording of the first paragraph reads as an advertisement for Amber Bio. The second included information about the individual being a peer reviewer, which is a non-noteworthy duty that nearly every academic scientist fulfills.The studies called out in the third paragraph were made possible only through the hard work of a large team of fellow students, postdocs, and even Prof. Banfield herself. Given the other co-authors' (including Prof. Banfield's) documented roles in the work, I think the term "led" to describe this individual's involvement is disingenuous. Additionally, there are 600 people located in North America who are added to the Forbes "30 Under 30" list annually (30 people across 20 industries); I think Wikipedia call-outs of achievements should be saved for actually meaningful and highly selective awards. I respectfully disagree that the subject of this article represents a "public figure."

I call on Wikipedia leadership to investigate whether the multiple accounts that created and have been editing this article in a disingenuous/advertising way represent "sock puppets" of the same person. If proven to trace back to the same person, then every indicted account should be banned for violating Wikipedia's policies. I think it is in the best interest of the Wikipedia community to stop self promotion and industrial advertisement on its platform. Hemelina (talk) 07:27, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This has become quite ridiculous. The content of the page cannot be based on subjective opinion of a user, or terminology they think should be used, but rather the information in the sources. Xardwen has now added the same unsourced information and libelous material multiple times, and subjective synthesis of information. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid, and not your blog. Sources cannot be removed based on your subjective opinion of whether information is important, or how "scientific" a source is, or your biased opinion on noteworthiness of the subject's work. And I say it is biased because Xardwen has already engaged in forum shopping and has accused me of COI, and was thusly already resolved by administrators for being baseless. Meanwhile, he states he in the subject's "field" and the address associated with his account links to the San Francisco metropolitan area, in particular Berkeley. It is abundantly clear that he is somehow linked to the subject and has been obsessively editing the page to harass and malign them, which he has expressed himself "with savage delight". Hemelina is also a brand new account that is likely Xardwen's sockpuppet to further target this page, having just been created to install the same baseless claims and remove information. Xerxescience (talk) 04:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, well. Whoopsies. Regardless, I have no personal or financial connection to the subject, though I don't expect anyone to believe me. I have no idea who User:Hemelina is, either. I have opened a "Request for Comment" on the article's Talk page; I hope that this matter will shortly be moved into the hands of more experienced editors.Xardwen (talk) 04:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Xardwen you have yet again inserted original synthesis of your own subjective opinions into the page, replacing the language that was presented in the source articles, and violating Wikipedia:No original research after multiple warnings. I will also note the interesting presentation of the same typos as User:Hemelina. Xerxescience (talk) 04:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion. I'm not sure how to say this politely, but Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinion of an article subject and whether or not you believe they "deserve" an article on this project. None of your opinions are based in Wikipedia policy which, along with consensus, is how AFD discussions are closed. In this case, the standards for notability is WP:NACADEMIC and comments should be made in reference to whether or not this subject can be considered notable by this standard or, less likely, WP:GNG. Notability isn't determined based on editors' opinion, much less accusations against your fellow editors, but based on reliable, independent, secondary sources that provide SIGCOV. Some analysis of sources was done here and I thank you for that start. Those who disagree with the nominator's proposal would spend their time more productively by addressing their evaluation of sources or by finding better ones. It is also clear that none of you have participated in an AFD discussion because it helps the closer if you, except for the nominator, cast a bolded "vote" like Keep or Delete or Redirect. Assessing consensus isn't a vote count but some times when editors post long comments, like in this AFD, a bolded vote makes it obvious what outcome you want to happen. Here's hoping we get some participation from AFD regulars who could also offer a source assessment. Thank you.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:51, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

High Commission of Togo, London

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

Fails WP:ORG. 1 of the 2 sources is its own website, the other is the UK foreign ministry. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 00:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London per the outcome of literally every other prod and AfD about embassies and high commissions in London that has been closed after redirection was suggested, and a trout for the nominator for wasting community time by continuing to AfD plausible search terms with a very clear target. Thryduulf (talk) 09:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people suggest other targets like bilateral relations articles. There is no such thing as "speedy redirect". Never heard that in my 17 years on WP. I would have prodded this but one editor complained they need to go to AfD. LibStar (talk) 09:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing you say will discourage me from nominating embassy articles for deletion. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds WP:POINTY. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's hardly a response to my reasons for nominating for deletion. Do you acknowledge there are in fact more than 1 possible target if redirected. Do you acknowledge that "speedy keep" is only used by you and not a community accepted start for a vote? LibStar (talk) 10:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the biggest time wasters are those who created these embassy articles as stubs and questionable notability. At least one of these editors is now permanently banned. LibStar (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're discussing what should happen with one article out of 6+ million articles on the project. We typically have 70-100 AFD nomination proposals every day. Let's all be CIVIL and not get personal here. We want participation in each AFD in order to come to the clearest understanding of consensus and disputes between editors tends to drive away editors unless they want to join in on the dispute and those are the editors who we don't want here. The focus is the article, not the discussion participants. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:24, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black Fragility

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

This article covers a definition of a term used by one person, it does not appear to be a broader subject of academic discussion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:55, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This term doesn't appear exclusive to Loury. McWhorter uses it (here, here), and Steele uses it in a very different context. Regardless, I'm not finding coverage of the concept itself, to the extent it exists, or evidence that it's a unified concept among the scholars who have deployed it. I also don't see an appropriate redirect to White fragility since the article does not currently use the term in discussing McWhorter's criticism of DiAngelo. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:24, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:25, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term has been the subject of academic papers 1 2, at least one book written by a social scientist 3, and some articles like this one 4. Cortador (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of Cortador's sources, the first two papers (by Steele) are actually the same paper published in two different venues (one a journal, one a book chapter, still the same article). Apart from the headline, the term "black fragility" does not appear once in the paper's text. The book written by Carter, the "social scientist," is self-published. (The author appears to be a corporate trainer/consultant.) The article by Gobodo-Madikizela has a single reference in it to "black fragility": "What concerns me is the trap of black fragility, when the reaction to the behaviour of racists is interpreted as if the particular racist actually is in a position of power in relation to the person who is the target of the racist slur." Thus, Steele and Gobodo-Madizkizela do not constitute WP:SIGCOV and Carter's work is not a reliable source under WP:SPS. Thus, none of these sources contribute to a WP:GNG pass for this concept. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Cortador. KatoKungLee (talk) 00:34, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:36, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flora Plumb

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

Fails WP:NACTOR with no major credits. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and United States of America. CptViraj (talk) 00:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: her career as theater actress and educator seems rather notable and her contributions to TV series/film might be seen as prolific. I haven’t searched for better sources so this is a weak keep. Would a redirect to the Personal life section in the article about her sister be an acceptable ATD? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:56, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre, Education, and California. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:58, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. "Prolific"? Single TV episodes in about 20 shows and 6th billing in a film nobody's heard of denote a journeyperson actor. And being a high school teacher doesn't make her a notable educator. Clarityfiend (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"a film nobody's heard of".....Except the critic from the LAT, for example. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 13:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, practically nobody's heard of. In any case, not a major film, and NACTOR asks for multiple notable films. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:38, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:33, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In searching newspapers I find her named in places like TV listings. These attest to the fact that she appeared on the named TV shows but those short sentences or two are about the plot and her character, not about her. These could be useful in recreating her career if there were also 2 or more substantial articles about her and in reliable sources. This I do not find. The sources given here are two short obits, an article saying that she won a student award (not notable), and a paragraph in a newspaper naming some roles she had in minor productions. I don't find anything longer than a paragraph, and nothing in major news sources. I can't find that she won a major award. I'll swing back by to check on progress, if there is any. Lamona (talk) 02:54, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kimeshan Naidoo

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

This somewhat promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Despite being a WP:REFBOMB, none of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. They are limited to WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:PRSOURCEs, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. His awards are the kind of "30 under 30" cruft not encompassed by the WP:ANYBIO award criterion. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and South Africa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:27, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay @Dclemens1971, fair enough - thank you for your thorough reasoning and looking into it.

I was the original writer who put the article together based on my research on the subject. I'm a new editor so I'm still learning the wikipedia requirements. I also added more sources after your initial deletion request, but this is a good lesson in what sources are valid for me.

I would suggest we turn the page back to a redirect like it originally was before I wrote the article. It was a redirect to the Unibuddy page. Informedpanda (talk) 21:09, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would accept restoration of the redirect as an outcome here. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:28, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I restored it to a redirect but you reverted saying this discussion has to close.

So I will let you handle the process going forward as I'm not familiar with it. Informedpanda (talk) 13:47, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, once an AfD is open, it has to be closed by a non-involved editor. This will happen in less than a week and since both participants support redirect I expect that will be the outcome. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:32, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971, this discussion could probably close faster if you provided a link to the preferred redirect target article. Yes, I know it's buried in the page history but if you identified it, then a closer would probably take care of this discusion sooner. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:18, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Liz the other editor already mentioned it upthread. Unibuddy Dclemens1971 (talk) 08:48, 16 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saheb Bhattacharya

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

No significant coverages. Xegma(talk) 17:32, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and West Bengal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:22, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR, with multiple significant roles in notable productions. The article needs cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 08:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it fulfils WP:NACTOR, but the page should be enriched by more sources. Pinakpani (talk) 07:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:34, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:33, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

T-Bag (Prison Break)

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

Fails WP:GNG not very much WP:SIGCOV mainly just routine episode coverage Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a number of reliable sources which talk about this character, displaying significant real world coverage.
Merge or weak keep. The current article state has too much WP:UNDUE plot and could be cut down to fit in the LoC no problem (most other main characters don't have standalone articles either). On the other hand, I wouldn't be surprised if there are enough sources to turn this topic into a Good Article, so it needn't stay merged forever. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:26, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- ETA: And there is a Prison Break character with GA status (that I don't even remember from watching the show): Alexander Mahone. – sgeureka ^t•c 12:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Sgeureka. I have my doubts about the sources, but a merge is a good WP:ATD, and allows it to be improved. (And potentially split even if I do not see evidence of it yet.) Shooterwalker (talk) 02:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:32, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenVera

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

Non-notable product, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Tule-hog (talk) 01:28, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Tule-hog (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brazil women's national under-18 softball team

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

Subject lacks the needed coverage from reliable secondary sources to meet the WP:NORG/WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Softball, and Brazil. Let'srun (talk) 01:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JEDA Technologies

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

Non-notable company, doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Tule-hog (talk) 01:21, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tule-hog (talk) 02:03, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dale Wood (William Lawrence Hansen)

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

There are no secondary sources that provide information about this person; the entire article is based on primary sources and the article itself admits that little is known outside of government copyright documentation. As a result of the lack of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, the subject of the article fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Music. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As Bill Hansen, he is in the credits as an editor for a variety of television programs and related media that may become Wikipedia articles in the future. Most of all, he has composed music with a variety of notable composers. The other references can likely be found, as requested in the first banner. Starlighsky

Future notability is not a consideration at AfD. And his notability cannot be WP:INHERITED from other composers he may have worked with, or from projects he may have worked on that may (or more likely may not) be notable. What we need is reliable, secondary sources. Can you provide those?? Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will do my best to find those. Starlighsky (talk) 03:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Film, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Griffin Tomas

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this soccer player in independent sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTCRIT. JTtheOG (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Connecticut. JTtheOG (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a quick little google search will tell you that he's played in two usl championship matches. omg i hate stupid people like you... -Soccerfan10001 — Preceding undated comment added 03:25, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li Dong-woon

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 September 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Husam Hourani

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yang Song-guk

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Redirect to 1966 World Cup squad. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the film The Game of Their Lives and it has sigcov on him. I kept a notebook with the content discussing him that I'll have to find. I believe one scene had a player saying something like 'here's [North Korean] newspaper headlines I kept on all of our players' – so it's clear that the players (especially the significant ones like Yang) had sigcov. Let me draftify and I'll turn it into something good. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Kyong-il (footballer, born 1970)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Jong-min (footballer, born 1947)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also lack of WP:SIGCOV. Xegma(talk) 17:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - played at the Olympics and managed the national team, clearly notable - needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 20:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve per GiantSnowman. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 18:33, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminding participants that WP:GNG has not been addressed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CPC and World Political Parties Summit

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

This one-off video conference fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and no indication of WP:LASTING effect whatsoever. Amigao (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The ideas of "No continued coverage" or "no lasting effect" is readily shown to be wrong by the second source, a 2023 academic book discussing the topic over multiple pages. In addition, we currently have multi-language coverage. "Video conference" should not suggest unimportance given the scope and period - event included 500 political parties and 10,000 individual representatives and was conducted in 2021 when China was still quite protective on COVID19 matters. JArthur1984 (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I'm not sure how notable the book source cited is, as it's not an online reference. I can bring up news coverage of the event in 2021. Sourcing is largely in academic journals, into 2023 at least [4], where it's discussed as part of China's larger influence in the world. Oaktree b (talk) 01:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]