Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< December 11	December 13 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Hearth Party

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

This political party has sources, but seems completely trivial within politics. Ran in the 2024 Turkish local elections and gathered 2000 of 46 million votes. When reaching such an incredibly low level of relevance in politics, it is of no encyclopedic interest which hand gestures they like or how they view Atatürk. Geschichte (talk) 09:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I think it should be marged and redirected, into a new 'Hearth Party' section on the Ottoman Hearths article as it is the 'political wing' of that group, both are stubs and there seems to be some considerable overlap already. I don't read turkish (and google translate struggles!) but most of the sources seem to talk about them together. JeffUK 10:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Reads like PROMO for a low-polling party. Hand signals and how they see history is a good half of the article, which seems like fluffy padding added to bulk-up a otherwise thin article. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:01, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TechNext

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

Just mere mentions in the press. Article creator blocked as SOCK. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dmitry Bobriakov (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the sources (at least the online ones) only contain passing mentions of the company; for example, source 2 literally just contains the phrase "The researchers have also launched a startup called Technext" and that's it. Others such as this source only give a small description of the company. Lacks WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:ORGCRIT due to the lack of significant coverage. Beachweak (talk) 09:26, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – None of the sources contain significant coverage of the company itself with most of the mentions being trivial. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shugavybz

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

Yet another article on a musician who has done literally nothing notable to pass WP:NMUSICIAN. Sources from here and a cursory search suggests nothing useful. They're either interviews with the subject, or routine coverages that are entirely dependent on the subject. This is, as usual, a properly written article from the author on a non-notable musician to pretend notability. Also, the TurnTable Certification System of Nigeria is dubious in its entirety. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Most of the sources are either puff pieces that are meant to confer notability on him or interviews. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:17, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has written more than one major hit record, automatically meets WP:COMPOSER, just like a scriptwriter or director who has directed multiple award-winning movies. Even if he doesn't pass GNG, but passes WP:FILMS, he automatically establishes notability. Likewise he passes WP:ANYBIO, with a special recognition from The Recording Academy as a composer. One last thing, I would say the coverage for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], add up to a GNG pass, with an extensive list of production and songwriting credits from "No Girlfriend No Problem", "Away", "One Side", "Yawa No Dey End", "My Baby", and many more.--Afí-afeti (talk) 09:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amadeus Capital Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient WP:ORGCRIT sources to prove notability. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Anne Glover (businesswoman) fpr the founder. Chipka (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOTINHERITED. This is about the firm not the founder. Imcdc Contact 04:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrei Polgar

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

Page`s notability might not meet Wikipedia's standards due to a potential lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. RodrigoIPacce (talk) 11:55, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 13:44, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An analysis of sources:

Can't access source 1, source 2 is unreliable, sources 3, 5, 7, 8 and 12 just have one or two videos from his channel without any mention of Polgar himself, source 4 is a self-published blog, source 6 is just a video, source 9 is his YouTube channel, source 10 is a...course(?), same with source 11, with just a link to his YouTube channel at the bottom, no idea what source 13 is but it's unreliable anyway, sources 14 and 16 are Amazon links, and source 18 is a duplicate of source 6. Sources 15 and 17 are the only ones that mention Polgar by name at all, with 17 being an interview and 15 just talking about his books on Amazon.

In other words, not a single reliable or significant source, aside from possibly 17. Procyon117 (talk) 07:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added few more sources, please have a look. Herinalian (talk) 19:35, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look. I'm still not convinced that notability is met. Procyon117 (talk) 13:36, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:AUTHOR. His works are being used by the Open University,[6] The University of Manchester,[7] The Canadian Encyclopedia [8], the California Council on Economic Education.[9] etc. Herinalian (talk) 19:25, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly isn't borne out by the links you've provided, but even if it were true it would have no relevance to WP:AUTHOR. Axad12 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom. Axad12 (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wedding customs by country

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

Wedding customs by country is too unwieldy and too vague to be useful to anyone Drew Stanley (talk) 06:52, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have fixed this nomination to use {{subst:afd2}}. No opinion or comment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:13, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't actually have a problem with the subject-matter, because an overview of interesting wedding customs is very much an encyclopedic subject, and easily sourced. It is indeed unwieldy if each section becomes too detailed, but it can always have "Main article..." links to longer articles. But the current title is fundamentally wrong. It should be Wedding customs by culture or something like that. Taking one small country, that's part of a larger unit, namely "England", we have large communities who've lived here for generations but whose culture traces back to something else, and whose weddings have more in common with an Indian wedding (for example) than a horse-and-carriage pretty village church archetypical "English" wedding, and yet these people are as much part of England as I am and their customs are now as much a valid part of English life as mine. If the article must do it by country, it will certainly be way too unwieldy, because the "England" section alone will have to address almost every wedding custom seen in the world. Elemimele (talk) 12:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

then it would still be better to delete and make a new article based on existing wedding customs-related articles; it would be better sourcesDrew Stanley (talk) 19:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- the broader topic and grouping is clearly covered by cultural scholars--not just individually but as a comparative study between countries. While I understand OP's concerns, I don't actually believe this article is so bad we need to WP:TNT it. And for better or worse, when it comes to a lot of these cultures where we won't have the manpower to put together an entire article about their wedding culture, "by country" serves as a useful base divider. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:54, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article seems fine as a broad overview of the subject. It's fairly lengthy with some decent sourcing. I see no reason to delete it. Oaktree b (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason for deletion. Good sourced and interesting matter. Itzcuauhtli11 (talk) 18:58, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep gleep fleep flip florp glip glorp beeeeeeeep, etc, seems perfectly notable. Hyperbolick (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Rework the format. As is, this is a bit of a mess that is duplicating what is already out there elsewhere. Here's a solution: keep a lead introduction paragraph, and sort the rest into an orderly list. Set up a table format similar to Women in Guam History. The left-hand first column would link a country main article. Next to the column on the far right, no more than a sentence or two about each item . Use the far right-hand column for any reference. It might take a team to complete. But it would sure improve this mess. — Maile (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hyperbolick, who I think is referring to WP:IAR. Who doesn't love a wedding? Normal editing processes can fix the issues that are in the article. Bearian (talk) 04:37, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Really just mean it's obviously WP:LISTN notable, though. No rule-ignoring required. Bleep bloop. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:48, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emirate of Banu Talis

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG: no English-language sources seem to mention this tribe or emirate at all, much less any indication of significance. At least some of the cited sources do not appear reliable, such as this webpage with no clear scholarly credentials, or the vague citations to an online transcription of Ibn Khaldun ([10]), a primary source. Much of the article is also poorly cited and may include WP:OR. If there's some alternate spelling of the name that yields accessible and reliable sources, you can mention it here; I've tried to search for a few other alternatives and still found nothing. R Prazeres (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not a hoax and certainly existed. Of the sources provided, 2 and 5 are no use as they just link to Google book index pages and not to actual text pages, but the other refs all check out. In addition I found this and this. The ar.wiki article is a very short stub and this much longer article has many unsourced statements that could be trimmed out, but it needs editing, not deletion. Mccapra (talk) 08:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Libya. Shellwood (talk) 11:35, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fiordland Trails Trust

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

WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 06:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Environment. Shellwood (talk) 11:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. There are multiple articles published in The Southland Times that describe the activities of the Fiordland Trails Trust over the past decade. I have listed a group of citations from The Southland Times on the article talk page Talk:Fiordland Trails Trust. I think the article warrants expansion rather than deletion._Marshelec (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have had second thoughts _Marshelec (talk) 20:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. @Marshelec lists some additional sources, but I don't think repeated mentions in the same regional paper constitute significant coverage. The only other mention I can find is here [11]https://www.odt.co.nz/southland/bit-more-help-needed-popular-fiordland-trail , and that's not really significant coverage either, and might be a re-publication of one of the Southland Times articles; I just don't think there's enough there for a whole article. I think the current content could be turned into a couple of extra sentences on the Manapouri and/or Te Anau articles at best. JeffUK 11:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Replace with alternative article The content in the existing article is unsourced and I cannot find adequate sources to back it up. On reflection I have realised that it would be more useful for readers of the encyclopedia to have an article about the trails than the organisation that has planned and created them. So I have created a new article. See: Lake2Lake Trail There is more work to do, but this is a start._Marshelec (talk)
Redirect to Lake2Lake Trail. Well done, Marshelec. Nurg (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tick-Tack

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

No reliable source referring to "Tick-Tack" as a single; Most information stated derives from personal opinion instead of a reliable source (MOS:PUFFERY). George13lol2 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. George13lol2 (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

don't delete the whole article though! just change that bit 161.116.133.70 (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect as per nom, in addition to failed WP:GNG with no WP:SIGCOV other than passing mention from I'll Like You-related reportings. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to I'll Like You per standard protocol for album songs. No reason for an extreme solution like deletion here. Nate • (chatter) 22:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article to remove the MOS:PUFFERY issue, although the subject of the article itself is most likely not notable enough to deserve its own article. George13lol2 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even if you've removed the MOS:PUFFERY issue, the article will still most likely be redirected and the same thing happened months ago with ILLIT's song "Lucky Girl Syndrome", when it pertains to K-pop mostly, song articles are usually not as notable UNLESS they received significant attention. Eg. A pre-release single is usually notable but songs from albums that have already been released but receive a music video months later tend not to be. This0k (talk) 16:33, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The song has charted and although it is not a single can be kept as a song article. This0k (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. This is borderline, as most of the sources talk about the song in the context of the album. But the song charted, and a bit of media interest was raised with the Ava Max English version "Baby It's Both". Binksternet (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SONG. I agree with Binksternet that it's borderline, but if the song charted then the article deserves a chance.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Rankings of 99 and 140, after one week, are nigh unremarkable. Still think redirect for now is proper. Nate • (chatter) 22:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment True. Tick-Tack didn't do as well as Lucky Girl Syndrome, the other promoted non lead single from the album but it did have an English version which makes it a little bit more notable. This0k (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Timōrātus

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

Sources are WP:QS and extremely bloggy and they don't adequately support WP:GNG. I suggest deleting it. Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Christianity, and Kentucky. Graywalls (talk) 06:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the HM reference is good, and the Lloyd Harp IVM review would be pending on the outcome of the RFC regarding IVM. that's two sources, and we'd want three or four. I'm going to take a look before I make a decision.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 10:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The only other coverage I can find that would be RS is from The Metal Resource, and it's mostly reviews. I think for now notability is definitely questionable.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:48, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Nobody is questioning the fact they exist. So the sources do reliably prove it exists. I'm satisfied with that. Graywalls (talk) 17:12, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Okay.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:03, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. This0k (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vision of God Records

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

WP:NCORP failure. Signs of public relations editing also noted in edit history. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, Companies, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there is no significant coverage of the subject in secondary sources. I managed to find this interview with Heaven's Metal, but the write-up is a small paragraph only and the rest is statements by the label owner in response to interview questions.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:56, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seowon (singer)

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, WP:BANDMEMBER with no WP:SIGCOV for individual notability other than passing mentions from Unis-related reportings including but not limited to her "about"-type reporting as part of Unis's promotional debut-related reportings from WP:BEFORE. Suggesting a hard delete (a fresh redirect could be created again, if necessary, without history) since an exact Draft:Seowon (singer) created by the same editor already exists. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 05:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sources are very poor. Also not notable enough — Preceding unsigned comment added by ParvatPrakash (talk • contribs) 06:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:06, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - Jjpachano (talk) 14:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Harris (sprinter)

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines, specifically "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject"; does not appear to have received significant coverage in multiple secondary sources, to have been successful in a major competition, or won a significant honor, as described in WP:ATHLETE Stephen Hui (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Stephen Hui (talk) 06:04, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ per these three sources. Left guide (talk) 06:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All three sources clearly refer to a different Harris -- the Wikipedia article is about a sprinter, but the articles all refer to him as a middle distance runner. The Wikipedia article says he was born in 1956, but the second source says he was 31 in 1996 (i.e. born ca. 1965), and the third source says he was 21 in 1987 (so born ca. 1966). Not the same guy. Stephen Hui (talk) 07:05, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I'll take your word for it, struck my !vote accordingly. Left guide (talk) 07:19, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject tied the world record in the 4 × 220 yards relay and was an NCAA Division I champion, was covered in e.g. "Harris Looking For Better Times". The Daily Progress. 10 Apr 1977. p. 34. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Trackmen Ready For 1980". The Daily Progress. 4 Aug 1976. p. 13. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Rushed to Russia: Harris takes whirlwind trip". The Daily Advance. 21 Aug 1979. p. 22. Retrieved 5 December 2024. "Sports Festival Was Not All Fun". The Daily Progress. 12 Aug 1979. p. 32. Retrieved 5 December 2024. I'll try to incorporate these into the article soon but wanted to get this out before everyone puts their !votes in. --Habst (talk) 11:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Does not meet NTRACK and unclear if that threshold could ever be met, but some of the information above could be placed into more notable articles, such as the NCAA Championship. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 22:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, subject actually does meet NTRACK prong 2 for his international Universiade gold medal. He also tied world records in both the 4 × 220 y and 4 × 200 m. Of course, whether he meets NTRACK doesn't really matter as long as he meets GNG which I think is demonstrated above. --Habst (talk) 20:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst: If someone can add that information to the article with references, I'd be happy to alter my opinion. I see there is that box there, but wondering why it's not mentioned beyond that. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Royal Autumn Crest, thanks, I expanded the article and added some context on that medal. --Habst (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, updating my opinion to Weak Keep Would like to see more expansion. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, article greatly expanded. A source review would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:07, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject notable enough with multiple international accolades. ParvatPrakash (talk) 06:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Samson Arega Bekele

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable businessman. All sources are PR, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Aviation, and Ethiopia. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the {{not a ballot}} template on top, seeing how the previous AfD was filled with socks and SPAs. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:08, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did my research and read the previous AfD as well. The issues raised in the previous AfD were addressed. I do not think it is right to say sources are PR. For instance, the source with https://aec.afdb.org/ is from African Economic Conference (the equivalent of World Economic Conference in Africa) of African Development Bank (the equivalent of World Bank in Africa). My judgement is that an institution of this nature cannot be regarded as PR Source. Again, from my research, one of the sources TimesKuwait has been in the media space since 1996 and another The African Times have been around since 1989. These are independent sources in their own right. Another source - https://aviationbusinessjournal.aero/ is an influential aviation magazine. Since the subject is a top airline business executive, the rest sources are travel and aviation magazines including one that is associated with Havard. So I think the claim questioning the reliability of the sources is wrong. Again, compare the first article and this article and you will see that all issues violated by the first editor were fixed in this new article. The subject is a notable african airline executive in Africa and North America and I think it should stay with subsequent improvements as with all wikipedia articles. Cheers ! Astra Los Angeles (talk) 08:50, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, it's not a puffy as last time, but the "group vice president for customer experience" is very much a mid-level business executive, just above the rank and file. Sourcing now is largely from trade magazines, so nothing has changed since last time. Still a !delete. Oaktree b (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The VP is not a mid-level executive. See this [12] Further research here [13] also shows that there are C, V, D and B level executives and the only category rated as mid level executives here are the B level [14]. VPs fall under the V-suite that are rated senior executives and their roles or level of power depends on the organization and the country. Let's refer to the company itself. The GVP is included in Ethiopian Airlines senior level leadership team as captured here [15] but debating whether VP is a notable position or not is not the main crux and we have to refer to the Wikipedia guidelines on notability here Wikipedia:Notability (people) to consider whether the subject meets the notability criteria. First, the sources are independent and sources like the African Development Bank and the African Business Club of Harvard Business School [16] both mentioned the subject's receipt of US Presidential Lifetime Award which recognizes his contributions. Ethiopian Airline is Africa's largest airline and the subject was its face in North America for two years. Even though the VP is a notable position, the subject is not listed here because he is a VP. He is listed here because he is covered by several independent sources (especially in the african aviation industry where he belongs), the role he played in the airline industry during the COVID pandemic as MD in Canada (that earned him the NCBN Business person of the year award in 2021) and the significant award he bagged in the U.S IN 2023 as contained in the sources. When you look at the profiles of many CEOs on wikipedia including the current CEO of ethiopian airlines, that of this subject has more weight. You can be an ordinary classroom teacher and do big things. In the african aviation industry, the subject has earned it. Astra Los Angeles (talk) 09:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Astra Los Angeles (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment: For perspective, he is (or was) one in a list of 179 similar people [17], so this is very much not a notable position. Oaktree b (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That is a yet to be updated website page. This is the current page for Ethiopian Airline corporate executive Team [18] - the apex leadership and management team of the company. The subject is listed there. Astra Los Angeles (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One from a group of 16 isn't really helping your argument; we aren't LinkedIn, where every person gets an article. Being listed on a corporate website does not in any way show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 05:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and others. Non-notable businessperson, with shallow, limited coverage. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument. A source assessment would be helpful here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject's notability stems not just from holding a VP position but from significant, independently verifiable achievements in the African aviation industry. Credible sources, such as the African Development Bank and the African Business Club of Harvard, highlight his receipt of the U.S. Presidential Lifetime Achievement Award and his recognised contributions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These accomplishments go beyond routine duties, making him a notable figure in his field. The sources cited meet Wikipedia's reliability standards, and the article addresses prior issues raised in earlier AfDs. This case satisfies WP:NBIO through significant independent coverage and impact. <span data-dtsignatureforswitching="1"></span> — AONDOH (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. AONDOH (talk) 12:14, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: MILL. Don't gaslight or sealion us that a VP of an airline is automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please remember to assume good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:45, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not because the subject is a VP but a VP that is notable in the African airline industry and for the significant award he received. 105.112.17.178 (talk) 07:50, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Snooze (Agust D song)

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

Do not believe this passes NSONG. Charting is almost certainly too little (Vietnam Hot 100 page doesn't even verify it's charting; this page does, but that the sourced page doesn't even go past the top 25 of the chart suggests non-notability of the peak position), and the rest of the sourcing is album reviews which all barely mention the song specifically and a database page. Redirect to D-Day (album). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and South Korea. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 02:31, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the song has charted on several national charts (Japan Oricon, Billboard Japan, Billboard Vietnam Hot 100, United States Billboard Digital Song Sales) which is a criteria for WP:NSONG. In addition, there is likely enough coverage in existence to expand the article to be more than the stub it is right now. RachelTensions (talk) 02:43, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well-sourced article, Top 20 in Japan, clearly meets WP:NSONG. 162 etc. (talk) 04:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the album per NSONG: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability. If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." The only other sources being unimpressive appearances in chart statistics is a very low bar and should be ignored. Tag the redirect as having possibilities. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 10:14, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think the WP:NSONG criteria is being met, as exemplified by RachelTensions. The article could also easily be expanded. - Ïvana (talk) 03:09, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The discussion of charting in NSONG is about establishing if a song might be notable, not that it is; charting itself is not not a criterion for being notable. WP:NALBUMS too outlines that charting is only an indication that a recording may be notable, not that it is. At this time, the article is two sentences, supported by three reviews of the song's parent album, and its genre stated in the infobox just failed verification in its source. @RachelTensions and Ïvana: you both talk about expanding the article to meet the actual criterion of NSONG; I'd like to see your proposed additions. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 04:00, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - Few people are likely to do the work when the article might be deleted after they're done, nor are they obligated to do so. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    - I didn't ask or suggest that anyone should do the work to expand the article now; you've read between the lines. I am asking for evidence that the article can be expanded to a satisfactory degree, as it doesn't appear obvious to me. Since this is supposed to be a discussion, and not a vote, I don't think my request is unreasonable. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 16:15, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NSONG. dxneo (talk) 15:41, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to D-Day (album) per nom and Fred Gandt. Charting in and of itself is not a criterion for passing WP:NSONGS. The other sources provided are in context of the album. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Arguments are divided between Keep and Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:42, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the album. Charting could be notable, but there isn't enough sourcing for an article on the song alone. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to D-Day (album). Although this article cites reliable sources, their coverage of the song is trivial at best, so it does not meet the criteria for N:SONG. There also is not enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article about the subject.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before we get too carried away saying there isn't significant coverage...
Other sources significantly covering the song (outside of the context of just a review of the album) include:

Its inclusion in Time Out's "Best 23 Songs of 2023" list [19]

And significant coverage in articles at:

...and that's not even going into all the Japanese-language sources that I'm not familiar enough with to verify. Many sources cover the song as it was the final song completed by Japanese composer Ryuichi Sakamoto prior to his death, and, like I said prior, there's more than enough significant coverage here to put together a perfectly acceptable non-stub article (especially when combined with information on the song in sources that cover it within the broader scope an album review), and its charting coverage.

CC: @DesiMoore @Oaktree b @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars @Fred Gandt

RachelTensions (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- And you didn't feel like mentioning this at all when asked directly about it earlier? I'm no longer involved in this lack of discussion. Fred Gandt · talk · contribs 17:51, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I’m sorry? I didn’t realize we were on a deadline here. If the discussion hasn’t been closed, I’ll present my research at my own leisure without being chastised for it. Thank you! RachelTensions (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just gonna chime in, We Got This Covered is not considered a reliable source. LoTrWiki (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, removed from the list. RachelTensions (talk) 21:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source analysis of recent sources brought into the discussion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:49, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IJEX Exchange

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

Non-notable crypto company. All sources online are PR. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete failing WP:NCORP. No independent coverage found, reliable or otherwise. Not only does the coverage found online consist of press releases, but they are copies of the same two press releases and then some outright advertising. • Gene93k (talk) 05:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nothing shows this company as passing inclusion criteria. All sources are not independent. Mekomo (talk) 06:40, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG. Fails NCORP. Jellyfish (mobile) (talk) 12:27, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, there are TWO hits in Gnews, both PR items. They've got coverage on the Big News Network (I wish I was making this up) [29], so we're a long, long way from notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:09, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clickwheel

AfDs for this article:

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

Was deleted before in 2006, still doesn't seem to meet GNG. Though I don't want this to be deleted either, I think this needs to be. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 00:36, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:47, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find anything about these guys online. Definitely falls under WP:NARTIST. Archimedes157 (talk) 20:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sourcing in the article looks good. And, I am able to find plenty more sources online. Wired has covered this in 2008 at https://www.wired.com/2008/08/comic-books-on/ and in 2009 at https://www.wired.com/2009/05/the-premier-edition-of-the-geekdad-stack-comics-for-your-kids-you/ Meets WP:GNG. Asparagusstar (talk) 21:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, well sourced as is and per Asparagusstar newly found sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmalokam To Yamalokam Via Bhulokam

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

Fails WP:NFILM since the creation of this article [30]. A search in English or Telugu yield no reliable sources [31]. Only sources found were passing mentions: [32] [33] [34]. Webdunia production source(no link on Wikipedia) isn't enough to save the article. DareshMohan (talk) 04:05, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Film, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Telugu films of 2010#July–December: but given the participation of notable film personalities, not opposed to Keep. -Mushy Yank. 07:48, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added two reviews from the sources available. Please check if it can suffice - Herodyswaroop (talk) 08:50, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- does not suffice. Both GreatAndhra and 123telugu are unreliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force. DareshMohan (talk) 07:40, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jónína Kristín Berg

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

Article lacks multiple sources with significant coverage (WP:BIO asks for multiple sources). The most substantial source is the first in the article, a short article in a newspaper.[35] Source 2 is a primary source listing higher-ups in a given organization.[36] Source 3 is a very short mention in a newspaper.[37] Source 4 is used to mention her role as an interim administrator, but with no other notable events occurring during the period. Source 5 is another primary source. A google search for more coverage yielded only social media. Wizmut (talk) 03:18, 12 December 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 December 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Women, Paganism, and Iceland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:39, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No pass of any notability criterion. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. A regional leader and one-time interim leader of a 5k-person neopagan sect is not enough for automatic notability; we need WP:GNG-based in-depth coverage in publications independent of her and of the sect. The first Morgunblaðið source may count towards that but the second has no depth of coverage of her and is in the same publication as the first. So basically I agree with the nominator that we do not have the necessary multiplicity of good enough sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ásatrúarfélagið#Third and fourth allsherjargoðar (2002–present), for the time being. Pretty sure I saw more sigcov of her in the past, either in Icelandic newspapers or some academic anthology, but I can't find it now. Ffranc (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ásatrúarfélagið#Third and fourth allsherjargoðar (2002–present). The Morgunblaðið article is SIGCOV but we need multiple sources of SIGCOV for it to pass WP:GNG. That said, I think a redirect is a better alternative to deletion. Alvaldi (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Savary

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

Non-notable figure skater; does not even come close to meeting the criteria of WP:NSKATE. Includes two local publications; I'll let the community decide whether that qualifies as "significant coverage." Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Delaware. Bgsu98 (Talk) 00:34, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously deleted by WP:PROD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: It is important to keep in mind that more sources exist than are present in the articles. SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV, SIGCOV JTtheOG (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:37, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An-Nibras

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

The article has been tagged for notability issues since 2018. A thorough review reveals no evidence to establish its notability, and no independent, reliable sources are available to verify its significance.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Ādab wa-l-Fann (magazine)

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

The article has been tagged for notability concerns since 2018. Upon review, there is no evidence to demonstrate its notability. Furthermore, no independent and reliable sources exist to substantiate its significance.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and United Kingdom. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:16, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hadatha

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

The article was tagged for notability by Randykitty in 2021. A detailed review reveals an over-reliance on self-references and directory websites. There is no indication of notability, and no independent, reliable sources are available to support the subject.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Lebanon. –𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 03:10, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finding third party coverage of academic journals in Arabic is not an easy task and I’m not sure the infrastructure even exists to query it as we could an English language journal. In the absence of a hard policy on notability for academic journals I would give considerable weight to its longevity and links with higher education, alongside the fact that it clearly isn’t pumping out pseudoscience or acting as a vehicle for cranks. In any case its important enough for Lebanon’s national news agency to announce the publication of each new issue (1 and 2) and for the news of each issue to be covered in the national press (3 and 4). Mccapra (talk) 09:51, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Bronx poisoning

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

Fails WP:EVENT. Not shown to have lasting significance, i.e., continued coverage beyond routine news reports at the time of the incident and at time of the federal criminal complaints, sentencing, etc., of connected people. Bridget (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Social science, and New York. Bridget (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, could not find any non-routine coverage of the poisoning. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:59, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While tragic, this fails WP:NEVENT and contravenes WP:NOTNEWS; every source I could see is routine coverage. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per #4 of WP:EVENTCRIT. Astaire (talk) 15:41, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – These sources (which don't appear to be routine coverage), [38] [39] [40], already provide continued significant and in-depth coverage of the case. Lasting effects arising from this case are possible, but as of yet, haven't happened yet. Quoting from the first article linked: “I’m very sorry, but one of the things my child care inspectors are not trained to do is look for fentanyl,” Dr. Ashwin Vasan, the city’s health commissioner said. [...] “But maybe we need to start,” the commissioner added. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect Wikipedia is not a news tabloid that redirects to Wikinews. 190.219.101.225 (talk) 17:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS states that Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories [as] Wikipedia does not constitute a primary source. The sources above are secondary and are not first-hand reports on breaking news since they provide continued coverage, along with analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the case. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 03:03, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable enough event with SIGCOV. Andre🚐 03:00, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a classic example of Not News. There was significant coverage in New York metro media for two days. Then there was the usual coverage of the plea bargain. That's it. I feel sorry because I grew up in the area and taught over the course of four years in the Bronx. Bearian (talk) 04:47, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a sad and strange story but not a notable topic. There have been over 100,000 drug overdose deaths per year for quite a few years in the United States. The age of the victim does not make this single death notable. Cullen328 (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not news, it must have some sort of lasting significance and this is just a one-off odd situation. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or perhaps even merge into Opioid epidemic in the United States. - Cameron Dewe (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creative Lives

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

Almost entirely primary sourced, some trivial mentions from reliable sources. Beyond that, no independent sigcov to establish notability. Jdcooper (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, Ireland, United Kingdom, Scotland, and Wales. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:18, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Les Marmitons

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

No evidence of notability, although it's existed for nearly 2 decades, it's promotional in tone, and likely a copyright violation of [41]. Zippybonzo | talk | contribs (they/them) 13:07, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Support, article lacks notability. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 06:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sink Cat Based on your rationale, I assume you meant to write "Delete" in bold, not "Support"? It is clearer when AfD !votes are for a specific outcome, rather than just supporting the nomination. The nominator could change their mind, for instance, or (like in this case) not specify the outcome they're seeking. Toadspike [Talk] 10:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yes I had meant delete. — Your local Sink Cat (The Sink). 13:46, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of sourcing that could be used.[42][43][44] etc. Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 22:04, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 13:08, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:08, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Rolling. There are additional sources as well I found off a quick Google search [45] [46] [47]. It meets WP:GNG, but the article is in desperate need of inline sourcing and copyediting. DarmaniLink (talk) 13:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. DarmaniLink (talk) 17:30, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, because it meets GNG, given the sources identified above. But it certainly needs a significant rewrite. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - An organization that seems to have an international presence. Enough sources presented above. Found a couple more (not great ones): [48], [49]. Agree completely, this article needs a lot of work. --Alan Islas (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Cottrill

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Being C-suite at a company is not an inherent designator of notability, especially for a company that isn't even in the Global 2000. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE industry reporting of the movement of executives, not WP:SIGCOV of the subject himself. Other coverage is in relation to who his daughter is or is WP:PROMO. Longhornsg (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Advertising, and Golf. Longhornsg (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida, Georgia (U.S. state), and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:59, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is pretty poor but there are several full-length articles about him in AdWeek, plus the one listed in the article in Forbes. There is definitely more reliable content that could be added to the article. Lamona (talk) 03:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article that can be improved and better sources would be preferable, but currently this article seems admissible to me, it appeared in Adweek and Forbes SparklingBlueMoon (talk) 15:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 01:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to ABC Records. While there is consensus to retain the material, there does not appear to be one to retain as a standalone. Star Mississippi 02:12, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apt Records

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

References only one source and a google search does not yield much notability (i.e: a few questionable sources; Discogs, Rate Your Music, Both Sides Now Publications. Notability seems thin here. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Granted, this is a discontinued label, so much of the info may be in newspapers from its era. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 19:11, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ABC Records: this was its parent label and Apt Records is mentioned there, making it a viable-enough alternative to deletion barring the emergence of more-substantial sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ABC Records. Completely agree with above. I think there's some useful information in the article that could be used within ABC Records, but not enough to warrant its own article. Beachweak (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ rather than redirect. This was just a sublabel for singles releases of ABC, but the label history is noteworthy enough to merit mention in the parent article. Chubbles (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or keep! based on below efforts. Chubbles (talk) 05:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage found at [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], Billboard January 30, 1965 page 4, the liner notes of this, [55] (I consider this a reliable source, it is curated and used by academic sources), 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:14, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for what it’s worth regarding nom statement, Discogs and Rate Your Music are not reliable. Both Sides Now is reliable, but what’s there regarding Apt isn’t significant coverage. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:43, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request at User_talk:OwenX#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Apt_Records.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:38, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge I think there's a potential editorial decision to be made as to whether this should be a stand-alone page - the Billboard coverage is clearly good coverage, I'm not entirely convinced liner notes and a list of releases get us to GNG but there's definitely sources we can use to write about the label. Whether a sub-label should be on the parent page or not isn't something I really care about, but the article as it reads currently is in pretty bad shape and if it's not significantly updated, a merge might be a better option. But while AfD can function as a merge discussion, my entire point is that there's enough sources that we don't need to delete this. SportingFlyer T·C 01:00, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to ABC Records - This is a company (or a subsidiary of one), so the appropriate guidelines are WP:NCORP. That means coverage must be at WP:CORPDEPTH in multiple independent reliable and secondary sources. The run of sources provided are mostly all from Billboard and count as a single source under the guidelines. The other two sources are definitely not at CORPDEPTH, but at least the first Billboard article is, telling us something about the proposed re-activated subsidiary and about a previous hit on the label. But these are also news reporting, which is a primary source. You are right that Billobaord would be curated and used by academic sources, but that word, curation, is key. Academics would be curating this primary source when producing their histories, analysis and synthesis. The academic sources are then the secondary sources. Wikipedia articles are tertiary, and should be written from the secondary sources, not the primary ones. We don't yet have any secondary sourcing. Under WP:SIRS there is not enough here for a standalone article. But, despite that, the first Billboard article is a good find. Used with care, it could be used to flesh out information on this subsidiary of ABC Records in that article. A secondary source would be better, but the primary source provides information that we could present without synthesis in a suitable small section. Although this !vote is for merge, much of the mergeable content is actually in this AfD and not on the page. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Captain Howdy & The Sunset Serenaders

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

Article for a likely non-notable band that appears to have been created by a member of the band. Based off a WP:BEFORE search, there is possibly significant coverage of the band, but only from a run-of-the-mill local news article and a site that exclusively covers local music from the band's hometown. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Kansas. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:25, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Keller Welton, a band member made it.This0k (talk) 19:05, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jms Brynt

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

Very minor, likely non-notable SoundCloud/Bandcamp musician. Based off the sources, the article probably meets WP:SIGCOV, however these are articles which themselves either imply that the subject is not notable or only note that the artist has released music. For example, the Earmilk source describes him as an "artist to watch". Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, United States of America, and New York. Waddles 🗩 🖉 00:02, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - GoodMusicRadar doesn't have any author credits or seemingly that much info on the ownership, Earmilk appear to be a more professional operation and there was an article on it until literally a few days ago, the Cultr piece lists an author with no bio and I can find no info on the ownership on site (if anyone knows if its reliable, please tell) Iostn (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]