Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today
Read how to nominate an article for deletion.
- Takeda Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No evidence of notability for this award. The underlying Takeda Foundation is a redlink (has never been blue). The organization's listed webpage [1] does not list any activity since 2006. That site's lists of awards only include 2001 and 2002 and notes that the award programs are suspended as of 2003. DMacks (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Awards-related deletion discussions. DMacks (talk) 09:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 10:20, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: It's more likely a promotional article written about that topic with no sign of notability while mentioning the winners excessively.––kemel49(connect)(contri) 10:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Bart Simpson (filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
after doing BEFORE, I am having a hard time to find any sigcov about this producer at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 08:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. I can't find the mention of the subject in all sources referenced in the article and before search did not bring anything useful for the sustenance of this article. This producer fails WP:GNG. Mekomo (talk) 08:59, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete, Falls WP:GNG. Ampil (Ταικ • Cοnτribυτιοns) 10:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:23, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: This would come in at number 10 at WP:List of hoaxes on Wikipedia for longest extant hoax articles if proven to be a hoax.
- Jolielover (talk) 05:27, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- This seems to suggest it's not a hoax. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- •Keep.As the person in question (see my response below @Bearcat, before I learned how to use Bold) I can tell you it's not a hoax. As much as the name takes some time for me to explain every time I meet someone new. Bartsimpsonfilm (talk) 00:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. This isn't a hoax, for the record — unlikely as it may seem, it's the real name of a real person in the Canadian film industry, who does have a legitimate notability claim as the producer of a Genie Award-winning documentary film. (Remember that such awards go to the producer of the film, which means he was personally a recipient of that award.) Also, he was born in the 1970s, so he had the name first and The Other One came later, so it wasn't his parents trying to be funny.
While the article was obviously in poor shape at the time of nomination, it actually is salvageable with better sourcing; the key (aside from the obvious need to use much more specific search terms than just his name alone) is that because his strongest notability claim happened 20 years ago, it wouldn't Google well and will have to be recovered from archives like ProQuest and newspapers.com. But I've searched those, and there are viable sources with which to fix the problem, so I've cleaned it up significantly. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Also Keep, and thanks to @Bearcat for the rigorous research. I am the person in question who's getting debated about RE: deletion (and yes, this is my real name and I did indeed come first, which is getting sadder to admit by the decade).
- My latest documentary is referenced at the link below - The MAD World of Harvey Kurtzman, produced by Intuitive Pictures. We are in production now and are due for release in late 2025/early 2026.
- Thanks for your interest.
- Link to Telefilm Canada funding announcement: [2]https://telefilm.ca/en/telefilm-canada-funds-the-production-of-20-feature-length-documentaries-in-the-english-market
- Link to DOC-NYC Voices of Canada Industry Roundtable 2023: [3]https://www.docnyc.net/industry-roundtables/ Bartsimpsonfilm (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Not a hoax. Real person. Real producer -- who also has been busy directing ("Brasilia: Life After Design" , love this title). I heard this filmmaker on a CBC interview -- he had a sense of humor about his name, saying "it could be worse." 130.208.129.144 (talk) 09:29, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per Bearcat. Passes WP:ANYBIO as the winner of a Genie Award.4meter4 (talk) 04:30, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Lady Tata Memorial Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
One of several Trusts listed on the Tata Group page, none of which appear to be notable. This particular one I cannot locate any significant coverage that meets WP:ORGCRIT. CNMall41 (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 07:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Do not delete
What makes the topic notable is the following information about the Trust:
- "The Lady Tata Memorial Trust was one of the earliest philanthropic trusts created to support world-wide leukaemia research. Very little was known about leukaemia at the time of the establishment of the Trust. The Trust provided fellowships and grants to some of the leading international researchers and contributed significantly to the advancement of knowledge about leukaemia."
Even though there is very little information about the Trust in the public domain, in my view, the topic is hugely notable because of the fact that the Trust "has contributed significantly to the advancement of knowledge about leukaemia". So, I strongly oppose the move to delete the article. Krishnachandranvn (talk) 12:50, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for confirming the WP:BEFORE assessment with "there is very little information about the Trust in the public domain." Unfortunately, significant coverage is required so having little information is not going to support notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:28, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge and Redirect: No SigCov to justify a stand-alone article. The best option, per WP:ATD-M, would be to merge the content into the Sir Dorabji Tata and Allied Trusts, as it aligns well with the broader context.--— MimsMENTOR talk 13:34, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cornish Bakehouse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Did a before search, and it seems all coverage is WP:CORPTRIV: "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage, such as: [...] of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops". Jonathan Deamer (talk) 08:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- 2009 Aéro-Frêt An-12 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 08:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Votorantim Novos Negócios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NCORP This article was created by the sockmaster User:Edson Rosa. They have created many non-notable companies.
This was previous nominated for deletion but had no consensus. I am nominating this again as there's no justification so far to give the subsidiary its own article when article of parent Votorantim Group already exists. Imcdc Contact 06:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Brazil. Imcdc Contact 06:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Aptera 2 Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No indication of significance. Failed production model. References are company PR, brochures, hype and passing mentions. No secondary coverage. scope_creepTalk 06:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. Passes WP:SIGCOV. Sources 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, and 11 are all independent WP:SECONDARY WP:RS with editorial staff; some of them covering the demise of the project. These include independent green technology magazines, mainstream media like CNET and KFMB-TV, national magazines like Popular Mechanics etc. These sources have by-lined authors and address the subject directly and in detail. The source analysis by the nominator is off.4meter4 (talk) 06:27, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per @4meter4; can confirm sources 1, 3, 4 (EcoWorld, Green Car Reports, CNET) are reliable, secondary, and give significant coverage. @Scope creep yes it failed but it existed and was covered in the news (and is somewhat interesting) so it is notable for a Wikipedia article. "Secondary coverage" means not using the vehicle specs directly, not "Don't use articles that hype the product". Mrfoogles (talk) 06:41, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It is curious that the first Afd was borderline, now is magically keep. I don't think so. The references and coverage weren't examined then but will be now. Reference 1 is a conversation with the founder. It is not independent. Reference 3 is a notice taken from note sent out by the founder, essentially a press-release. It is not independent either. Are you sure Ref 4 is right. It doesn't mention the Aptera 2. I'll go through the references in the next couple of days. scope_creepTalk 07:03, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Delete - Absolute WP:CFORK that is unnecessary. This is already covered Aptera Motors#Design history. The first question I have is how reference #4 (CNET) is significant coverage about Aptera 2? Both keep votes reference it yet I do not see any mention of Aptera in that reference. Reference #1 (Eco World) is clearly marketed as "commentary & forums." How is that reliable? Reference #3 (Green Car Reports) is an industry publication and covers the liquidation of the company, only mentioning the prototype they tried to build (which is already covered in the Aptera Motors page. Reference #6 (TechZulu) is another industry publication with no listed editorial standards. This reference (#9 - Popular Mechanics) is a good reference but causes some question as well (it talks about Type 1 but then says a second model is coming out - so, is Aptera 2 the rename of Type 1 or are they separate - if they are separate then all the references above fall apart for notability). I also fail to see how News 8 (reference #11) is significant since the video doesn't even play. To show this is notable for its own page separate from Aptera Motors, coverage needs to meet WP:ORGCRIT and based on what I see it falls well short. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, looking at the Aptera Motors page, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two different concepts so why are saying here "The Aptera 2 Series (formerly the Aptera Typ-1)" on the Aptera 2 page? As it is a different vehicle, the sources above about Type1 would be irrelevant to showing notability for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 07:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and California. CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - In addition to previously mentioned sourcing, the Car and Driver review currently in External Links is also a RS and is specifically about the Aptera 2. Being a "failed production model" is very much not a reason for deletion - notability is not temporary and a vehicle does not need to reach production to be notable. - The Bushranger One ping only 08:01, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Car and Driver is good. What is the specific sourcing about Aptera 2 that was mentioned? I will take a look and change my !vote if there is but based on what I assessed above, there is none, especially since it now appears Aptera 2 is separate than Type1 mentioned in the sources above. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor visited the Aptera factory, it says so in the article, so that is not independent. scope_creepTalk 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? The editor did background research, including visiting the factory. Sounds like good research to me. How does this make it not independent? To be not independent you have to show that he used information from the factory even if it differed from information from other places. Stepho talk 11:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- No dude. That makes it not independent, therefore unreliable. I've not heard such a load of tosh for about a decade. That is unreliable source. It is NOT independent. You should stay out of Afd. You don't know what your talking about. That is clear WP:CIR issue. I hope you not making that statement anywhere else on Wikipedia or any AFD. That would be a major problem. scope_creepTalk 14:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- That sounded a bit harsh. Sorry. scope_creepTalk 14:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have a strange idea of independent. Ideal reporting is where you get information from as many places as possible - including the factory and his/her personal inspection of the car. Each source is then weighed for reliability (eg manufacturers rarely lie about a car's wheelbase but often lie about fuel economy, emissions and max power). The reporter then makes a value judgement based on his/her knowledge of the general subject (eg Car and Driver reporters know a lot about cars, reporters for business magazines usually know a lot about economics but little about cars). The ideal reporter is free to report on things from the factory (if the reporter agrees with it) and also free to report on anything that the factory does not agree with. Your definition of independent appears to be that no knowledge is allowed from the factory at all - which means that if the reporter even glanced at a press release then it is not independent. What are the chances that any reporter never looks at a press release? Stepho talk 00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The reporter you are referring to is a contributor to the publication, not a staff writer. Based on the advertorial wording used in the reference, do you feel this is similar to WP:FORBESCON with little or no editorial oversight?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Being a freelance contributor or a staff writer doesn't make any difference. Car and Driver are well respected for unbiased reporting for the reader's benefit and not just parroting the manufacturers. They have staff editors and lawyers to protect that reputation by weeding out uncritical writers and double checking articles before they are sent to print.
- Siler's article for Car and Driver is certainly enthusiastic but he also points out several negative things. Eg, unusually wide front track, restricted rear view, poor ingress for the arthritic among us, poor rear hatch access, poor capacitive-touch buttons, 8-hour charge times. This is no blanket endorsement of a factory press release. He obviously wants it to succeed but still calls attention to its short comings. Stepho talk 04:27, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point. I'm not sure we agree that it "doesn't make any difference" regarding them being a contributor or staff writer though. If it doesn't make a difference, we wouldn't have things like WP:FORBESCON and WP:HUFFPOCON. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The difference matters when there is no editorial oversight - in which case the contributor can say anything. When there is editorial oversight then the editor gets to remove anything/everything that is not inline with the values of the magazine. Car and Driver have editorial oversight and very good values for balanced reporting, so whether the writer is staff or a contributor no longer matters. If the writer submits an unbalanced story then the editor will simply reject it. Car magazines with a good reputation will work quite hard to protect that reputation and will not throw it away on a cheap report. Stepho talk 07:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Forbes and Huffington Post have very good values for balanced reporting and work hard to protect their reputation as well. I do not think that is the issue. The issue is whether contributors to this publication have the same editorial oversight. A reference that reads good enough to print is one thing. A reference that was fact checked by an editorial staff is different. Again, I am not challenging the source, per se, only raising the question. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The difference matters when there is no editorial oversight - in which case the contributor can say anything. When there is editorial oversight then the editor gets to remove anything/everything that is not inline with the values of the magazine. Car and Driver have editorial oversight and very good values for balanced reporting, so whether the writer is staff or a contributor no longer matters. If the writer submits an unbalanced story then the editor will simply reject it. Car magazines with a good reputation will work quite hard to protect that reputation and will not throw it away on a cheap report. Stepho talk 07:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your point. I'm not sure we agree that it "doesn't make any difference" regarding them being a contributor or staff writer though. If it doesn't make a difference, we wouldn't have things like WP:FORBESCON and WP:HUFFPOCON. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- The reporter you are referring to is a contributor to the publication, not a staff writer. Based on the advertorial wording used in the reference, do you feel this is similar to WP:FORBESCON with little or no editorial oversight?--CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- You have a strange idea of independent. Ideal reporting is where you get information from as many places as possible - including the factory and his/her personal inspection of the car. Each source is then weighed for reliability (eg manufacturers rarely lie about a car's wheelbase but often lie about fuel economy, emissions and max power). The reporter then makes a value judgement based on his/her knowledge of the general subject (eg Car and Driver reporters know a lot about cars, reporters for business magazines usually know a lot about economics but little about cars). The ideal reporter is free to report on things from the factory (if the reporter agrees with it) and also free to report on anything that the factory does not agree with. Your definition of independent appears to be that no knowledge is allowed from the factory at all - which means that if the reporter even glanced at a press release then it is not independent. What are the chances that any reporter never looks at a press release? Stepho talk 00:13, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- That sounded a bit harsh. Sorry. scope_creepTalk 14:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- No dude. That makes it not independent, therefore unreliable. I've not heard such a load of tosh for about a decade. That is unreliable source. It is NOT independent. You should stay out of Afd. You don't know what your talking about. That is clear WP:CIR issue. I hope you not making that statement anywhere else on Wikipedia or any AFD. That would be a major problem. scope_creepTalk 14:36, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Visiting the factory would be a good indicator that a journalist found the topic noteworthy actually. However, looking closer at the writer, it appears they are not a journalist with the publication, only a contributor. This could be similar to the case of WP:FORBESCON but don't know for sure. Regardless, it is being challenged by at least one editor so it would help if someone can show that contributors have the same editorial oversight as the journalists ("staff writers") for the publication. MY QUESTION about the sourcing still remains unanswered. What "addition to previously mentioned sourcing" mentioned in the keep vote speaks specifically about Aptera 2 as again, the Type1 and Aptera 2 are two separate models and cannot see the significant coverage for Aptera 2.--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Huh? The editor did background research, including visiting the factory. Sounds like good research to me. How does this make it not independent? To be not independent you have to show that he used information from the factory even if it differed from information from other places. Stepho talk 11:13, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The editor visited the Aptera factory, it says so in the article, so that is not independent. scope_creepTalk 10:43, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Car and Driver is good. What is the specific sourcing about Aptera 2 that was mentioned? I will take a look and change my !vote if there is but based on what I assessed above, there is none, especially since it now appears Aptera 2 is separate than Type1 mentioned in the sources above. --CNMall41 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Aptera Motors - Some information is already merged but there is more that needs to be moved. Not very clear but it appears that the Typ-1 is an earlier prototype than the 2 Series. Neither reached production but it is still interesting to read about the development of a car. The failure itself can often be notable or instructive - failed because it was too radical? Or not practical? Not powerful enough? Too cramped inside? Not enough funding? Or just plain old bad luck? Stepho talk 08:06, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment It states in the review article in ext links which I looked at in the before,
A tour of the spotless Aptera facilities, located in Vista, California
, so that is not an independent reference either. I have no doubt the editor got a very clear understanding of what the prototype product is and how Aptera were trying to sell it, to enable him to write his article. Apologies for saying its a prototype. I shouldn't have put it in. They is obviously prototypes on here which are notable but its certainly not this. scope_creepTalk 08:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)- "The writer visited the factory so it is not an independent reference" is one of the biggest "whats?" I've had in a long time on here. I'd seen other people comment on this sort of argument being made on AfDs but didn't expect to actually encounter it being made 'in the wild'. Of course they visited the factory. That was part of the point of the article. The author is independent of Aptera, visiting the factory doesn't magically make them an employee or working for them. Wow. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:24, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
- That sarcastic comment by an admin is not becoming. I sincerely hope your not making similar comments like that in other places on Wikipedia. If I had a factory and was expecting an editor/writer of a prominent magazine to come and visit, I would lay out the red carpet with the corporate lunch and freebies and loot bags and there would be an expectation there would be a good writeup. There would be a strong personal relationship there between sales/marketing and their channels. It is human nature, quid pro quo, otherwise what would be the point of it. I can imagine him - oh look here is our shiny new product, isn't it fantastic. Oh, yes it is. Its fantastic. I will write an excellent wee ariticle since you fed me some michelin quality food and gave me a fat loot bag. It is all standard marketing practice so the reference is dodgy and not independent. The meaning of independent doesn't have a scale. Independent means independent. scope_creepTalk 08:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this discussion as there is no consensus yet. But this is one of the strangest AFD discussions I've reviewed lately. There is an established role for freelance journalists that are not employed by a periodical or media organization. I'm sure a lot of accepted references in articles on this project are written by freelancers. No need to dismiss their contributions if the journal or magazine has editorial oversight.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:26, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Substrate adhesion molecules (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
As I was trying to find sources to improve this page, I realized that almost all usage of the term "SAM" came from before 1992. It was used to refer to Tenascin back when it was called cytotactin, for instance. There are no secondary sources that exist that detail what a "substrate adhesion molecule" is as a family. Either they assign the term in passing when talking about CAMs, or they pick a specific one and label it that. I propose this page REDIRECT to the extracellular matrix page. It has all the necessary info and more, and doesn't try to propagate terms that haven't been in use since the eighties. Innertuber40 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Innertuber40 (talk) 05:13, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Usage for "cytotactin" https://www.researchgate.net/publication/20500220_Cell_and_substrate_adhesion_molecules_in_embryonic_and_neural_development
- Usage for vitronectin
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12324606/
- Usage as a class of cell adhesion molecules
- https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0046817794900027?via%3Dihub Innertuber40 (talk) 05:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
This should REDIRECT to the Extracellular matrix page. "SAM" is an archaic term used by a small group of scientists in the latter half of the eighties, when they were just discovering matrix proteins involved in cell-substrate binding. If you Google substrate adhesion molecules, the modern results will either be recapping old experiments, simply use the term "cell adhesion molecule," or be referring to "self-assembling monolayers." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Innertuber40 (talk • contribs) 05:18, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Notable justification for deletion, therefore, would be WP:N Innertuber40 (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Phiwa Nkambule (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
So this article was created by Phwaice who seems to be a WP:COI user judging by username and behavior. The article was previously nominated for deletion and the consensus was to redirect to a company article that is now deleted due to lack of notability. The article was then reverted by Carloschilo who also seems to have COI behavior.
The issue is this article from a quick glance seem to be nothing more than a PR puff piece for the subject which is basically WP:PROMO. There’s also issue of notability. The vast majority of sources are basically brief mentions of the subject. You have some which are interviews, so they are not independent. The subject is mentioned in a few lists, but these again seem more like mentions and not really in-depth.
This article probably needs to be rewritten from scratch to comply with Wikipedia standards. That’s assuming we get enough independent in-depth sources of notability. Imcdc Contact 03:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, Technology, and Africa. Imcdc Contact 03:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Lance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet notability requirements. There is nothing in the article to establish notability of this student newspaper, and there is no coverage in non-local sources. Note that The Lance published its last newspaper issue in 2019. The official website (which was updated in a 2020 edit) is for a student news blog with the same name. Johnj1995 (talk) 03:40, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Games in relief (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary -- this appears to be a term for a kind of game, with very limited encyclopedic possibilities. The citations added to the article on Hoyt Wilhelm have been added to his article, where his record was noted by not cited. The only other information is the definition of a game in relief, which has been merged to Relief pitcher, tagged with citation needed. Mrfoogles (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to Glossary of baseball terms per WP:ATD. There is an entry on the term in this baseball encyclopedia where it is treated like it would be in a glossary.4meter4 (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect but to Baseball statistics#Pitching statistics, there's nothing to merge. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- This has my support as nom -- seems like a specialized sub-article and therefore probably a more appropriate place. There would be a risk of someone re-creating the article based on trying to get all the statistics, but the deletion would probably ward them off from that. Mrfoogles (talk) 06:57, 2 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Baseball statistics#Pitching statistics, as that is the more specialized target. Hog Farm Talk 15:00, 5 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different Merge/Redirect proposed target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Redirect to Baseball statistics#Pitching statistics, I agree there is nothing to merge here. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- List of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute fraternities and sororities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Subject does not meet the WP:NLIST as there is a lack of independent third party coverage providing significant coverage of the grouping. PROD was removed but the issues with the article remain, so bringing it to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fraternities and sororities and New York. Let'srun (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. This 1914 book about the history of the college does go into the history of the fraternities at the school. College publications marketed to perspective college students feature the Greek life aspect of the school prominently: [4], [5], etc. Occasionally, the school gets mentions in academic studies on Greek Life like [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], Greek life is clearly an important part of this school's campus experience.4meter4 (talk) 05:33, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: This article has secondary sources throughout. One is Baird's Manual, the primary source about Greek letter organizations for more than 100 years. Another is the Almanac of Fraternities and Sororities, created and maintained by academics and published by the University of Illinois. Regarding, WP:NLIST, that is covered via the Almanac, which provides information by institution. I don't have access to the cited edition of Baird's, but it probably includes information by institution as well. In addition, when the data set is itself notable, combining that group meets standards for stand-alone list articles. Consider, for example, a list of notable alumni from a college; there is rarely a secondary source that covers that list of people, but the included alumni are individually notable.
- Since several of these institutional GLO lists have recently been nominated for deletion, it is worth noting that these articles exist as a part of an agreement between WP:UNI and WP:FRAT. The former felt that complete lists of GLO were too much detail for university articles and the latter liked the ability to expand the level of detail, as in the way this article provides details about each GLO. This level of detail appears to be moving this list article toward the direction of University of Virginia fraternities and sororities, which is GA status. With that in mind, this article should be seen as a work in progress that can be moved from list article status, either as is or at a later date. Rublamb (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Syuejia Shang Baijiao and harvesting incense (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I'm not sure if this article would stay within draftspace if I moved it there, given that the creator just moved it all over the place. Not well sourced, and a WP:BEFORE search failed. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and China. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 02:47, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I am the author of this page, and I sincerely apologize. I was trying to move this article to the main page, but due to an operational error, it was unintentionally moved to two or three other locations. Later, I found the correct way to transfer it to the Wikipedia main page. Sources have now been properly cited. ALFART3594 (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Sources are not in fact properly cited. Two sources in a wall of text is not proper citation, as any college student should know. 30 paragraphs of text are completely unsourced, as are three long lists. I don’t mean to be rude, but anyone who’s ever read a Good Wikipedia article knows that this isn’t one. Please start over from scratch. Bearian (talk) 05:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate. But without some policy-based reasons to Keep this article, it looks like it might be heading towards Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
- Yang, Kate (June 2004). "The Emperor and the Centipede". Taiwan Panorama. Translated by Mayer, David. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
The article notes: "At the end of the ceremony, they always draw water from Chiangchun Creek to symbolize their awareness that "when drinking water, one must remember the source," i.e. be grateful, in this case to their ancestors for pioneering the land that is now their home. The proceedings at the pavilion are referred to as "visiting Baijiao." When the faithful "visit Baijiao," they worship both a god and their ancestors. The ritual is unique among Taiwan's temple festivals in this sense. ... The visit to Baijiao takes place every year and wraps up in about a day, but once every four years Tsuchi Temple elects a new board of trustees and supervisors, and the occasion is marked by the Hsuehchia festival. The main difference between the big festival and the visit to Baijiao is that the procession doesn't just go from Tsuchi Temple to Paichiao Pavilion."
- Chang, Jung-hsiang 張榮祥 (2024-07-17). "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」連3天 海內外宮廟雲集" [National Important Folk Custom 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Held for 3 Consecutive Days, Temples from Across Taiwan and Abroad Gather] (in Chinese). Central News Agency. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
The article notes: "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」刈香祭典,今天在台南市學甲慈濟宮登場,為期3天,海內外逾100座宮廟、藝陣雲集,鑼鼓喧天,信眾擠爆,熱鬧滾滾。保生大帝台灣開基祖廟學甲慈濟宮今天起一連3天舉辦國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」刈香祭典,由前立法院長王金平擔任主祭官,菲律賓、馬尼拉、新加坡、香港、澳門等海外宮廟也參與這項宗教盛事。"
From Google Translate: "The nationally important folklore "Xujia Shangbaijiao" Incense Cutting Ceremony was held today at the Xuejia Tzu Chi Palace in Tainan City. It lasted for three days. More than 100 palaces, temples and art formations from home and abroad gathered together. The gongs and drums were noisy, and the believers were crowded and lively. Roll. The Xuejia Tzu Chi Temple, the founder of Emperor Baosheng's ancestors in Taiwan, will hold the nationally important folklore "Xuejia Shangbaijiao" incense cutting ceremony for three consecutive days starting today. Former Legislative Yuan Wang Jinping will serve as the officiant. The Philippines, Manila, Singapore, Hong Kong, and Macau Overseas palaces and temples also participated in this religious event."
- Huang, Chao-ch'in 黃朝琴 (2023-04-30). "重要民俗「學甲上白礁」授證 文化資產永續流傳" [Important Folk Custom 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Certified, Cultural Heritage to be Passed Down Sustainably]. Youth Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
The article notes: "臺南市「學甲上白礁」去年獲登錄列為國家重要民俗,「學甲慈濟宮」也同步被認定為保存者,今(30)日適逢「上白礁」謁祖祭典隆重登場,文化部頒授重要民俗認定證書,由慈濟宮代表接受,代表民俗文化資產永續流傳,展現臺灣深厚文化生命力。"
From Google Translate: "Tainan City's "Xujia Shangbaijiao" was registered as a nationally important folk custom last year, and "Xuejia Tzu Chi Palace" was also recognized as a preserver. Today (30th) coincides with the grand debut of the "Shangbaijiao" ancestor worship ceremony. , the Ministry of Culture awarded the Certificate of Important Folklore Recognition, which was accepted by the representative of Tzu Chi Palace, representing the sustainable spread of folk cultural assets and demonstrating the profound cultural vitality of Taiwan."
The article notes: "「學甲上白礁」從清代發展至今,雖隨著時代演變,但祭典儀式、香境香路及各十三庄宮廟自組之藝閣、陣頭迄今仍維持一定的傳統性,並富含在地文化特色,如儀式性的宮內祭典、白礁亭謁祖祭典;"
From Google Translate: ""Xuejia Shangbaijiao" has been developed since the Qing Dynasty. Although it has evolved with the times, the rituals, the incense road and the art pavilions and formations organised by each of the Thirteen Village Palaces and Temples have still maintained a certain degree of tradition. It is also rich in local cultural characteristics, such as the ceremonial palace ceremony and the ancestor worship ceremony at Baijiao Pavilion;"
- Chuang, Yao-tsung 莊曜聰; Chen, I-wei 陳苡葳 (2024-04-18). "台南「學甲上白礁」3天遶境 蜈蚣陣揭序幕" [Tainan 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' 3-Day Procession, Centipede Formation Kicks Off the Event]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
The article notes: "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」昨起為期3天遶境,共有來自海內外105間宮廟及上百文武陣頭、藝閣共襄盛舉,打頭陣是唯一以人力扛抬的蜈蚣陣,因少子化、人力難覓還差點開天窗,在各方支持下總算順利出陣。"
From Google Translate: "The nationally important folk custom "Xujia Shangbaijiao" started yesterday for a three-day tour. A total of 105 palaces and temples from home and abroad and hundreds of civil and military formation leaders and art pavilions participated in the grand event. The leading formation is the only centipede formation that is carried manually. Due to the declining birthrate and the difficulty in finding manpower, we almost had to open the skylight. With the support of all parties, they finally got out of the battle successfully."
- Wen, Cheng-heng 溫正衡 (2022-09-28). "台南300年歷史祭典「學甲上白礁」 9月獲登錄國家重要民俗" [Tainan's 300-Year-Old Festival 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Registered as a National Important Folk Custom in September] (in Chinese). Public Television Service. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
The article notes: "歷經1年停辦,1年縮小規模的學甲慈濟宮上白礁,今年4月9日到11日恢復舉辦,熱鬧非凡。活動中不只有傳統藝陣、廟方還上將軍溪畔舉辦「上白礁」謁祖祭典,象徵飲水思源、不忘本精神,而今年9月更通過文化部審議,成為國家重要民俗。"
From Google Translate: "After a year of suspension and a year of downsizing, the Tzu Chi Palace on Pedra Branca was resumed from 9 to 11 April April this year, and it was a bustling event. The event not only featured a traditional art array, but the temple also held a "Shangbaijiao" ancestor worship ceremony on the bank of the Shangjiang River, which symbolizes the spirit of drinking water to remember the source and not forgetting one's roots. In September this year, it was approved by the Ministry of Culture and became an important national folk custom."
- Wang, Han-ping 王涵平 (2024-04-17). "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」今起遶境 105間宮廟參與" [National Important Folk Custom 'Xuejia Shangbaijiao' Begins Procession Today, 105 Temples Participate]. Liberty Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
The article notes: "國家重要民俗「學甲上白礁」遶境祭典今起為期3天,來自國內外105間宮廟參與,蜈蚣陣出發遶境,大批信眾湧入爭拿神童賜福糖果、鑽轎腳,19日將至頭前寮白礁亭謁祖、請水火。"
From Google Translate: "The nationally important folklore "Xuejia Shangbaijiao" circumambulation festival will last for three days today. 105 palaces and temples from home and abroad are participating. Centipede formations set out to circumambulate the territory, and a large number of believers poured in to compete for the blessing of the child prodigy. Candies, diamonds on sedan chairs, and the 19th is about to arrive at Touqian Liao Baijiao Pavilion to pay homage to ancestors and invite water and fire."
- "臺南學甲上白礁" [Tainan Xujia Shangbaijiao] (in Chinese). Radio Taiwan International. 2024-04-14. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
The article notes: "每一年的上白礁活動及四年一科的刈香從未間斷,也呈現學甲慈濟宮保存傳統祭祀儀典的努力,以及三百多年來各方信眾自發性、持續性地參與,具諸多在地特色,例如儀式性的宮內祭典、白礁亭祭典、將軍溪畔的「請水火香」;香陣隊伍中的輦宮文化、真人藝閣、文武陣頭,宋江陣、蜈蚣陣、報馬牛、藝陣;各庄頭與信眾設置點心站等。"
From Google Translate: "The annual Shangbaijiao activities and the four-year incense cutting have never stopped, which also reflects the efforts of Xuejia Tzu Chi Palace to preserve the traditional sacrificial rituals, as well as the spontaneous and continuous efforts of believers from all walks of life for more than three hundred years. Participation has many local characteristics, such as the ceremonial palace ceremony, Baijiao Pavilion Festival, "inviting water, fire and incense" by the Jiangjun River; the chariot palace culture, real people's art pavilion, civil and military formations, Songjiang formation in the incense array , Centipede Formation, Bao Ma Niu, Art Formation; each village head and believers set up refreshment stations, etc."
- Yang, Kate (June 2004). "The Emperor and the Centipede". Taiwan Panorama. Translated by Mayer, David. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.
- The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says,
If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page.
Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says,Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.
Cunard (talk) 09:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)- @Cunard My one concern is your reliance on Google Translate for a non-Latin based writing system. Google Translate has gotten more accurate throughout the years, but given that languages arose from natural intelligence, I'm still hesitant to rely on artificial intelligence/machine translation.
- However, I still encourage you to add the sources to the article, particularly if you know just enough Chinese to know the translations are reliable. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 09:14, 3 December 2024 (UTC)
- The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says,
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a second review of these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Cihan Erdal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP1E. This person is only notable for his 9-month imprisonment by the Turkish government, the news coverage of him mostly starts and ends within that period. Being one of about one hundred political prisoners caught in a government crackdown in a country that has been experiencing a democratic backsliding for over ten years now is not a very solid claim of notability. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Politics, Turkey, and Canada. Badbluebus (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: I'm not sure getting arrested for your beliefs is notable. Certainly doesn't meet academic notability. Coverage is about the arrest, but I don't think that's enough for an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I notice there is some book coverage in google books by some major academic presses. For example: [16], [17], [18] The diversity of the sources and prolonged coverage over a couple years suggests that the arrest, imprisonment, and release of Cihan Erdal would pass WP:NEVENT. Perhaps repurpose this an event page instead of a WP:BLP?4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not convinced that these sources are enough. Erdal was cited as a contributor in the second source, so it's no independent. He is also cited in the "acknowledgments" section of the third source, so the same thing applies. The first source appears to mention him only very briefly. Badbluebus (talk) 17:54, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Source eval for the newly found ones would be appreciated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:56, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:34, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Matt Lalli (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this former lacrosse player. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All I found were passing mentions (1, 2, 3, etc.) JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, New Jersey, and New York. JTtheOG (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Comment. I know nothing about this sport but here are some more sources: [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]. I'll let others decide whether these count towards notability or not. Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hello and thank you for your response. The first two are passing mentions and thus not significant coverage, while the next three are not independent of the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The coverage in the article combined with the more than 100 sources covering him via Newspapers.com demonstrate that the notability standard is met as a professional athlete playing at the top level of his sport. Alansohn (talk) 03:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Please share any SIGCOV you might be able to find. JTtheOG (talk) 05:02, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes please bear in mind to provide sources with SIGCOV for better analysis.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 02:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:32, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Conrad Stargard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The books series in which this fictional character exists could be notable, but there is no good indication that he himself is. The only source I found that seems to talk about him is this book review [24]. Badbluebus (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Literature. Badbluebus (talk) 02:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep if you don't dispute that the book series is notable, then it should be rescoped to be on the book series, as we have no article on the series. That is what is usually done with old articles like this, scoped around the main character instead of the series, which we have some of - and as far as I can tell, the name of the series is just this character's name. Most of the plot material can be kept, it just needs to be shuffled around. And have reception to the series added. There are reviews of the books on ProQuest, so it is notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Victoria Leigh Soto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Discussed in the aftermath of the shooting at Talk:Victoria_Leigh_Soto/Archive_1#Should_we_merge_this_article_with_Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting? but looking back 12 years, I don't see any sustained notability independent of the shooting nor material that couldn't be summarized at Sandy_Hook_Elementary_School_shooting#Legacy. Bringing here v. requested merge as it's a subject deserving of broad consensus. Star Mississippi 01:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Connecticut. Star Mississippi 01:14, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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 Withdrawn. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Go Off Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Singular episode of Canada's Drag Race season 5, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Almost all coverage is just recaps of the episode, not actual reviews, or other non-trivial coverage with any substance. Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5. RachelTensions (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- This deletion nomination spree is not necessary. Just redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5. I started the page and you have my permission so AfD is not necessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLAR'd as article creator has stated that the "spree" of AfD could be redirected at Special:Diff/1261803036/Special:Diff/1261803444 RachelTensions (talk) 01:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The Slayoffs: Teams Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Singular episode of Canada's Drag Race season 5, doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Almost all coverage is just recaps of the episode, not actual reviews, or other non-trivial coverage with any substance. Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5. RachelTensions (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 01:06, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- This deletion nomination spree is not necessary. Just redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5. I started the page and you have my permission so AfD is not necessary. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:11, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- WP:BLAR'd as article creator has stated that the "spree" of AfD could be redirected at Special:Diff/1261803036/Special:Diff/1261803444 RachelTensions (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Futures Academy - California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Insufficient sourcing. The article claims it is part of Fusion Academy now, but I can't verify that. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and California. Walsh90210 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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 Withdrawn. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Minhi Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".
Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show. RachelTensions (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:47, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:48, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Helena Poison (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".
Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show. RachelTensions (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Jalal khel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Another administrator said that a clan (tribe) is not subject to WP:A7. I disagree, but I'm not 100% sure, so I'm nominating it for deletion. I have no idea how to evaluate whether a clan meets WP:GNG. I suspect, though, that others in the community are more knowledgeable. Bbb23 (talk) 00:44, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 01:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Comment The above article mentions Jalal Khel or Jalalkhel clan is a sub-division of Mahsud Wazir larger
Pashtun tribe. In my brief search, I saw this.....Mehsuds and Wazirs, the King-makers in a game of thrones on khyber.org website...Ngrewal1 (talk) 06:17, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Hodobana Cave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't find a reliable source, and the one given is a passing mention, as I have access to this textbook. I would be ok with a redirect, but don't know a target. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:37, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Keep, sources exist, it's just that most are in Romanian (and several of them fall in that gap of "too old to have been published online, too young to be public domain", which doesn't make finding them online any easier):
- SIGCOV: in Damm, P.E & Mitrofan, H. (2005). Peştera din Pârâul Hodobanei. Speomond 9 pp.15–19 & the Hodobana listing on speozet.ro, editor Paul Damm. (Both in Romanian)
- SIGCOV-but-no-access: Vălenaş L.(1982) Consideration preliminaires sur les problemes crees par la tectonique active de la Peştera din Pîrîul Hodobanei (Monts Bihor). Nymphaea, t.X, 183-194
- Possible SIGCOV, but no access to verify: Mitrofan H. (1985) Acomodarea de adio, Bul.CCSS, 9 p.119-130
- Possible SIGCOV, but no access to verify: Tulucan, T. (1986). Clasificarea genetică a fenomenelor endo-vulcano-carstice din România. Aspecte ale repartiţiei acestora în lanţul Munţilor Carpaţi. Buletin speologic informativ FRTA-CCSS, nr. 10, p. 121-135
- Additionally, sigcov in English by Liviu Vălenaş (WP:SPS, yes, but by an expert--his 1982 publication on this cave (listed above) is listed in practically every source that pays even a passing mention to the Hodobana Cave. Also has various other published articles in subject-relevant journals including Theoretical and Applied Karstology and Speomond, as well as multiple Nymphaea yearbooks.)
- AddWittyNameHere 07:25, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- 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 Withdrawn. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Tiffany Ann Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".
Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show. RachelTensions (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:50, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Perla (drag queen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like almost all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".
Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show. RachelTensions (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Sanjina DaBish Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race and Call Me Mother. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".
Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show(s). RachelTensions (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:41, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:52, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Withdrawn. Nominator has withdrawn the nomination after redirecting the article, per comment from page creator. This is to be considered a soft close, and should further discussion be deemed required, the discussion may be re-opened. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Xana (drag queen) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet independently notable from the reality series in which she is a participant. Seems like all coverage in reliable sources is mentioning them in the context of being a participant in Canada's Drag Race. Closest notability guideline is WP:REALITYBIO, which states that reality performers "who are only notable for participating in a reality television series may be redirected to an article about the series, until they have demonstrated that they are independently notable".
Propose redirect to Canada's Drag Race season 5 until such a time that they have significant coverage demonstrating notability independent of their reality show. RachelTensions (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Television, and Canada. RachelTensions (talk) 00:39, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- Withdrawing to WP:BLAR instead. RachelTensions (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.