Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

6 December 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Purge server cache

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

This will need to satisfy either WP:NORG or WP:GNG in order to be considered notable, both of which it fails to do. Although this article cites no usable sources, the sources I found while performing a WP:BEFORE did not have WP:SIGCOV, most of them were only mentioning it's rankings or the events conducted at the university. [1][2][3][4], note that none of these sources identify an individual reporter and have generic bylines as author information, so they all fall under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA. - Ratnahastin (talk) 16:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Akidearest (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)

non-notable youtuber who doesn't even remotely meet the inclusion criteria even for just YT personalities, let alone GNG.


Most of the sources are primary, or straight up blackhat SEO/nonsense. TURKIDICAE🦃 16:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shoolini University of Biotechnology and Management Sciences (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)

Universities need to satisfy WP:NORG or WP:GNG in order to be considered notable per WP:NSCHOOL, when I performed a WP:BEFORE search, I came across quite a few sources but all of them were either about this university hosting an event[5] or about its rankings which is WP:TRIVIAL and WP:ROUTINE coverage at best,[6][7] the sources that supposedly provided "significant coverage" only had generic bylines and were promotional puff pieces falling under the purview WP:NEWSORGINDIA as undisclosed press releases. [8][9].- Ratnahastin (talk) 16:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Simply fails WP:GNG Theroadislong (talk) 16:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Margaret D. Nadauld (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)

Margaret D. Nadauld was a former president of the Young Women organization. This article was deleted on october 17, 2018 for being unnotable. It was recreated today, the author added 25 new sources but all of them seem to be just brief mentions of her. I still think that this article does not satisfy notability guidelines. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 16:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pickled Egg Records (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)

There isn't any significant coverage for this record label. Does not meet WP:NCORP. Frost 16:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This organization does not satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria for corporations, as outlined in WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. Also, does not have sufficient coverage WP:SIGCOV in the reliable sources WP:RSP. Current page is WP:PROMO. Charlie (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pt. Deen Dayal Upadhyaya Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College (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:NSCHOOL. 1 google news hit. LibStar (talk) 15:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eudora OSE (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)

Appears to be an open source version of Eudora, article is virtually entirely original research. Any notability seems tied to Eudora or Thunderbird. IgelRM (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fisheries Society of Bangladesh (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)

Searches of the usual types in English and Bengali found press releases and directory listings, but no significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources. The society's work may be good and important, especially to those connected with it, but the organization is not notable (not a suitable topic for a stand alone Wikipedia article). Worldbruce (talk) 13:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 14:25, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vimal Singh Mahavidyalay (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 sources listed do not establish notability. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. LibStar (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chuck Cadotte (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)

Unnotable native american powwow dance-style teacher. 32 sources cited in this article do not discuss him in any significant depth. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 13:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CHAMPS Project (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)

CHAMPS Project is a combined effort of the Mississippi School for Mathematics and Science and the Mississippi University for Women aimed at improving various aspects of education in Mississippi in 2018. I was unable to find anything about it on the internet. No evidence of notability. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 12:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ioannis Sioutis (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)

Unnotable basketball player. I was unable to find anything about him online. Most of the links in this article lead to nowhere. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Breitkopf (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:NACTOR. Absolutiva (talk) 12:26, 6 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 speedy delete‎ per WP:G4 Fathoms Below (talk) 15:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was previosly deleted (Check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Softgarden), it is poorly written and its sources only consist of routine coverage. This organisation is not notable. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 12:05, 6 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.
Rajat Dalal (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)

Participating in a reality show alone does not make someone notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. If this were the case, countless individuals in India could potentially have articles created every day. This situation clearly falls under WP:BIO1E. At present, I do not believe the subject meets the criteria of WP:GNG. Additionally, WP:TOOSOON also applies in this case. The claim of “winning several medals for India” is vague and unexplained without any source. Zuck28 (talk) 09:42, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He has won numerous medals, and there are plenty of sources for this information. You should strive to keep your eyes open so that the Wikipedia article isn't removed needlessly.
Please take another look at the source that is related to the prose content provided at wikipedia page. Super Dud (talk) 02:39, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Super Dud, Kindly elaborate about those “numerous medals”. Name the medals, competitions, organisers, opponents, platforms, team he represented, dates and venues of the matches?
These plenty of the sources doesn’t verify the claim, merely it mentions that “the subject claims to have certain number of medals”. Without any specific details about these medals.
Secondly, I would suggest you yo use professional language and avoid personal attacks, otherwise you can attract a block.
Even after taking multiple looks at the page, it is not clear how you think the subject passes the Wp: Notability criteria of Wikipedia.
Zuck28 (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't see my brief attempt to convey the main idea as an insult, leave the rest of the work to the administrators.
I have personally attached a summary of how many medals were won by the subject and in which event as a citation on the said subject page.
Now clear your confusion by reading that information carefully.
Thanks, happy editing. Super Dud (talk) 11:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:29, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - This subject completely fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and if we go by WP:NBIO, the cited sources that actually provide significant coverage are not only poor but also undisclosed paid releases per WP:NEWSORGINDIA, therefore not independent of the subject as required by the guideline, to name a few have a look at these sources with only generic bylines [10][11][12] and puff pieces [13][14]. The rest of coverage is trivial owing to social media banter and him hitting a motor cyclist while speeding. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
La Academia BP (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)

Unnotale salvadoran football club. The only sources I found about it were from Instagram and Facebook, which isn't enough to make it notable. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 11:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jason-Shane Scott (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 struggled to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources during my WP:BEFORE (there are a few interviews on soap opera related websites, but nothing of substance to my mind. The one significant role in One Life to Live does not meet the bar for WP:NACTOR, and so I submit that the subject is not notable. I proposed a Redirect to One Life to Live. The article is also not written from a terribly neutral point of view either, but that is somewhat by-the-by. SunloungerFrog (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Circus della Morte (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)

Non notable circus in North Texas. This article has no sources. It has two external links listed but that's still not enough to be considered notable. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kingston International School (Hong Kong) (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)

Named international school, there are no sources in both local and foreign media. This article serves only to promote the school. Searched for secondary, independent reliable sources but nothing was found Mekomo (talk) 05:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a source from a news outlet. Bobbysteinn (talk) 15:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Gets mentioned in a few books. Most are directories. this one has a little more [15] Confirms information about when it was built and when primary classes started. But it is only up to primary, and although that source is something, it is not at ORGDEPTH and doesn't allow an article to be written. Some books are in Cantonese. I cannot read this [16] or this [17] for instance, but going by the layout, I think they are directories. But that does suggest that there may be more information in Cantonese than is easily searchable. The school is not old, is primary only and doesn't appear to be large. I am leaning redirect per CanonNi. I'll leave it a few days to see if anyone can find sources in Cantonese though. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools, which says:

    All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must either satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations, the general notability guideline, or both. For-profit educational organizations and institutions are considered commercial organizations and must satisfy those criteria. (See also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES)

    Sources
    1. "新生須繳7.2萬不會退還「發展費」 國際學校搶錢" [New students have to pay HK$72,000 in "development fees" that will not be refunded. International school is robbing money]. Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2011-06-23. p. A12.

      The article notes: "不少國際學校設有學校債券、資本費,大部份可轉讓或學生畢業時退還,但位於九龍塘的京斯敦國際學校(Kingston International School)被指近日向幼稚園家長發「搶錢」通告,即將於2012/13年入讀該校小學的學生家長,需一次過繳7.2萬元不能退還、不得轉讓的「學校發展費」,引來家長極度不滿,紛紛向教育局求助。"

      From Google Translate: "Many international schools have school bonds and capital fees, most of which are transferable or refundable when students graduate. However, Kingston International School in Kowloon Tong was accused of issuing a policy to kindergarten parents recently. The "money grabbing" notice requires parents of students who will enroll in the school's primary school in 2012/13 to pay a one-time non-refundable and non-transferable "school development fee" of NT$72,000. Parents are extremely dissatisfied and have complained to the Education Bureau to ask for help."

      The article notes: "京斯敦國際學校是本港首間獲IB組織國際認可的幼稚園,自2001年起引進為3至12歲學生而設的國家文憑(小學計畫),屬九龍塘區內出名的貴族學校之一,校方著重學生英語和國語訓練主導,名字雖為國際學校,但事實上學校外地生人數不足三成半,幼兒園學費每年學費高達82,500元。"

      From Google Translate: "Kingston International School is the first kindergarten in Hong Kong to be internationally recognized by the IB organisation. Since 2001, it has introduced the National Diploma (Primary School Program) for students aged 3 to 12 years old. It is one of the famous aristocratic schools in Kowloon Tong District. , the school focuses on student English and Mandarin training. Although the name is an international school, in fact the number of non-local students in the school is less than 35%, and the annual kindergarten tuition is as high as HK$82,500."

    2. "報熱門國際學校宜循幼園升小學 耀中京斯敦要求雙語好" [Popular International Schools: Parents Should Plan from Kindergarten to Primary School. Yew Chung and Kingston Require Bilingual Proficiency]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2003-09-26. p. F5.

      The article notes: "九六年創立的京斯敦國際學校,初期只辦幼兒園,兩年前開辦小學部,目前有六班,由一年級至三年級共八十五名學生,老師人數為十三人,其中逾半數為外籍英語老師,師生比例低至一對七,充分發揮小班教學優點。... 教學特色方面,該校以英語及國語為教學語言,採雙班主任制,課程使用IB-PYP (國際文憑組織小學課程) ,中文及英文科不設課本,由老師自編課程。"

      From Google Translate: "Kingston International School, founded in 1996, only offered kindergarten at the beginning. It opened a primary school two years ago. It currently has six classes, with a total of 85 students in grades one to three. There are 13 teachers, including more than Half of the students are foreign English teachers, and the teacher-student ratio is as low as one to seven, giving full play to the advantages of small class teaching. ... In terms of teaching features, the school uses English and Mandarin as the teaching languages, adopts a double-teacher system, and uses the IB-PYP (International Baccalaureate Organization Primary School Curriculum) for its courses. There are no textbooks for Chinese and English subjects, and the teachers write their own courses."

    3. "京斯敦國際學校 訂創新教學計劃" [Kingston International School sets innovative teaching plan]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). 2001-02-07. p. B4.

      The article notes: "將於今年七月開幕的京斯敦國際學校﹐將會是全港首間推行名為『小學計畫課程』的創新教學計畫的學校。位於九龍塘窩打老道的校舍﹐把原本位於金巴倫道的京斯敦幼稚園亦同時遷入該校舍中。金巴倫道舊址則成為京斯敦幼兒園﹐培育一歲至兩歲的小朋友。京斯敦國際學校為全港首間小學引入國際文憑組織發展﹐名為'小學計畫課程'的革新教學模式﹐"

      From Google Translate: "Kingston International School, which will open in July this year, will be the first school in Hong Kong to implement an innovative teaching plan called the "IB Primary Years Programme". The school building is located on Waterloo Road in Kowloon Tong. Kingston Kindergarten, which was originally located on Jimbaran Road, was also moved into the school building at the same time. The former site on Jimbaran Road became the Kingston Kindergarten, nurturing children between the ages of one and two. Kingston International School is the first primary school in Hong Kong to introduce an innovative teaching model developed by the International Baccalaureate Organisation called the 'IB Primary Years Programme'."

    4. "京斯敦申第四個九龍塘校舍" [Kingston's fourth Kowloon Tong campus]. Ming Pao Daily News (in Chinese). 2021-06-24. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.

      The article notes: "Sheen Wealth International Limited由1994年起在九龍塘區營辦京斯敦幼兒園∕京斯敦國際幼稚園及京斯敦國際學校(低小及高小),現有3個校舍,據城規會文件,會申請第四個校舍,地點前身是朗思國際幼稚園,該校去年夏天停辦。"

      From Google Translate: "Sheen Wealth International Limited has been operating Kingston Kindergarten/Kingston International Kindergarten and Kingston International School (lower primary and upper primary) in Kowloon Tong District since 1994. It currently has three school buildings. According to the Town Planning Board documents, it will Applying for a fourth school building, the site was formerly the Lance International Kindergarten, which closed last summer."

    5. "明星最愛的十大幼稚園" [Top 10 Favourite Kindergartens of Celebrities]. 今日早報 [Early Morning News] (in Chinese). 2012-09-07. p. B7.

      The article notes: "

      The article notes: "3、京斯敦國際學校  地點:香港 每班學生不超過22人,每班有一位英語和國語老師擔任班主任。 家長要報名,要去學校親自領報名表或以郵寄方式索取。 申請通過後,學校會安排家長參觀。家長需在參觀當日繳交報名費港幣1500元(不會退回),再來才是學生面試。 小朋友須懂英文或國語,而新生入學,除了學費,還要繳「學校發展費」。 ... 明星家長:方中信"

      From Google Translate: "3. Kingston International School. Location: Hong Kong. There are no more than 22 students in each class, and each class has an English and Mandarin teacher as the class teacher. To register, parents must go to the school to pick up the registration form in person or obtain it by mail. After the application is approved, the school will arrange a visit for parents. Parents need to pay the registration fee of HK$1,500 (non-refundable) on the day of the visit, and then the student interview will take place. Children must understand English or Mandarin, and new students must pay a "school development fee" in addition to tuition fees. ... Celebrity Parent: Alex Fong"

    6. "京斯敦國際學校 校園地圖王" [Kingston International School Campus Map King]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-06-05. p. 69.

      The article notes: "校舍樓高兩層,6間課室及電腦室集中於上層;特別室則設於地下,包括:音樂室、美勞室、圖書館、醫療室及3間多用途課室。禮堂鋪了運動場專用彈性地板,雨天時體育課會移師至禮堂進行。戶外運動場設有賽跑道,亦可轉作球場,另有簡單兒童遊樂設施。"

      From Google Translate: "The school building is two stories high, with 6 classrooms and computer rooms concentrated on the upper floor; special rooms are located on the ground floor, including: music room, art room, library, medical room and 3 multi-purpose classrooms. The auditorium is equipped with a special elastic floor for sports fields, and physical education classes will be moved to the auditorium on rainy days. The outdoor sports ground has a racing track, which can also be converted into a golf course, and there are simple children's play facilities."

    7. "京斯敦國際學校 中西並重" [Kingston International School: Balancing Eastern and Western Cultures]. Hong Kong Economic Times (in Chinese). 2004-06-05.

      The article notes: "京斯敦國際學校於2001年創立,是為了延續幼兒園及國際幼兒園提供的整全雙語教學而開辦,幼兒園及幼兒園則已開辦了8年。京斯敦國際學校是全港首間採用「國際文憑組織小學計畫課程」(IBO-PYP)的小學,今年3月更成為國際文憑組織授權的IB學校,提供國際認可的小學課程;同時亦是全港首間獲HKQAA頒發的ISO9002優質管理認證文憑的國際學校。"

      From Google Translate: "Kingston International School was founded in 2001 to continue the comprehensive bilingual teaching provided by kindergarten and international kindergarten, which have been in operation for 8 years. Kingston International School is the first primary school in Hong Kong to adopt the International Baccalaureate Organization Primary Years Program (IBO-PYP). In March this year, it became an IB school authorized by the International Baccalaureate Organization, providing internationally recognized primary school curriculum; it also It is the first international school in Hong Kong to obtain the ISO9002 Quality Management Certification Diploma issued by HKQAA."

    8. Less significant coverage:
      1. "【教育要聞】國際學校本地生 比例續增至25%" [[Education News] The proportion of local students in international schools continues to increase to 25%]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2019-04-11. Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.

        The article notes: "六所國際學校中,本地生比例最高的是京斯敦國際學校,有百分之七十四點七,即在二百五十七名學生中,有一百九十二人是本地生"

        From Google Translate: "Among the six international schools, Kingston International School has the highest proportion of local students, with 74.7%, or 192 out of 257 students, being local students."

      2. "大肚已鋪路入名校 郭可盈谷B女做尖子" [Pregnant and Already Paving the Way to a Prestigious School: Kenix Kwok Helps Her Daughter Excel]. 突然一週 (in Chinese). 2011-09-09. pp. SW066–067.

        The article notes: "位於九龍塘金巴倫道的京斯敦幼兒園,是城中出名的學校,不少明星仔女爭住入,吳君如女兒陳是知亦是該校學生。其學費亦為全城之冠,幼兒園的課程,家長可選擇每星期上課日數,一般三至五天,每年學費八萬五千元,再加一萬五千按金,九百元報名費和雜費,每年超過十萬元。京斯敦國際學校最優勝有一條龍學校網,由幼兒園到幼兒園,小學以至中學,學生較易考入拔萃小學、瑪利諾修院學校、嘉諾撒聖瑪利學校。學校以國語和英語授課,每日有一小時由外國老師教授的英文課,課堂室外又有大型活動教室。"

        From Google Translate: "Kingston Nursery School, located on Kimball Road, Kowloon Tong, is a famous school in the city. Many celebrity children are vying to enter. Sandra Ng's daughter Jilian Chan is also a student of the school. Its tuition is also the highest in the city, kindergarten courses, parents can choose the number of days per week, usually three to five days, annual tuition $85,000, plus $15,000 deposit, $900 registration fee and miscellaneous expenses, more than $100,000 per year. Kingston International School has the best network of schools, from kindergarten to kindergarten, primary to secondary school, students are more likely to enter Prince Edward Primary School, Marino Convent School, Canossian St. Mary's School. The school teaches in Mandarin and English, with one hour a day of English lessons taught by foreign teachers and a large activity classroom outside the classroom."

      3. "英基21校「簡教中」" [21 English Schools "Teaching Chinese in Simplified Chinese"]. Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). 2018-06-12. p. F2.

        The article notes: "本港有五十三所國際學校,各校有彈性選取以繁體字或簡體字,教授中文課程。本報向不同學校查詢任教中文情況,本地生人數佔七成四的京斯敦國際學校,統一以繁體字教中文,學校暫未有計畫更改現行安排。英基學校協會屬下有二十二所學校,除啟新書院,其餘均為「簡教中」。"

        From Google Translate: "There are 53 international schools in Hong Kong. Each school has the flexibility to choose to teach Chinese courses in traditional Chinese or simplified Chinese. This newspaper inquired about the situation of teaching Chinese in different schools. Kingston International School, which has 74% local students, teaches Chinese in traditional Chinese characters. The school has no plans to change the current arrangement. There are 22 schools under the ESF Schools Association. Except for Kai Hsin College, the rest are all "simplified education secondary schools"."

      4. Tong, Hiu-ming 唐曉明 (2017-04-05). "有本港國際學校取錄本地學生人數超上限" [Some Local International Schools Admit More Local Students Than Allowed]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-02. Retrieved 2024-12-02.

        The article notes: "其中不少學校更超收本地生,以京斯敦國際學校國際小學的情況最為嚴重,該校目前有254名學生,當中多達179人為本地生,佔比例70.5%。"

        From Google Translate: "Many of these schools have even admitted more local students than allowed, with the situation at Kingston International School Primary being the most serious. The school currently has 254 students, of which as many as 179 are local students, making up 70.5% of the total."

      5. "依山而建減成本空間多 非標準校舍奪建築大獎". Ming Pao (in Chinese). 2003-03-17. p. A9.

        The article notes: "兩間非標準設計的校舍分別在香港建築師學會2002年度年獎中獲表揚 ... 獲得「會長獎狀」的九龍塘窩打老道「京斯敦國際學校」亦獲評判團高度評價,建築師利用不同色彩、圖案及透視效果,令學校外觀趣味盎然,激發學習創意,每個課室的牆壁及有公共空間的表面都可供學生展示藝術作品,建築費1720萬元,施工期僅5個月。"

        From Google Translate: "Two non-standard school buildings were commended in the 2002 Annual Awards of the Hong Kong Institute of Architects ... The "Kingston International School" on Waterloo Road, Kowloon Tong, which received the "President's Certificate", was also highly praised by the jury. The architects used different colors, patterns and perspective effects to make the school's appearance interesting and stimulate learning creativity. Each classroom The walls and public space surfaces can be used by students to display art works. The construction cost is HK$17.2 million and the construction period is only 5 months."

      6. Yamato, Yoko (2003). Education in the Market Place: Hong Kong's International Schools and Their Mode of Operation. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre, University of Hong Kong. p. 86. ISBN 978-962-8093-571. Retrieved 2024-12-02 – via Google Books.

        The article notes: "Kingston International School, which used to be solely a kindergarten , started its primary school division in September 2001 with only Primary 1 pupils in addition to its preschool children. It constructed a new building which could take in full classes up to Primary 6. The development of Kingston International Primary School from a preschool was a new landmark in the expansion of the sector: kindergartens extended to primary schools with provision of a full primary school."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kingston International School (traditional Chinese: 京斯敦國際學校; simplified Chinese: 京斯敦国际学校) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 08:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going with keep per Cunard. It's important to search for non-English sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs). I agree. Searches for non-English sources is missing in a lot of Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/China discussions. Cunard (talk) 10:44, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I finding that to be a common difficulty in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Schools, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs), that is really unfortunate. There are numerous AfDs of schools in that deletion sorting list that are likely notable. The AfDs require someone with the language expertise or the access to local sources to prove those schools are notable. In many cases, there are no editors with the necessary expertise and resources so the articles get deleted and the Wikipedia:Systemic bias is exarcerbated. Cunard (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Cunard, you have not included URLs in these references making it hard to review them. There is also the usual problem here that news sources are often primary sources, and (as your first reference seems to demonstrate) this is clearly a private school and so must meet NORG, so the information we have about the school should meet WP:ORGDEPTH. Information about a fuss over its fees won't cut it. The information about being the first to offer the IB Primary Years Programme in Hong Kong is better, but it is not that notable as the number of schools offering that programme in any locale is always very small. We have some information there about the school, and we may be at a marginal keep, but it depends on whether the information is independent too. Sources must meet WP:SIRS, and so the occasion of the articles is important. I'll only be looking at the seven sources you deem stronger - could you provide the URLs for those? Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:29, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sirfurboy, I wonder what you mean by it is not that notable as the number of schools offering that programme in any locale is always very small. Obviously, you don't mean WP:Notable, because "it is not that qualifies-for-a-separate-article-on-Wikipedia" would be nonsense. Do you mean that it's not important, or that in your opinion, this information is less than newsworthy?
    The rule is that if a subject gets media coverage for something we could reasonably put in an encyclopedia article, then that 'counts'. It doesn't matter if the coverage is about something we think is inevitable, ordinary, or unimportant. I see other editors sometimes claiming things like "Sure, this school has been in the news every week for the last 50 years, and we have 50 annual inspection reports from the national government comparing it against other schools (NB: any source making comparisons is a WP:SECONDARY source), but there's nothing that I personally believe is special about this school, so none of that should count." That's not how notability is supposed to work. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... something we could reasonably put in an encyclopedia article. That's the question. Why would that be something to be reasonable to put in an encyclopaedia article? ORGDEPTH requires that such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. First in HK to provide a specific syllabus used - in many other places - by certain private international schools is not obviously ORGDEPTH coverage, which is why I would like to read the articles myself. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to International College Hong Kong. Sorry to propose yet another ATD, but from my research I think this is the most appropriate for various reasons. Kingston is a private school, founded by Emily Ngan, and run for profit. But in 2009 it created a partnership with ICHK Hong Lok Yuen, Japanese International School to create the ICHK secondary and established the International College Hong Kong. [18] Ngan is on the board of governors as is the current principal [19]. Together all of these schools form the International College, and we have a page for that College which, sadly, omits mention of Kingston and the Japanese school. So that needs to be rectified. But ICHK Hong Lok Yuen is mentioned on that page, as it should be, and does not have a standalone page. The three feeder primaries are in a partnership and best treated together for encyclopaedic coverage. That is a PAGEDECIDE issue, regardless of whether we think the school meets the notability guidelines for a standalone article. On that last point, as this is a private and for profit school, I do not think the sources above provide sufficient evidence of ORGDEPTH. We know the school was indeed created almost 25 years ago and pre-existed its current partnership, and we know that it was the first to offer a specific syllabus in Hong Kong, but all of this information is on the school's history page (primary and not independent) and I cannot see any evidence that anyone has found the school significant enough to tell us about it, beyond the information provided by the school (either from the website or press releases). It is a primary school, and thus not large. 25 years is a reasonable age, and it is somewhat prestigous, just for being a private international school. It might feel marginal, but given the PAGEDECIDE factors, I think merge is the most appropriate outcome. The International College Hong Kong will be improved by that (especially if we can also add something about the Japanese school) and no encyclopaedic information need be lost. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:33, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there a source verifying that Kingston International School is "run for profit"? I have been unable to find a source verifying whether it is for-profit or non-profit. All three of the schools affiliated with Kingston International School are private non-profit schools. The ICHK Secondary website says, "These ideas are offered as the result of our experience in International College Hong Kong, a private not-for-profit secondary school." The ICHK Hong Lok Yuen website says, "How is the school governed? ICHK HLY is established as a not-for-profit school and incorporated as companies limited by guarantee." The Japanese International School website says: "JIS is a non-profit making school serving the international community of Hong Kong." Cunard (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It is run by a privately owned for profit company, Sheen Wealth International Limited. [20]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      From this Acclime page, "A company limited by guarantee is suitable for non-profit organisations in Hong Kong, as it lacks share capital and is owned by guarantee members who are only liable for a predetermined contribution in case the company is wound up. ... Establishing a company limited by guarantee in Hong Kong offers a unique structure for organisations focused on social good or mutual benefit. Compared to companies limited by shares, these entities do not have shareholders and aim to reinvest profits to further their objectives."

      It is unclear from the Dun & Bradstreet link what type of company Sheen Wealth International Limited is. It could be a company limited by guarantee (non-profit) or limited by shares (for-profit). Cunard (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

      It is a private company limited by shares. [21] There's also a bit of a clue in the name. "Sheen Wealth..." Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is enough information to support a standalone article for Kingston International School (Hong Kong). I agree that the primary schools ICHK Hong Lok Yuen, Japanese International School and Kingston International School should be discussed in the article for the secondary school, International College Hong Kong. But covering the three primary schools in any substantial amount of detail in the secondary school article would violate undue weight. The article about the secondary school would get overwhelmed with details about three primary schools. Kingston International School was founded in 1996 and the partnership that led to the creation of the secondary school was formed in 2009. The primary school has a long history of being completely unrelated to the secondary school. It is preferable to briefly mention the primary school in the secondary school and have a separate standalone article. If this topic were merged to the secondary school article, there would be either the loss of content or a violation of the undue weight policy. The seven sources I provided are all about the school and demonstrate it meets Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Significant coverage. Cunard (talk) 10:46, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the International College Hong Kong article is not the secondary school article. It is an article about the collegiate of the four schools. The secondary school is called ICHK Secondary [22]. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:30, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the correction. The partnership page says, "Our three founding partners set up ICHK Secondary 14 years ago to provide a pathway for students from ICHK Hong Lok Yuen, Japanese International School and Kingston International School." The history page says, "JIS and KIS joined as partners, with the three primary schools providing the funds to set up ICHK. ... A major renovation programme followed, with the school’s four main buildings upgraded, ready for ICHK to reopen in 2009. ... Since then, ICHK’s reputation as an innovative, progressive school has grown..."

    I don't see any evidence of there being a collegiate of four schools called "International College Hong Kong". The references to International College Hong Kong (ICHK) I've been able to find have been to the secondary school. This book and this book call International College Hong Kong as a school. I'd be concerned about the collegiate of four schools International College Hong Kong being able to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline on its own if there is a future consensus that it cannot derive notability from those four schools.

    But since International College Hong Kong is about the collegiate and not the secondary school, the undue weight concerns no longer apply. I am fine with a merge of Kingston International School (Hong Kong) to International College Hong Kong assuming that a source verifying a collegiate of the four schools with this name can be found and as long as International College Hong Kong doesn't get deleted from being non-notable. If International College Hong Kong does get deleted for being non-notable, I would want Kingston International School to be spun out again. Cunard (talk) 12:06, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. I'll have to leave it for now, but will look again later for references (preferably secondary) regarding the collegiate. It is a bit of a curious structure, to be honest, where - from what I see - the 3 primaries are legally distinct but have jointly invested in the secondary and thus formed the college. If I can find secondary sources on that, it would also enhance the college page. I don't think the college would be deleted. A similar case I worked on recently was Brest Naval Training Centre (similar in some ways, not others). Assuming merge gains consensus, spin out is possible and a good outcome wherever any of the constituent school's notability, and what we can say about them, sees the article growing to the point that the spinout makes sense. Note to closer - I think we are at 7 days today. Could this be relisted a week to allow this discussion to conclude please? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going with keep per Cunard. I'm not sure that it should be merged. It seems to me that having a "partnership" like that with other schools is rather common in Hong Kong, and that shouldn't be a reason to put the schools in the same page. BTW, I've just added some info and a source to the article. --Dustfreeworld (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion on whether to keep or merge would be great.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike [Talk] 10:33, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Team Epic (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)

An article about unnotable 10-year old canadian web series which has no significant coverage from media. All sources in this article are just brief mentions of this show and do not prove its notability. Please do not be confused with Pop Team Epic, it is a completely unrelated series. SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article about an obsolete piece of military equipment which has no significant coverage and has had none for not far off 20 years. Macktheknifeau (talk) 10:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdelouahhab Zaid (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)

Originally created by Nuel Jr (talk · contribs) but they were then blocked for advertising or promotion because of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_209#UPE_-_Message_from_Simple_English_Wiki.

Then User:Bolaji abegi suddenly moves the article to mainspace, without removing the AfC templates. Not sure if that is the same person, but they may be of interest.

Draft submitted to mainspace, but nothing was done with the AfC reviewers comments. @DoubleGrazing: wrote: Additionally, there is far too much unreferenced information for an article on a living person (WP:BLP). Note that pretty much every material statement, anything potentially contentious, and all private personal details must be clearly supported by inline citations to reliable published sources, or else removed. and @GSS: wrote: None of the sources establish independent notability, as they either provide only passing mentions or routine coverage, with none offering a detailed discussion of the subject. Polygnotus (talk) 09:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pincer (biology) (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)

Mainly per the Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy -- this explains what pincers may refer to, but its principle purpose is to explain that "these are not the same thing", not to say anything meaningful about all pincers in general. It serves as a dictionary definition of pincers. Proposing this to be replaced with a disambiguation page. Did some googling to try to find sources discussing pincers generally; found none. Mrfoogles (talk) 07:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 08:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Last One (film) (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:TOOEARLY. Draftify. This article looks like a PR work for Lokesh Kumar if anything. No indication that the film started filming or is going to release anytime soon. The director's page mentions that this film is in preproduction. DareshMohan (talk) 07:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:40, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify. WP:TOOSOON. Sources are just announcements and unveiling of first look. Film has not reached post production and no release date has been set yet. Better to keep it in draft till the film gets closer to release date with hopefully significant coverage in reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 21:58, 4 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! 08:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of heirs to the throne of Liechtenstein (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 citations. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 66.99.15.163 (talk) 19:59, 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) 06:55, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The two sources do not support the article content. One merely explains the House Law and the other only mentions that Prince Franz refused the regency not the succession, so it contradicts the article text. Note that the regency does not go to the immediate next-in-line; it goes to the next-in-line who is over the age of majority. This is similar to succession in the United Kingdom where the regent/counsellors of state are the people in line over the age of majority not necessarily the person first in line, who may be a baby or child. As an unsourced assembly of original research, it fails WP:GNG, as well as the verifiability and no original research policies. See WP:DEL-REASON, #6 and #7. The web searches done by 4meter4 are inadequate: per WP:NLIST for standalone lists sources that group those individuals as a list or set are required. DrKay (talk) 17:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The nomination is very vague, but I would agree as I don't see this meeting WP:NLIST or WP:SIGCOV, warranting its own article. All of this information is mentioned in their respective articles anyway. TheBritinator (talk) 14:31, 2 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! 08:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cartoys (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 Maxvolt (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Maxvolt (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done research across various sources to improve this article but I was unable to find any evidence this company meets the required notability criteria. The company does not appear to have received significant attention in reliable, independent secondary sources. The available sources are primary sources, press releases, company profiles, and promotional material, which do not count towards demonstrating notability. Maxvolt (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not NVIDIA but it's a pretty well known company on the west coast.
    Primary source
    https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/subscriber-only/2020/05/15/largest-private-companies.html
    "The 100 largest private companies on The List collectively reported revenue of $43.8 billion in 2019, up from $41.3 billion in last year’s list. The Lemman family sold North Coast Electric Co. (ranked at No. 20 last year) to Paris-based electrical distributor, Sonepar USA on Feb. 25, 2019. Car Toys Inc. (ranked No. 8 last year), Sound Car & Truck Stores (ranked No. 35 last year), Aviation Technical Services Inc. (ranked No. 42 last year, Precept Wine (ranked No. 64 last year) and PSF Mechanical Inc. (ranked at No. 77 last year) declined to participate on this year’s List. " Clinton555 (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability of a company, according to Wikipedia’s standards, is established through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
    The company being listed among the largest private companies in the Seattle area may have value locally but it is not enough to establish notability on Wikipedia.
    While the article above definitely comes from a reliable secondary publication, it doesn’t discuss the company in detail (achievements, history, innovation, industry leadership, etc.). The article mentions Car Toys briefly and focuses on the rankings, instead of the in-depth coverage of the subject.
    This is considered trivial coverage: "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
    I see no evidence of multiple sources that discuss the company in detail rather than providing passing mentions.
    At least three sources are needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article Maxvolt (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well detailed nomination rationale which is consistent with my own findings. Mekomo (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 12:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both the nomination and the Delete argument are coming from less experienced editors so I'm relisting this discussion in hopes of additional discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: looks like XFDCloser oopsied the log page again, manually listing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (tc) 07:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This BLP does not meet the notability criteria per WP:SINGER and relies heavily on unreliable sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:57, 29 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! 07:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AeroJet (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:NORG, there are only two references, one to planespotters and another one to this bulletin board where it is mentioned in passing. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:32, 29 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! 07:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TezJet (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)

Non notable airlines, most of the sources are sourced to planespotters, own website or other similar sources. Fails WP:NORG. This article was also created by an editor with undisclosed COI in the airlines.[25] - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:10, 29 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! 07:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowruz-e Ali (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)

Mass-created abadi article by Carlossuarez46. On the day he created this article, he created at least 450 others. I say "at least" because upwards of 20,000 C46 articles have been deleted already, and these won't show up in this search. No known location beyond the general area, appears to possibly be a store in the city of Izeh - the Iranian census is often counted around land-marks and potentially in this case this was simply the count of people around this store. Without a known location it is impossible to verify that this is an actual community and not just a census-counting-unit. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 29 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! 07:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Zaman Priyo (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)

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and merging it into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. GrabUp - Talk 09:58, 29 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! 07:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, and per other similar articles. Procyon117 (talk) 12:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but why is this article being deleted ? 103.197.153.202 (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because the subject does not meet notability guidlines, such as GNG. GrabUp - Talk 14:04, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Farhan Faiyaaz (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)

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and merging it into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. GrabUp - Talk 09:11, 29 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! 07:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, and per other similar articles. Procyon117 (talk) 12:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jorge Nieves (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)

Tagged for notability since 2019, tried looking his name up on Google, but hardly anything came up, especially since a lot of other people have the same name. Other than player profile sites and a couple Wikipedia mirrors, nothing else comes up. Searching his full name yields nothing either. Procyon117 (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Americanoid (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)

Delete or possibly merge with Okunev culture. The first paragraph is about a "discounted" theory which probably doesn't deserve its own article. The second also is not deserving of its own article and can be merged if it isn't already in the Okunev article (I only skimmed it). PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 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) 06:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with this merge to help reach a WP:CONSENSUS.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be fine with merging with Vladimir Jochelson as well, for consensus. PersusjCP (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Okunev culture. Encoded  Talk 💬 18:51, 1 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! 06:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 1997 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahariar Khan Aanas (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 don’t see the WP:GNG being met here. The cited sources only discuss their letter before death in the Bangladeshi movement, with no significant coverage found. This article seems similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and a merge to List of people who died in the July massacre might be a better option. GrabUp - Talk 04:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Tokushima Broadcasting (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Planned TV station that never existed. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serie A broadcasters (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)

Notability of this topic has not changed since the last AFD 6-7 months ago. It still falls foul of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I would support WP:SALTing this to prevent another re-creation. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding: (1) the extant state of sourcing; and (2) if renaming as an alternative to deletion would be suitable; would be helpful in ascertaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but this still needs a lot of rework. Looking over the list, I don't see it working as a rename and it wouldn't work as a redirect. Plus, SportingFlyer gave some good sources. Conyo14 (talk) 05:08, 1 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! 06:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A user recreated this page two months after it was redirected by Donaldd23 in September 2024 and said "Putting this through AfD is better than just redirecting it." Well, here's putting it through AfD. MNEK's first EP is simply not notable. I can't find any usable reviews or news sources on this really, and it didn't chart, even if a few of its included singles did. Total fail of WP:NALBUMS in all senses. Ss112 14:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MNEK per above. Redirect is preferred AtD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding the proposed redirect would be helpful in attaining a more clear consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous relister's concern, which has gone unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional weapon (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:DICDEF and WP:GNG. Perhaps it could be redirected to and explained in weapon? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 02:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the sheer number of keep !votes, their arguments are not so clearly based on policy or guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A basic google books and scholar search shows WP:SIGCOV. It's a widely used term with legal implications both domestically and internationally. I can't imagine any serious WP:BEFORE was done, because I am seeing some obvious avenues for article development in google scholar and google books as it relates to international law and armaments agreements in relation to conventional weapons. The possibilities for expanding this are there, and we are not under any time limit to do so.4meter4 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As User:Doczilla stated, please demonstrate this SIGCOV instead of just claiming it is there. The last 3 Keep !voters said the same thing and this is just repeating the point that has already been called insufficient without any evidence that the AfD was poorly conducted. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 09:49, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Google Scholar alone generates over 5000 hits, with journals ranging from Journal of Cold War Studies to Defence Science Journal and a number of scholarly monographs as well. Google Books returns another 19000, although the relevance of some of those is likely lower. Given the role the distinction between conventional and non-conventional weapons (nuclear and chemical in particular) played in arms control discussions and treaties in the 1970s and 1980s (to give just one example) it should be patently obvious this is a significant topic. Intothatdarkness 13:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per all above. BD2412 T 16:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
McCoy's Building Supply (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)

Clearly fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of this company anywhere online CutlassCiera 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is new. Granted, needs work. Local/regional news stories: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]
Listed as one of USA's top retailers: [35] Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And national news^ Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://familybusinessmagazine.com/growth/supplied-for-success/ Tejano512 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A little too quick on the deletion-axe there, as this is a brand new article still being worked on, when it was put up for deletion here. I just surfed the internet and found many mentions of this company, branched in Texas and multiple other states. The article could use more work, but the business is legitimate and a pretty big operation overall. — Maile (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are PR-type articles, and the few others that are local sources don't provide enough for significant coverage. An announcement claiming that a company had made a donation does not provide notability and significant coverage. CutlassCiera 13:26, 2 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! 06:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources that would establish notability. The previous AfD contained a lot of vague gestures about "historical significance" without suggesting sourcing improvements. If voting Keep, please show that the subject meets notability requirements by pointing to specific secondary sources that are reliable and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump (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)

Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.
None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? This isn't a policy-based argument. jp×g🗯️ 14:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).
2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.
3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).
In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)
In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [36] [37] [38] [39], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.
The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.
But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.
Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the distinction between "significant coverage of something a person did" and "significant coverage of the person"? I am confused by this claim. jp×g🗯️ 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, probably easiest to show you examples, all from the same RS:
The #1 stories have some biographical information about the subjects, but they're really focused on specific events/statements/actions/etc. #2 are actual full-length biographies of the subject. You see a lot of differences in these types of stories: #1 is focused on a particular time and place, #2 spans the subject's entire lifetime. #1 includes a lot of quotes from the subject (what the subject said about the event/action/whatever), whereas #2 has much more in the BBC's own voice. (You can scroll through and just see that #2 has fewer quotation marks than #1.) #1 is usually shorter than #2, sometimes by half.
For our purposes -- writing a stand-alone biography article about a subject -- we can kinda/sorta do it with RSes like #1's, but you really need #2's to cover the subject's whole life, as opposed to just some action/event that happened during their life.
For this article subject (Kai Trump), we only have #1's, no #2's. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least reading the sources cited here, I'm not really convinced there are even any significant coverage even of the things the subject has done. The deportations article, for example, starting from the 5th sentence is evidently secondary, and I'm not sure I see the same thing for Kai here. Maybe the second half of the Telegraph article? A lot of the references proposed as the best sources in this discussion seem like straightforward fails of SBST. Alpha3031 (tc) 12:30, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. (Redacted) Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.
1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.
2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[40]] and [[41]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Likely TOOSOON. Playing golf isn't notable, there is coverage of a speech given, but being social media star in 2024 isn't notable alone. We've had a flood of coverage since the event, but nothing before. I'm not sure this person is notable for what they've done; outside of the Trump name, what have they done to be notable. She's a "potentially notable" influencer, so nothing notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was accidentally removed from the log on Nov 21. So one more go around on the AfD logs, despite the seemingly snowy keep here; given that this was somewhat hidden, there are canvassing concerns here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. Unable to find any sources via Google or its sub-engines, the only sources are basic geographical databases and a census from 1981, which doesn't seem to constitute presumed notability. Although this doesn't matter nearly as much, the article is an orphan (and FindLink cannot find anything), which questions its notability. I doubt this article has potential in the encyclopedia both now and in the future, and I suggest it's removal. Sparkle & Fade (Talk|contribs) 03:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This (Ozempic) appears to be a content-fork for a specific product containing the original article (Semaglutide) as its active ingredient. I don't see anything here that is highly specific to this individual product or independently notable about it, but instead often promotional. It's spent most of its life as a redirect to the ingredient's article. Looking for additional input whether it is notable for its own article. DMacks (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ozempic is an almost genericised trademark at this point and is used all the time in the media and elsewhere to refer to this medicine. This page should definitely redirect to the active ingredient. —turdastalk - contribs 05:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as it’s definitely a likely search term. Mccapra (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. At least today, it's practically got Band-Aid status as a tradename being used as a generic term, but that may not always be the case later, so now wouldn't be the time to say Ozempic has standalone notability. Instead, the brand is directly tied to the active ingredient that would make it hard to separate notability even years down the line, so it makes sense as a very likely search term to retain the redirect to semaglutide. The general preference for trade names is to avoid them as article titles and instead have the active ingredient as the title with common trade names included briefly somewhere in the article when warranted. KoA (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a redirect. While it's plausible that something could be written about the brand name that is independent of the drug's active ingredient, the two iterations of an article in this page's history do not even attempt to do that. At the moment I don't think we've reached a point where it's possible to do it either. Even more commonly-known drug brand names (Viagra and Lipitor, for example) do not have their own articles. If someone would like to attempt to write an article about the Ozempic brand, I would recommend creating a draft at Draft:Ozempic and having it evaluated by the community before it is accepted and moved to mainspace at Ozempic. Marbletan (talk) 12:59, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cliff Lerner (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)

None of the reliable sources that mention this person discusses him in any significant depth. Some provide Lerner's commentary about his own companies, others are interviews with him (not very independent, since it's him talking about himself), others are plainly unreliable puff-pieces. Badbluebus (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PeerStream (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 company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [42] [43] [44], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodel (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_24#Asmodel * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But to me another question is, if the DC version is actually the primary topic here, or if the original angel inspiring that character would be. If so, this article might be turned around to primarily cover the angel, and have a section for the DC character. The Dictionary of Angels has an entry on Asmodel. Daranios (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Uniswap Labs (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 reliable sources found for this software developer Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Adams (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)

Notability is not inherited, and founding a (maybe) notable company doesn't make the person notable. Found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 02:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.forbes.com/profile/hayden-adams/ he was 30 under 30 in finance (2023) https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2023/finance Szenon (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Devon Anthoni Ringi (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)

Non-notable rapper. Neither of the listed sources seem reliable, and I found no additional ones online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 02:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article is at least two-thirds fluff. In its entirety, it is background, direct excerpts from a book, an uninformative scheduling timeline, and the personal puffery and conjecture of the respective heads of state. Given it is about a polity that never existed or even got at all close to existing, coverage of it should likely be limited to a blurb between a sentence and a paragraph in length on a handful of related articles. Remsense ‥  01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyletown, Virginia (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 of the place name articles in Virginia that is tagged as unsourced. This is very similar to Claytonville, Virginia (AfD discussion); the two are in the same county. Nothing in the 1914 county history about this place, nor in a recent Arcadia press book about the county. There are zero results on newspapers.com in Virginia for "Pyletown"; searching for the variant "Pyle Town" brings up nothing about this place either.

While this does show up as a place name on the USGS topos, all I can find about this place is that there is a Pyletown road in a rural area several miles outside of Boyce, Virginia. This doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND and isn't really verifiable. Hog Farm Talk 01:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peace efforts during World War II (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)

Somehow, it seems like a synthetic topic—should we really have a terribly under-cited laundry list under this heading? Its items do not seem like they go together except superficially. Naturally, no connective sources are cited. Remsense ‥  01:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is a valid and important article. If it requires improvement, the right thing to do is to fix it, not delete it. There is plenty of information available on this topic online! Valorthal77 (talk) 04:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not convinced it is valid, is the thing. Rather, I'm not convinced an article of this particular scope—one that includes both Swedish pacifists, American isolationists, and Rudolf Hess—is valid. Remsense ‥  06:00, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Bduke (talk) 05:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Military. WCQuidditch 08:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it needs to be Draftified for now; the subject of 'attempts of the belligerents to come to some peace agreement during WW2' is not necessarily out of scope for Wikipedia, and it might be useful to have it all summarised in one place. But the current state of the article requires a lot of work to bring it up to standard, e.g. the lead reads like a fragment of an idea that's not mentioned elsewhere - rather than a summary, there are almost no in-line citations, and it's all worded like an essay with quite a few assertions in wiki-voice that need to be attributed to sources. The 'analysis' section, in particular needs immediate attention if the article does remain, 'analysis' is WP:OR almost by definition. JeffUK 14:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War (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)

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları (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)

Was actually gonna do this some time ago. Anyway, this article has no sources (and been like that for a few years) and looking for possible source and there doesn't seem to be anything prove this article can still be rewritten and kept. Their official website seems to have been taken down, or perhaps never existed in the first place. The subject alone is likely non-notable, if not as much as Battle for Dream Island always tended to be. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Eva Kurowski (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:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, WP:SINGER. No indication of significance.Single ref is a profile. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never been updated. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 08:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a lot to base notability on. It all seems to local news. The book may be notable. I see its published by Rowohlt which is an old established publisher, potentially an indication of a pass as WP:NAUTHOR. I don't think these add up to much. There is a couple of event listings and promo articles for the book. There could be more here though. scope_creepTalk 04:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A quick search shows several articles about her and her performances. She seems to be a important figure in the cultural scene in the Ruhrgebiet. @Bridget:, German-speaking user here. WAZ is the biggest regional paper in Germany, focusing on the Ruhrgebiet. There are also other articles on the Westdeutsche Zeitung (a state-wide focus). [60]

[61] [62] TanookiKoopa (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of these references are routine notices of the events with ticket prices and not reliable sources. See what else turns up. scope_creepTalk 22:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Again, "quick search". The page need to be expanded and properly cited, sure. No reason to delete it for that :) TanookiKoopa (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:BLP and as such it needs high quality WP:SECONDARY sources. So far there has nothing been presented that makes this individual notable. Its all ultra-local news, small snippets that don't cut it. If there is WP:THREE secondary sources, that are international in nature then that would be great for WP:SINGER but not local city news, the local papers reporting on the own wee z-list celebrities. That is not establishing notablity per long established consensus. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go read what the Ruhrgebiet is first. TanookiKoopa (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call WAZ "local" any more than the Washington Post or the Boston Globe. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not waz, the news is all from the same place. scope_creepTalk 22:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seem to be differing opinions on the quality of sources available, perhaps some new commenters can make a consensus clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Ilidža (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)

Yet another non-notable minor action of the Bosnian War created by one of the editors who have been very busy in this space recently. The comprehensive two volume history of the war, Balkan Battlegrounds https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=jodpAAAAMAAJ&pg=GBS.PA346&hl=en_AU states only that street battles commenced on 22 April, and then with reference to this suburb of Sarajevo, "Over the next few days, Serb forces occupied all of Ilidza (at the northwestern end of the airport runway)". This isn't significant coverage, and doesn't even indicate there was fighting, let alone a major battle. The article body (less background, which is cited to a dead link I haven't tried to resurrect as yet to verify) is completely unsourced. Lacks SIGCOV and should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh conquest of the Punjab (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)

Clearly a pseudo-historical article created by a blocked-sock, that should not have been in the mainspace to begin with. Fails WP:MILNG, nothing significant to be found related this event. Garudam Talk! 00:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the deletion nomination and the reasons for deletion...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Pure nonsense. The entire article is based on one source alone.
Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as it seems to be one line. Slatersteven (talk) 11:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]