Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today
Read how to nominate an article for deletion.
![]() |
- Saeed Bhutta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can find sources to show that other individuals with the same name are notable, but not this one. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, History, and Pakistan. Mccapra (talk) 07:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Embassy of the United Kingdom, Bratislava (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:ORG. Only source provided is primary. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Slovakia, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 08:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge into Slovakia–United Kingdom relations. Both articles are short and the target is helped by the source. Why wasn't this ATD proposed upfront? gidonb (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge per Gidonb. I'm not sure why these articles persist in being nominated at AfD when the can and should be merged and/or redirected. Thryduulf (talk) 00:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- From WP:BLAR:
An RfC closed in 2021 found Most users believe that AfD should be used to settle controversial or contested cases of blanking and redirecting.
Given you and the over AfD participant seem to prefer merging over redirecting, sending this to AfD seems to me like the right call. Pilaz (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- From WP:BLAR:
- Delete and oppose merge because the target article has zero secondary sources, no encyclopedic content and should be deleted. No secondary sources at this page either. By the way, AfD is an appropriate venue to discuss merging or redirecting. AusLondonder (talk) 17:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I was going to Merge this article but now there is opposition to that closure so I'm relisting this discussion to see if we can get to a consensus. Would folks accept a Redirect instead?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Continental Nordic race (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The article fails WP:GNG, all its source are primary sources from about 100 years ago, written by "race theorists" (see Scientific racism). We already have Nordic race and that seems enough. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not needed as standalone article. Capitals00 (talk) 18:10, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge or redirect into Nordic race as an ATD. Appears not to meet WP:NFRINGE, but it's at least a viable search term. – Joe (talk) 06:50, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. – Joe (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak per criteria A7 and G11. Page was perfectly eligible for speedy deletion. (non-admin closure) CycloneYoris talk! 08:18, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oscareduardo10 (Influencer) (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. The subject of the article, appears to be promoting themselves, and I believed there is a strong possibility that the creator of the article is the same individual as the subject, raising concerns about self-promotion and conflict of interest. Additionally, the references used in the article are not reliable, including social media links and self-published sources that do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for verifiability and reliability. Indo360 (talk) 14:21, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 25. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 06:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:51, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
- Enciclopedia Combi Visual (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:NBOOK. I found a handful of citations to what might be this book, but not very many. Nothing else. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Spain. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Osyana (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 for NPP. Does not pass WP:NBOOK. There doesn't seem to be a lot about the book? There is a decent amount of things in press, but it all appears to be press-release type material (which doesn't count for Nbooks) from the publisher with little information that is more than it exists. There are more press release type materials that said there was going to be a movie to be released five years ago, but that never happened so that criterion of nbooks does not apply. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Comics and animation, and Philippines. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:43, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- David Rowley (writer) (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)
Help! Can't find any reviews of the Beatles books written by this guy, hence failing WP:NAUTHOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are at least two sigcov reviews of his books on ProQuest. 1 for Beatles For Sale, 1 for All Together Now. That's not quite there but I can't do an in depth check now - however, it's not nothing. I will vote after I have done a better check. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and England. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Does one of the ProQuest articles include a review from The Spectator? A review for All Together Now shows up in Google Search, but it's a dead link and not archived from what I can tell. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Significa liberdade Yes, that's one of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @PARAKANYAA: Is the other the review in Goldmine? Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Significa liberdade Yes, that's one of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:01, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Jamal Zougam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:BLP1E. Merge content where appropriate into 2004 Madrid train bombings, then redirect the page. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Terrorism, and Spain. Longhornsg (talk) 06:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment judging from the Spanish article, it's likely that if the main article was brought to FA level comprehensiveness a biography should be written on him per size split reasons, given that he is one of the key figures in one of the deadliest terror attacks ever. So, if this is merged, I would not oppose it being split out again at some time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Also, he does have (not counting life sentences), the third longest prison sentence of all time. I feel that is perhaps a claim to notability. From what I'm looking at an article could definitely be written on him - BLP1E is for low level crimes, not ones that kill nearly 200 people. The other two conditions of the policy are the person being a "low profile individual" (he is not) and that the event not be a SIGNIFICANT historical event in which the role of the person is well documented (he is). So he does not fail BLP1E. With more notorious cases there are often the sources to write both, and the reason he is the one with an article is because he seemed to be one of the more prominent figures. Same reason we have an article on Mohamed Atta. So either keep or merge for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:12, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Morocco. Shellwood (talk) 09:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- 2004 Madrid train bombings suspects (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 redirect to 2004 Madrid train bombings. Besides the WP:BLP considerations, absolutely no need for a separate page for this content per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Longhornsg (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism, Morocco, and Spain. Longhornsg (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Merge to the main article. Not actually as many BLP issues as I thought from the title, just a list of those convicted + one high profile very studied false arrest. The main article actually does not have a list of the men convicted of directly perpetrating the attack. The other sections are perhaps unnecessary but I feel a list of the main perpetrators would improve the main article. It appears unsourced but it is sourced to the Guardian article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Knowledge Aided Retrieval in Activity Context (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:PROMO and fails WP:GNG. KARNAC was mentioned in one promotional article in 2001 ([1], which was mentioned in WP:PASSING in one Radio Free Europe article 4 years ago, with no update as to whether this software was actually created. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Military, Terrorism, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 05:54, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep. There is sigcov in a 2009 book for two pages but it is discussed seemingly as a kind of hypothetical-ish thing. Discussed in several books from the 2010s as well, i less lengthy pieces. I would argue it is at least somewhat notable as a proposal - there is a decent amount of newspaper criticism of just the concept. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep per PARAKANYAA. No indication of WP:PROMO in the article. James500 (talk) 09:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Eva Carboni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not yet notable per WP:MUSICBIO. Her main claim to notability appears to be her collaboration with Mick Simpson, whose own notability remains unclear, but in any case on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. The only coverage I could find of her in a WP:BEFORE search is in music blogs, with no significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Wikishovel (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Italy. Wikishovel (talk) 05:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- The production of this artist is wide and easily verifiable on all music distribution platforms. We are not talking about self-productions but about productions of a real and recognized music label. The same streams and visions are public and demonstrate the truthfulness of what is written. Furthermore, the sources, although considered "secondary" are reliable and truthful. I believe that the request for cancellation is excessive.. 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:D521:A9AE:8355:ADEC (talk) 10:35, 11 August 2024 (UTC) — 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:D521:A9AE:8355:ADEC (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- The production of this artist is wide and easily verifiable on all music distribution platforms. We are not talking about self-productions but about productions of a real and recognized music label. The same streams and visions are public and demonstrate the truthfulness of what is written. Furthermore, the sources, although considered "secondary" are reliable and truthful. I believe that the request for cancellation is excessive.. Salvacarb (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2024 (UTC) — Salvacarb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- Delete per nom. Jdcomix (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please, explain the reasons.. 2A0D:3344:244D:4410:C50B:417B:1664:DB7C (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:46, 18 August 2024 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:26, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Buang Ruk Kamathep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unreferenced cross-wiki spam. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Thailand. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:43, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Not sure what the "cross-wiki spam" claim is supposed to mean. It's a nationally televised TV series, and has the usual press coverage[2][3][4] and magazine covers[5][6], though as is often the case most information seems to be from press releases. It's 15 years old now so some sources may have gone offline. That said, The current article is such an uninformative substub that there's not much to lose if this is deleted without prejudice. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:40, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep. The sources presented by Paul 012 can be added to the page and I consider them enough to show this is notable. A redirect should be considered anyway.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 17:42, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Brainy Smurf (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 for NPP. This article was AfD'd previously in 2011, where sources were presented, however I do not believe any of these sources actually help its case given modern standards. All of the sources presented were passing mentions where the character is used as a brief mention with no sigcov. Following this discussion of keep, a discussion to merge was had on the talk page, which reached a conclusion to merge. This was undone recently under the grounds that the character is important and has other language articles, which does not help it pass the GNG. Redirect to List of The Smurfs characters? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Timeline of Pinterest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. BD2412 T 02:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, Websites, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: standard WP:SPLITLIST, see Category:Technology company timelines. No blatantly promotional language visible, nor is the alleged UPE issue discussed on the TP, so that the tag could, or even should, have been removed. Might need some cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Not suitable for Wikipedia. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 02:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 05:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Wayne T. Smith (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Alabama, and Texas. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more participation. I do question the deletion rationale as the article creator is a current editor in good standing so while the article might have had some editing to it by paid editors, it wasn't created by a UPE.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Playware Studios (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Companies, Technology, and Singapore. BD2412 T 02:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Despite its many sources, fails WP:GNG. ~ JASWE (talk) 03:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Weak keep: I do not think a possible conflict of interest alone is a sufficient AfD reasoning, many articles were probably written unknowningly with a conflict of interest. Probably notability issues, but some projects received press coverage. IgelRM (talk) 11:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:11, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Home idle load (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. BD2412 T 02:53, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: Possibly relevant discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Electrical_engineering/Archive_1#Is Home Idle Load a neologism? PianoDan (talk) 00:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need to hear from more editors in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Greedflation (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 know Shrinkflation exists, but not every neologism needs its own page, many times pages such as this require much more substantial coverage to show the term is lasting and not simply a product of WP:Recent as well. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:54, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - this is a distinct concept and one that is widely discussed in politics around the world and needs its own page to reflect that discussion. Also, the article when this notice was posted had 48 references - how many references does an article need to show that it is notable? Superb Owl (talk) 02:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Politics, and Economics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Destra Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Basically per WP:WEBHOST. This article has been tagged as possibly having been "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use" for over seven years with no resolution of that tag. Notable or not, Wikipedia should not maintain content that violates its terms of use for such a length of time. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. BD2412 T 02:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Music, Theatre, Entertainment, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The article is neutrally written and the company passes Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. I see no evidence that it was "created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use". It is unlikely that the article was created or edited in return for payment as it looked like this (a small stub) in 2008 when it was placed in administration. Cunard (talk) 07:16, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep The company pass WP:SIGCOV and it was written from a neutral point of view, one of the core principle of Wikipedia Tesleemah (talk) 10:16, 19 August 2024
- Keep. The tag can probably be removed, I don't see any COI issues. May have started off that way but it has no issues now IMO. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:54, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a consensus to Keep this article but the nominator brings up serious concerns that I don't think have been addressed. I guess the question is, if an article started as a possible paid editing project how long is that stigma retained? Does it remain even after regular editors have contributed to the content creation?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ted Wang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A WP:BEFORE did not reveal that the subject meets WP:SIGCOV. PROD was declined. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Finance, and United States of America. TJMSmith (talk) 01:42, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, California, North Carolina, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:07, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Promotional. No SIGCOV or GNG met. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 01:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:12, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can be incubated and sources that indicated notability are added. There is little coverage for series leed they lauched, Also the article can be rewritten from a more neutral point of viewTesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there anyone willing to take on rewriting a 14 year-old article in Draft space? Because otherwise, Draftification can just mean a CSD G13 in six months.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 25 August 2024 (UTC)- I'll take a quick crack at it in about an hour. But if I can't find anything solid then I'll come back and vote for deletion. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Dr vulpes. It's nice to see you back in AFDLand. Liz Read! Talk! 03:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep: I've updated with multiple sources, removed all the unsourced material and any content that I couldn't find proper sources for. This was a fun clean up. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:59, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'll take a quick crack at it in about an hour. But if I can't find anything solid then I'll come back and vote for deletion. Dr vulpes (Talk) 03:06, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Timothy Williams (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I can't see that this has WP:SIGCOV in multiple independent reliable sources or that they meet WP:NACTOR. The article itself lists roles in multiple TV series and TV movies, however I can't see reliable sourcing to support the claims. The only independent reliable source which has SIGCOV I could find in an WP:BEFORE was this. TarnishedPathtalk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, and Virginia. TarnishedPathtalk 01:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Not enough coverage to write a verifiable article and certainly not enough to establish notability. I can't find any significant coverage. The CBC article linked is about Tim Williams (actor), not this guy. C F A 💬 02:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for the pick-up that the CBC article is about an entirely different person. TarnishedPathtalk 10:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to draft. Tag everything that is uncited as {{citation needed}} and tag everything that is cited to IMDb as {{better citation needed}}. BD2412 T 03:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Move to draft I support moving the article to draft where it can go incubated and sources added. Tesleemah 09:54, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Are there any sources that could be added though? This person's notability has not been established in nearly a decade. I doubt something big is going to happen in the next six months before it is deleted. C F A 💬 14:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- What sources? If there are sources they could be added now. This article was created 10:52, 24 December 2015. Draftification should generally be used for newish articles, not articles which haven't demonstrated notability after almost 9 years. TarnishedPathtalk 10:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. Draftifying an article this old is pointless. PARAKANYAA (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Draftify and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:39, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete: Per nom and per WP:DRAFTNO, articles older than 90 days shouldn't be moved to draft. M S Hassan 📬✍🏻 05:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Crestoran Odyssey: Heroes Inception (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 PROD'd but the tag was removed by the article's creator who is also the author of this book. Given that it is self-published, I don't believe it has been reviewed or meets WP:NBOOK. Obviously, COI involved here and all of the editor's content creation. I know that this is not a valid deletion rationale but I thought I'd point it out in this statement. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Science fiction and fantasy, and South Africa. Liz Read! Talk! 02:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete as there is no coverage in any independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Graham, Daviess County, Indiana (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)
Baker, in passing, calls this a village, but all I can ever seem to find there is the grain business (now owned by Purdue) which sits next to the tracks as far back as I can see. An 1886 history of the county doesn't mention it, though it mentions various people named Graham. I think this is just a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 02:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:48, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- BGR Capital & Trade (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 appears to be a self-promotional article created by the subject, User:BGRCT. -- Beland (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 00:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Washington, D.C.. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 01:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Death of Richard Swanson (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)
Minor flash-in-the-pan news of the wierd, rightly forgotten…except, of course, on wikipedia. Qwirkle (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2024 (UTC) Qwirkle (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Events, Football, Transportation, Oregon, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Keep - This was on Wikipedia's main page today, under DYK. So, on one hand, there were enough reviews and checking at DYK for this to be approved on the main page. On the other hand, you want us to delete it as soon as its main page appearance is over. I think if it was notable enough for the main page, then it's notable. — Maile (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Notice this is against Wikipedia’s own core principles. Wiki itself is not a useful authority for anything.
- And no, this should not have been deleted right after it infested the front page; it should have been dealt with before that. Qwirkle (talk) 01:28, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Notability is not a part of the DYK criteria. Articles getting deleted fresh off of DYK is pretty common. (Even GAN and FAC don't check for notability per se, and both have seen articles deleted at AfD.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:31, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- delete To quote the first nom, which was improperly closed: "minor flash-in-the-pan news of the weird." A human interest story from a decade ago with all the overage in that timeframe. Mangoe (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, the editor who closed the previous discussion cited Wikipedia:Speedy keep#6 which allows for such a closure. Articles appearing on the main page shouldn't be tagged for deletion as long as they are on the main page. Liz Read! Talk! 04:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete. The only coverage since the immediate aftermath seems to be routine court reporting on the truck driver's trial, all by local papers. WP:NEVENT asks us to look for "enduring historical significance" or, failing that, "widespread (national or international) impact and [having been] very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards". Neither of those standards is met here. While tragic, nothing seems to differentiate this case from many, many others of someone dying while doing something somewhat novel and then the resulting trial getting limited follow-up coverage. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)