Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 5

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< October 04 October 06 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was merge‎ to Investigations into the Eric Adams administration. Star Mississippi 01:02, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Federal prosecution of Eric Adams

edit
Federal prosecution of Eric 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)

This is largely the same as [Investigations into the Eric Adams administration], so one of these pages should really be deleted, or they should be merged. The undeveloped content on this page is merely a "legalise" version of what already exists on the other page. Nmarshall25 (talk) 23:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose: The indictment and resulting trial (assuming there will be one) is in itself historic and should merit an article under Wikipedia's notability guidelines. The criminal investigations page is a broader view on the topic, and concerns investigations into Adams' staff (for example, ex-NYPD Commissioner Edward Caban) and is not singularly focused unto Adams. The Trump fake electors plot and the prosecutions stemming from said plot underscore and illustrate why this should be a standalone article. If we were to follow what the above users are saying, we should also be discussing merging Donald Trump's Jan 6. case and documents case into the already existing "indictments against Donald Trump" page, or even merging it into "legal affairs of Donald Trump" or into the main Trump page. There are large parallels here. Trump is a former POTUS, while Adams is a sitting mayor of the most populous city of the U.S., elected there by millions of New Yorkers. This should warrant its own article. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 17:34, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, staying on topic here, the charges filed against Trump in regards to the Jan 6. case and the documents case stemmed from the Smith special counsel investigation, which I'd say is similar to the "Eric Adams administration investigation" page. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 17:39, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between merging these pages into the indictments against Donald Trump page, and merging these into Trump's main page, is substantial. It wouldn't be appropriate for Trump's page for several reasons including WP:NPOV and WP:SIZERULE (since Trump's page is already very long, and there is enough info about these legal cases for them to stand alone as their own articles, or even under a "indictments" article). It might be appropriate to merge the various indictments into the indictments against Donald Trump if these indictments are, themselves, better covered under these pages. These indictments all seem to have significant enough amounts of detail to warrant their own articles, rather than a single "indictments" article.
By contrast, the article about Adams's federal indictment seems to be duplicating info found in the Investigations into the Eric Adams administration page. In fact, the Adams federal indictment page is empty except for the lead. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That can be fixed, provided someone has the time and resources necessary to work on and build out the page. --WellThisIsTheReaper Grim 20:51, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it can be fixed. However, until that happens, one option is to merge the article, without any prejudice against splitting it back out at a later date. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Investigations into the Eric Adams administration per above. I do not see the need to have two separate articles on the topic, which could really be one article per WP:NOPAGE. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 6 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 23:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Parks Operational Command Unit

edit
Royal Parks Operational Command Unit (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)

Whilst this unit does exist (see here), it does not seem to be particularly notable, with very few non-primary sources. On searching, almost all external sources relate to the Royal Parks Constabulary instead. The existence of a police unit should not automatically warrant an article. Elshad (talk) 15:42, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 16:46, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and keep improving. Potentially rename to Royal Parks Police after AfD is closed, as that it seems that is how the unit is referred to these days. Added several references including the 2008 article in Horticulture Week; even though the article quotes PC Derek Pollock, it includes commentary by journalist Magda Ibrahim, who has monitored policing of the parks over the years (see her other articles citing the unit in 2008 and 2009). Also interesting was this 2012 Ham & High article examining why the number of crimes recorded in Royal Parks jumped from 465 in 2003 (the year before the Met took over) to 2,373 in 2011 (answer: 'proactive' cannabis arrests). But anyway there is a lot more recent coverage if you search on "Royal Parks Police" instead of "Royal Parks Operational Command Unit". While I have added at least one source using the two names interchangeably, I haven't yet found any source explicitly calling it out as an actual name change. More research and improvement is required, but this is a pass from me. I wouldn't merge it with the historical constabulary article as that refers to the former organisational entity which was independent of the Met. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:14, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Agree with Cielquiparle. There appears to be sufficient sourcing for a GNG pass. Rupples (talk) 00:01, 11 October 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.
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 redirect‎ to Confrontation (Rackham)#Cadwallon. Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cadwallon (role-playing game)

edit
Cadwallon (role-playing game) (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)

GNG failing game from a defunct corporation. No significant coverage from searching, and has had a "no sources" tag on for 15+ years. Macktheknifeau (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:33, 5 October 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.
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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 22:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Audiovox Snapper

edit
AfDs for this article:
Audiovox Snapper (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 cell phone. I'd BLAR but it survived AfD 14 years ago, so I assume that would be controversial. On the topic of that AfD, it was claimed there was SIGCOV in these three sources: (all skunked now so you get the archived versions)

  • CNET: this is actually just a landing page for user reviews for the product, the "staff review" just refers you to their coverage for the show it debuted at. You can find that here, where it trivially mentions the phone. Not SIGCOV either.
  • Twice.com trivially mentions the phone at the end of this article, not SIGCOV
  • The link from accessmylibrary.com is dead. Apparently that's a Gale service, so I did my best to search Gale for the ostensible title of the article, but found no results. Also checked Gale for "Audiovox Snapper" in general and got zero hits. (Not even any trivial hits).

Folks, I think at the last AfD we maybe didn't check the links very well, because none of this adds up to significant coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:05, 5 October 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.
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 delete‎. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 22:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franja de Gaza

edit
Franja de Gaza (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 sources other than self-sources since 2009. Based on the lack of sources, it looks not notable. Brunnaiz (talk) 22:17, 5 October 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.
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 delete‎. Discarding the self-serving "source assessment" from the COI editor, we have a clear consensus to delete. Thank you, Alpha3031, for your help. Owen× ☎ 12:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alimetry Limited

edit
Alimetry Limited (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 Alimetry Limited passing WP:NCORP. Unfortunately, I think I have declined this twice at AFC, yet the page creator would do a little improvement and resubmit. Following this way, I think it's wayward and not good to keep declining (even from another reviewer), when the article doesn't meet the minimum consideration, hence more participation would be good at AFD.

Quite a long article, source one is purely unreliable and it references the company's non notable product. The second one thebit.nz is also unreliable, and even though NZRS was edited years ago, I don't see the source's editorial integrity of this likely WP:BLOG. Source 7 didn't tell us about the "Gastric Alimetry", instead, about the effects of gastric disorders, which didn't even mention the product.

New Zealand International Business Awards (sources to a blog from a reliable source), the Arobia Trailblazer Innovation Grant, and Medtronic APAC innovation Challenge aren't notable awards per WP:NAWARDS, and same is applicable to the NZ Hi-Tech Awards. There also appear to be an over-detailed contents in the sections, "Technology" and "Clinical Research". Regulatory approvals doesn't justify notability. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Safari Scribe, I fully appreciate that organisations on Wikipedia should be treated with appropriate scrutiny when publishing articles. However, I feel that the appropriate due diligence on the references provided for this article has not been done.
To the points about the reliability of the first two sources, the first source comes from the website for New Zealand’s annual Tech Week, an industry initiative to foster engagement with technology around New Zealand. The article however, was first featured on ‘see tomorrow first’ a government-funded initiative (https://www.seetomorrowfirst.nz/domestic) (https://nztech.org.nz/2022/02/22/launch-of-nzs-tech-story-and-brand-platform-we-see-tomorrow-first/). I have updated this reference to include the see tomorrow first feature also. Thebit is a technology-focussed online newspaper that partners with Stuff.co.nz (featured on the NZRS). I have added a reference where this same article was published there as well.
Source 7 is only about the product. The Wikipedia article outlines ‘The Gastric Alimetry device employs patented body surface gastric mapping technology, utilizing a sensor array and connector to detect electrophysiological data from the stomach.’, and source 7 is a peer-reviewed paper that outlines the different components of Alimetry’s Gastric Alimetry product and its validation. Alimetry is stated several times in the article, and the visual abstract mentions both ‘Alimetry’ and ‘Gastric Alimetry.’
I believe WP:NAWARDS is not the appropriate article for establishing the notability and reliability of these awards, as this article outlines the requirements for a stand-alone article for an award. In this article, I am only citing these awards as evidence. While the Ārohia grant does not have its own Wikipedia page, Callaghan Innovation who awarded it does, and there is plenty of evidence online to showcase that it is a New Zealand government entity (https://www.callaghaninnovation.govt.nz/about-us/). The NZ Hi-tech awards have been a showcase of the best tech companies in NZ since 1994 and have received independent new coverage each year around the awards (https://www.hitech.org.nz/more/about/). Although Wikipedia:Awards and accolades is in draft form, Alimetry Limited’s award references do meet this criteria.
Detailed feedback like this is appreciated to create a better article. I have also completed a notability assessment of all the sources and I hope this has addressed some of your concerns which will allow this article to stay published.
Source assessment table
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
Yes This was published independently of Alimetry Yes TechWeek is supported by several industry and government bodies in New Zealand and is an annual national event Yes It is a profile on Alimetry the company and it's product Gastric Alimetry ✔ Yes
Yes This was published independently of Alimetry Yes See Tomorrow First is a New Zealand Government funded organisation Yes It is a profile on Alimetry and its product Gastric Alimetry ✔ Yes
Yes There are no associations with Alimetry ~ The author is not stated Yes It is an in-depth profile on Alimetry ~ Partial
Yes Stuff is an independent newspaper Yes Stuff in a national online news hub Yes It is an in-depth profile on Alimetry ✔ Yes
Yes NZTE is independent of Alimetry Yes NZTE is a government organisation Yes A profile on the company ✔ Yes
Yes NZ Herald is an independent newspaper Yes NZ Herald is a national newspaper Yes A profile on Alimetry ✔ Yes
Yes TheBit is an independent news source ~ Specific author unknown Yes A lengthy profile on Alimetry ~ Partial
Yes the FDA is an independent source Yes The FDA is a government organisation Yes Alimetry's 510(k) approval letter ✔ Yes
Yes NZ Herald is an independent newspaper Yes NZ Herald is a national newspaper Yes A profile on Alimetry ✔ Yes
Yes A peer-reviewed independent journal Yes A peer-reviewed journal article Yes the paper outlines the Gastric Alimetry product in detail ✔ Yes
Yes A peer-reviewed independent journal Yes A peer-reviewed journal article Yes the paper discusses the Gastric Alimetry technology in detail ✔ Yes
Yes A peer-reviewed independent journal Yes A peer-reviewed journal article Yes the paper discusses the Gastric Alimetry technology in detail ✔ Yes
Yes A peer-reviewed independent journal Yes A peer-reviewed journal article Yes the paper discusses the Gastric Alimetry technology in detail ✔ Yes
Yes A peer-reviewed independent journal Yes A peer-reviewed journal article Yes the paper discusses the Gastric Alimetry technology in detail ✔ Yes
Yes Callaghan Innovation is a government organisation and is independent of Alimetry Yes Callaghan Innovation is a NZ government organisation Yes A profile on Alimetry winning the grant ✔ Yes
Yes Healthcare IT news is independent of Alimetry Yes It is a global healthcare news source Yes Description of the award Alimetry won ✔ Yes
Yes The Best Awards are independent of Alimetry Yes The Best Awards are a national design awards event that began in the mid-70s in NZ Yes A profile on the award Alimetry won ✔ Yes
Yes The Best Awards are independent of Alimetry Yes The Best Awards are a national design awards event that began in the mid-70s in NZ Yes A profile on the award Alimetry won ✔ Yes
Yes The Good design awards are an independent award Yes The Good Design awards are an Australian award that began in 1958. Yes A profile on Alimetry ✔ Yes
Yes Movac is an investor in Alimetry but Alimetry had no input into the content of this article Yes Movac is NZ's oldest venture capital firm Yes A profile on their decision to invest in Alimetry ✔ Yes
Yes NZ Herald is an independent newspaper Yes NZ Herald is a national newspaper Yes A profile on Alimetry ✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
Odal46 (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this passes WP:GNG and WP:ORGCRIT in my opinion: we have an entire NZ Herald article; an entire article in The Listener; a Stuff article (see below); plus the industry body awards mentioned above. Not that the criticism of "TheBit.NZ" website made above might be valid, but the article was republished by Stuff, which does maintain editorial oversight on that they publish. Therefore I think it inherits the credibility of that outlet (which is high). David Palmer//cloventt (talk) 20:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/request: @Odal46: Would you mind declaring any conflict of interest you have with either the company or any of its associated personnel? DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:02, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, should have checked. The user has in fact declared a COI [1]. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 07:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A critical source assessment from a non-COI editor would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per delete arguments above and WP:NOTPROMO. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 20:22, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've done an ORGCRIT table below, but I think there's some misunderstanding about what "sigificant coverage" is, since to say the FDA approval letter or the awards are "significant coverage" is very odd when using significant coverage in the sense of our notability criteria, rather than, say, a colloquial sense of "there's coverage here, and it's signficant that it happened." SIGCOV fundamentally requires detailed content directly addressing the article subject so that we can write stuff from it... and that the coverage is not routine, the type of thing that always get covearge, because they get a pass from the usual newsworthiness discussions at our sources' editorial desks. Out of all the sources covered, I think the second NZ Herald article is the only one that really has a chance in that regard, and I'm not entirely convinced of it. I did also see a BusinessDesk article that has some quotes from O'Grady, but it fails ORGIND because what little coverage about this specific company (the article being on the industry in general) is basically entirely quoted from O'Grady, who is the CEO. This other NZ Herald article also has the same issue of insufficent depth. Overall, I don't see how this could be made acceptable by our standard criteria. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:44, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ORGCRIT assess table
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
"Alimetry — decoding the gut". TechWeek. 5 December 2023.
"Alimetry — decoding the gut". See Tomorrow First.
 No It's an advert, there's no evidence of it being independent No See Tomorrow First is a government funded marketing campaign. Adverts are not typically considered reliable sources, and there is no evidence they have a substantive editorial review process or any reputation for fact checking. Not evaluated No
No 90% of it is quotes from O'Grady Not evaluated No No
"Meet the winners of the New Zealand International Business Awards 2023". New Zealand Trade & Enterprise. 24 November 2023.
 – Not convinced the awarding orgs writing about the award are considered independent by the strict standards of ORGIND No Coverage is barely beyond a database/directory entry anyway, most certainly falls under the awards category of WP:ORGTRIV –
"2022 Hi-Tech Awards: Three gongs for Alimetry, McCrae honoured". NZ Herald. 2024-07-16. Retrieved 2024-07-15.
 Yes Yes No Again, there's no actual coverage here besides "X win award" No
This thebit article is the same one from before, I'm not going to review the same source twice
"FDA approval letter" (PDF). Food and Drug Administration. 5 December 2023.
 No There is nothing about the company here.
Yes – Not really convinced, but I'll give it maybe a partial credit. 20 bucks it's from a press kit though
Gharibans, A. A.; Hayes TCL; Carson, D. A.; Calder, S.; Varghese, C.; Du, P.; Yarmut, Y.; Waite, S.; Keane, C.; Woodhead JST; Andrews, C. N.; O'Grady, G. (2023). "A novel scalable electrode array and system for non-invasively assessing gastric function using flexible electronics". Neurogastroenterology & Motility. 35 (2): e14418. doi:10.1111/nmo.14418. PMC 10078595. PMID 35699340.
 No The first author is an employee of the company. ORGIND requires independence of both the author and content.
Calder, Stefan; Cheng, Leo K.; Andrews, Christopher N.; Paskaranandavadivel, Niranchan; Waite, Stephen; Alighaleh, Saeed; Erickson, Jonathan C.; Gharibans, Armen; O'Grady, Gregory; Du, Peng (2022-10-01). "Validation of noninvasive body-surface gastric mapping for detecting gastric slow-wave spatiotemporal features by simultaneous serosal mapping in porcine". American Journal of Physiology-Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology. 323 (4): G295 – G305. doi:10.1152/ajpgi.00049.2022. ISSN 0193-1857. PMID 35916432.
 No Again, author is employee
Gharibans, Armen A.; Calder, Stefan; Varghese, Chris; Waite, Stephen; Schamberg, Gabriel; Daker, Charlotte; Du, Peng; Alighaleh, Saeed; Carson, Daniel; Woodhead, Jonathan; Farrugia, Gianrico; Windsor, John A.; Andrews, Christopher N.; O'Grady, Greg (2022-09-21). "Gastric dysfunction in patients with chronic nausea and vomiting syndromes defined by a noninvasive gastric mapping device". Science Translational Medicine. 14 (663): eabq3544. doi:10.1126/scitranslmed.abq3544. ISSN 1946-6234. PMC 10042458. PMID 36130019.
Varghese, Chris; Schamberg, Gabriel; Calder, Stefan; Waite, Stephen; Carson, Daniel; Foong, Daphne; Wang, William Jiaen; Ho, Vincent; Woodhead, Jonathan; Daker, Charlotte; Xu, William; Du, Peng; Abell, Thomas L.; Parkman, Henry P.; Tack, Jan (2023-06-01). "Normative Values for Body Surface Gastric Mapping Evaluations of Gastric Motility Using Gastric Alimetry: Spectral Analysis". The American Journal of Gastroenterology. 118 (6): 1047–1057. doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000002077. ISSN 1572-0241. PMID 36534985.
Schamberg, Gabriel; Calder, Stefan; Varghese, Chris; Xu, William; Wang, William Jiaen; Ho, Vincent; Daker, Charlotte; Andrews, Christopher N.; O'Grady, Greg; Gharibans, Armen A. (2023-09-11). "Comparison of Gastric Alimetry® body surface gastric mapping versus electrogastrography spectral analysis". Scientific Reports. 13 (1): 14987. doi:10.1038/s41598-023-41645-w. ISSN 2045-2322. PMC 10495352. PMID 37696955.
 No Since we were three for three I figured I'd put the other two together here as well, because to no surprise, it turns out these had half the authors being employees as well. Also, most of this stuff is primary research.
"First Ārohia Innovation Trailblazer Grant recipients". Callaghan Innovation. 2023-11-30. Retrieved 2024-07-16.
 No Grant givers are not independent, how are they independent? No This is ORGTRIV as well
No Mentioning they won an award is not SIGCOV? There's barely anything about the company. Seriously, less than a single sentence here.
"Gastric Alimetry | Best Awards". bestawards.co.nz. Retrieved 2024-07-16.
"Alimetry | Best Awards". bestawards.co.nz. Retrieved 2024-07-16.
"Gastric Alimetry". Good Design. Retrieved 2024-07-16.
 No No Winning random awards is not significant coverage?
McMurchy, Lovina (2022-03-01). "Investment notes - Alimetry". Movac. Retrieved 2024-07-16.
 No That's not what independence means. We'd need to meet both criteria.
– Yes No This is the standard capital raise churn that WP:CORPROUTINE is about. –
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Frankel (financier)

edit
John Frankel (financier) (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 as there is no significant coverage. There are mentions and plenty of interviews and him giving advice, but nothing in-depth about him that is reliable. There are references such as this in Inc.com, but when you look closer you can see this is a contributor submitted piece with no editorial oversight, similar to others out there. I would recommend a redirect to ff Venture Capital but that was recently tagged for notability by another editor. CNMall41 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ and move to Naxalite movement in Bhojpur. The move can be reverted, or moved to a better title, if there's consensus to do so on the article's Talk page. Owen× ☎ 18:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1970 Bhojpur uprising

edit
1970 Bhojpur uprising (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)

Much of the content has nothing to do with the actual incident which is itself non-notable. The subject as a whole fails WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how any of these sources establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a significant event of the History of Bihar like Bihar movement. The Naxalism in Bihar has been a highly notable subject to write as in the history of Bihar, we have read caste wars happening over the decades between various faction of society for land and political power. This significant subject throws light on the early events sparking the naxalite movement in plains of central Bihar after it first emerged in the neighbouring state of West Bengal. You talk about "passing mention", let me tell there are seperate books written on the movement like some of the journals I have mentioned there. Anyone with fair judgement would have gauged the notability of the article. Admantine123 (talk) 00:52, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You were asked to describe how does those cited sources establish WP:GNG. I am not asking why do you believe this subject is important. Ratnahastin (talk) 01:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the definition of Notability according to you? Admantine123 (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So you got in these sources published by scholarly journals. Admantine123 (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No because you are yet to explain how any of these sources establish WP:GNG. Ratnahastin (talk) 07:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[Check from The Movement section onwards of p. 263, although previous pages are also relevant, as they give the movement's background]
[this book's review: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4367846]
All of these sources give in-depth coverage of the Bhojpur movement. In fact, the article is already well-sourced and detailed. Having said that, the title of the article isn't good. It should be Naxalite movement in Bhojpur because that's how sources describe this movement, e.g. see here. Note that sources also describe it as Bhojpur movement (see here), although that title seems a bit ambiguous to me. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should create a Naxalite movement in Bhojpur or Bhojpur movement because that is a broader topic while this AfD concerns a non-notable event. Ratnahastin (talk) 04:52, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ratnahastin, I don't think you read the article, let alone the sources. The whole article from the first till the last sentence is about the Naxalite movement in Bhojpur. It already covers all relevant details of the 1970s as well as its background. So I don't need to create an article that already exists. The article requires page move, not deletion. Note that all these details were already there in the article before you nominated it. - NitinMlk (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should consider supporting the move to "Naxalite movement in Bhojpur" Ratnahastin (talk) 06:43, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two votes of delete are frivolous. These editors are somehow related to Rajput article. This nomination happened after I checked the recent disruptive activity on Rajput article which was not liked by some. Bishonen is aware of the problem associated with this caste article. In past, you (Ratnahastin) were also in edit dispute with me over Rajput caste related articles. Admantine123 (talk) 05:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus, the content is not limited to 1970 event only. It captures spread to other areas as well and I agree with NitinMlk that choice of title was bad. Admantine123 (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Two editors having edited a similar page does not mean WP:CANVASSING. Stop disrupting this AfD with your nonsensical accusations. Dympies (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The title of article is irrelevant in determining the notability of its subject. The question before us here is whether the topic, be it the Bhojpur uprising or the Naxalite movement, meets our notability guidelines. Once we've answered that question, a page move--if needed--is trivial.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Comment- Naxalite movement in Bhojpur is a definitely notable topic considering many high quality sources published for the same. It is similar to Naxalbari uprising, a similar movement in the Indian state of West Bengal and can be created as separate article. Many sources cover the same which are as follows. In such a situation, the page move to Naxalite movement in Bhojpur is a good idea as the body of the article contains evey stuff about sparking of rebellion in 1970 as well as spread to other areas and contains the spread in whole central Bihar region with regional manifestation. The sources are:
[this book's review: https://www.jstor.org/stable/4367846]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Satoru Kashiwase

edit
AfDs for this article:
Satoru Kashiwase (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)

Deleted before. The claim to notability, playing 215 minutes in the USA and in the German fifth tier, is very weak. The sources are not significant or independent and don't rectify the notability problems, failing WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 19:46, 5 October 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 20:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kiyoshi Nakatani

edit
Kiyoshi Nakatani (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 claim to notability, playing in the third tier of Poland, Latvia's semi-pro league and 11 games in Japan's third league, is weak. The sources are not enough to rectify that and as such he fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 19:48, 5 October 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 19:22, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Qurtuluş 93

edit
Qurtuluş 93 (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)

nn residential complex, no independent refs --Altenmann >talk 19:22, 5 October 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.
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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jorge Ornelas

edit
Jorge Ornelas (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)

Ornelas played a handful of matches in the second tier of Mexico but otherwise has no other claim to notability. The only decent source that I can find is Pasion Rojiblanca, which is a blog on a fan site and clearly not WP:RS. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:09, 5 October 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.
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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Flores (footballer, born 1993)

edit
Juan Flores (footballer, born 1993) (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)

Flores played 7 minutes of professional league football before disappearing. The best coverage that I can find is Imago7, which is just an image caption. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will say, looking at the domestic cups tab of the page you linked, he appeared in closer to 400 total minutes. I’d still favor deletion but wanted to point that out. Michaelwallace22 (talk) 18:48, 5 October 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 18:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Istanbul Europa Race

edit
Istanbul Europa 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)

Tagged uncited for many years and I cannot find any recent sources. Perhaps it has been renamed or cancelled? Chidgk1 (talk) 16:19, 5 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. In addition to the !votes to keep here, a previous talk page discussion came to a consensus (4–1) that this article should not be merged with Vladimir Horowitz. Consensus was to expand this article (where currently the only section is "Marriage to Vladimir Horowitz") rather than delete it. (non-admin closure) Rjjiii (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanda Toscanini Horowitz

edit
Wanda Toscanini Horowitz (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)

She is not notable in her own right, the article only mentions her as daughter and wife of famous persons. Marbe166 (talk) 16:00, 5 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 06:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party of Turkey

edit
Labour Party of Turkey (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 completely unsourced article about a defunct Turkish political party. Although as @Soman: said when deprodding there are sources about the banning such as https://www.anayasa.gov.tr/media/4937/kd_18.pdf, and half a page in a book at https://books.google.at/books?id=-Fp2DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA197#v=onepage&q&f=false is that enough to make this party notable? After all I understand that lots of parties were banned during the 70s and 80s. And as many native Turkish speakers live outside Turkey presumably it would be safe for them to write a Turkish article nowadays if the party was notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Rjjiii (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Pac-12 Football Championship Game

edit
2015 Pac-12 Football Championship Game (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)

It happened, but I couldn't find enough reliable sources to show it meets WP:N, or which page it could be merged/redirected best to as an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dog this is directly shown on film Aswffv (talk) 15:47, 5 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. asilvering (talk) 15:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BBCC-Hang Tuah station

edit
BBCC-Hang Tuah station (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 couldn't find sources to add which show it meets WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source also claims there was an infrastructure improvement that linked the two lines buildings in 2013, which I assume there would be coverage in some offline source? I see a path to GNG here but can't confirm with the online sourcing available to me right now. This is also one of the difficult cases as Garuda said is that as an interchange station the viable ATD's are redirection to either Rapid Rail or Rapid KL which I think is too broad a target. Even a listification of station articles wouldn't work either since it would likely be listified a line by line basis. This issue would probably be good to take to the boarder community to create some guidelines. Jumpytoo Talk 00:03, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
there should be more sources available for that, for example:
some other mentions of the station in the news:
mentions of the station in non-English news:
  • 单轨火车电供问题 服务出现延误 [Monorail service delayed due to power supply issues]. China Press (in Chinese (Malaysia)). Kuala Lumpur. 2024-07-19. Retrieved 2024-10-10. Rapid KL也安排了衔接巴士在来往站点，分别是敦善峇丹站来往汉都亚站、汉都亚站来往咖啡山站、咖啡山站来往蒂蒂旺沙站。 [Rapid KL also arranged connecting buses between the stations, namely Tun Sambanthan Station to Hang Tuah Station, Hang Tuah Station to Bukit Nanas Station, and Bukit Nanas Station to Titiwangsa Station.]
  • 国家基建公司鉴定需维修设施 5千万改善单轨火车站 [Prasarana identifies facilities that need repairs, plans to upgrade monorail stations with RM50 million]. Nanyang Siang Pau (in Chinese (Malaysia)). Kuala Lumpur. 2024-05-24. Retrieved 2024-10-10. 燕美站、汉都亚站和敦善班丹站的升降机在今年10月（维修），咖啡山站、拉惹朱兰站、武吉东姑、吉隆坡中环明年1月，秋杰站，马哈拉惹里拉站和蒂蒂旺沙站在明年4月。 [The lifts at Imbi, Hang Tuah and Tun Sambanthan stations will be (repaired) in October this year, Bukit Nanas, Raja Chulan, Medan Tuanku, KL Sentral in January next year, and Chow Kit, Maharajalela and Titiwangsa in April next year.]
  • Abu Yamin, Essa (2024-05-23). "RM50juta naik-taraf stesen monorel - Loke" [RM50million for upgrade of monorail stations - Loke]. Berita Harian (in Malay). Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved 2024-10-10. Untuk lif di tiga stesen iaitu Stesen Imbi, Hang Tuah Dan Tun Sambathan, lif itu akan dapat dibaiki menjelang bulan Oktober akan datang. [For the lifts at three stations which are Imbi, Hang Tuah and Tun Sambathan Stations, the lifts will be repaired in the upcoming October.]
  • 大树昨倒下 单轨火车部分站点今停运 上班族大迟到 [A tree fell yesterday, some monorail stations were suspended today, office workers were late]. Sin Chew Daily (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2024-05-08. Retrieved 2024-10-10. 昨日发生的树倒事故导致单轨火车部分站点的服务暂停运作，Rapid KL公司今日免费提供10辆的接驳巴士来往汉都亚站和美丹端姑站 [The fallen tree incident yesterday caused the monorail service to be suspended at some stations, Rapid KL provided 10 free shuttle buses between Hang Tuah Station and Medan Tuanku Station today]
  • Bahaudin, Nurul Hidayah (2024-05-08). "4 stesen Monorel akan ditutup sementara" [4 Monorail stations will be temporarily closed]. Harian Metro (in Malay). Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved 2024-10-10. Ini termasuk menggunakan perkhidmatan Transit Aliran Ringan (LRT) KL Sentral; Transit Aliran Massa (MRT) Muzium Negara; LRT Hang Tuah; MRT Bukit Bintang; LRT Dang Wangi; LRT Sultan Ismail (melalui jejantas) serta LRT dan MRT Titiwangsa. [This includes by using the services of Light Rail Transit (LRT) KL Sentral; Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) Muzium Negara; LRT Hang Tuah; MRT Bukit Bintang; LRT Dang Wangi; LRT Sultan Ismail (via pedestrian bridge) as well as LRT and MRT Titiwangsa.]
  • 黄, 依雯 (2024-01-31). 轻快铁安邦线　占美站明起恢复 [LRT Ampang Line: Masjid Jamek station to resume operation from tomorrow]. Oriental Daily News (in Chinese (Malaysia)). Kuala Lumpur. Retrieved 2024-10-10. 轻快铁安邦线占美清真寺站（LRT Masjid Jamek）明天起恢复运作，乘客无需在汉都亚站（LRT Hang Tuah）转车，他们可以直接在占美清真寺站下车。 [The LRT Masjid Jamek station on the LRT Ampang Line will resume operations from tomorrow, passengers no longer need to change train at LRT Hang Tuah station, they can get off train directly at the Masjid Jamek station.]
  • 默迪卡118摩天大楼带旺周边地区带来无限商机 [Merdeka 118 skyscraper brings prosperity to surrounding areas and brings unlimited business opportunities]. China Press (in Chinese (Malaysia)). 2023-11-29. Retrieved 2024-10-10. 默迪卡118住户和访客可选择乘搭的公共交通，包括捷运（默迪卡站）、吉隆坡单轨火车（马哈拉惹及汉都亚站）及轻快铁（人民广场及汉都亚站）。 [Residents and visitors of Merdeka 118 can choose to take public transportation including the MRT (Merdeka Station), KL Monorail (Maharajalela and Hang Tuah Stations) and LRT (Plaza Rakyat and Hang Tuah Stations).]
  • 轻快铁 人贴人 乘客不敢挤 宁等下个班次 [The LRT is too crowded, passengers not wanting to squeeze would rather wait for the next train]. China Press (in Chinese (Malaysia)). Kuala Lumpur. 2022-07-20. Retrieved 2024-10-10. 比如马鲁里站可转乘捷运，陈秀连站可转乘城堡线，汉都亚站可转乘单轨火车，占美清真寺则转乘格拉那再也线。 [For example, Maluri station can be used to transfer to the MRT, Chan Sow Lin station can be used to transfer to the Sri Petaling Line, Hang Tuah station can be used to transfer to the monorail, and Masjid Jamek station can be used to transfer to the Kelana Jaya Line]
  • Bahaudin, Nurul Hidayah (2019-08-25). "Tren monorel rosak dilanggar kren" [Monorail train was damaged after being hit by a crane]. Harian Metro (in Malay). Retrieved 2024-10-10. TREN monorel dua gerabak rosak akibat dilanggar jentera 'bore pile' yang sedang menjalankan kerja pembinaan bersebelahan trek monorel berhampiran Stesen Hang Tuah, Kuala Lumpur, hari ini. [Two-car monorail train was damaged after being hit by a bore pile machinery that was carrying out constuction work by the side of the monorail track nearby Hang Tuah Station, Kuala Lumpur, today.]
and many more ... there's a lot of non-English news that mentioned Hang Tuah Station under the "News" tab in Google search, unlike English -- MNH48 (talk) 06:01, 10 October 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.
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. There is a strong consensus here that this is a hoax. Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 20:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arvin's Cockroach

edit
Arvin's Cockroach (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)

Probable hoax, unreferenced and not a single mention of it online. Moved back to main space from draft same day by article creator, still unreferenced. Wikishovel (talk) 14:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely unreferenced, and while there may be an unpublished designation for this species, no designation information can currently be found on ZooBank, GBIF, or any other species database. Ecoevergreen (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Would've loved to see this soft delete and later get undeleted on the sole count of refs and sourcing, but per Oaktree b's assertions.... Intrisit (talk) 15:44, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another attempt at a hoax article. While Toby Kovacs did study the evolutionary history of Australian cockroaches for his honours project, his current PhD work at the University of Sydney is on marsupials. As such, I believe the original author's name quoted is just a coincidence. And as a hoax, there is no reason to let this live untouched in mainspace for a week. Loopy30 (talk) 15:59, 5 October 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.
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 redirect‎ to 2024 United States Senate election in New Jersey as a broadly supported ATD. Owen× ☎ 18:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Bashaw (politician)

edit
Curtis Bashaw (politician) (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 as yet unelected political candidate, not properly referenced as having any serious claim to notability. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they haven't won -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one, while unelected candidates must either (a) have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten them an article anyway, or (b) show credible evidence that their candidacy should be seen as a special case of significantly greater and more enduring notability than most other people's candidacies. But this is basically "he is a candidate, the end", and isn't even trying to show that he would meet either of those conditions for the notability of an unelected candidate at all. And the sole footnote here, added after I pointed out in this nomination statement that the article was completely unreferenced, is a primary source table of primary results from the state government elections office, which isn't support for notability.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if he wins the election, but simply being a candidate for a seat he hasn't already won is not grounds for an article now. Bearcat (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming that Reed Gusciora and Tim Eustace didn't exist, or did you just forget to add some more qualifiers? Regardless, simply claiming that somebody is the first openly LGBT person to do a thing that wouldn't otherwise be notable on its own is not an exemption from Wikipedia's notability criteria — if he'd been the first LGBT candidate for anything in the entire United States, that might be something if he was getting nationalized coverage on that basis, but simply being the first LGBT candidate for one specific office that's already had other LGBT candidates and incumbents before him, in one specific state that's already had other LGBT candidates and officeholders in other offices before him, is not an instant notability clinch all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: TOOSOON Wining the primary is fine, but that's all the coverage there is [2]. Doesn't appear anywhere online before the nomination, I'm not seeing notability. Can perhaps get an article if he wins the election. Oaktree b (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Curtis Bashaw’s opponent, Andy Kim, has an established Wikipedia page, and given that this is a high-stakes Senate race, it is only fair for voters to have equal access to detailed, well-sourced information on all candidates. His page would provide a non-partisan resource for voters seeking to understand his platform and background. 2601:80:4884:C8D0:5C5:A042:84C9:44A (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not the media, and are not bound by any "equal time for all candidates" rule. We're writing history here, not news — so our job is not to give every candidate in every election an article in service of the current news cycle, it's to keep articles about people who have achieved permanent significance and not keep articles about people who haven't. So he'll get an article if he wins the election, since winning the election and thereby becoming a senator will be a valid reason why an article about him would pass the will people still be looking for him ten years from now test — but simply being a candidate is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, because if he loses the election he's not going to still be of enduring importance ten years from now. So the notability bar at NPOL is winning the general election, not just being a candidate on the ballot, because the notability test is about whether people will still need an article about him in the 2030s, not whether people might be looking for information about him today. Bearcat (talk) 22:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:16, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unelected candidates for political office need to demonstrate notability outside of routine election coverage. Simply because there are very few (openly) gay Republicans doesn't mean this candidate gets a free pass and a campaign biography for an election he is very likely to lose. AusLondonder (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    By deleting his page now, we would be restricting fair access to information during the election, especially since his opponent, Andy Kim, has a Wikipedia page. Curtis Bashaw’s page serves as an essential resource for voters seeking transparency and comparison between candidates. 2601:80:4884:C8D0:5C5:A042:84C9:44A (talk) 23:19, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The voters of New Jersey have access to plenty of other sources for information about the candidates, without needing Wikipedia articles to exist on that basis. So it's not our job to concern ourselves with current voter information — our job is to concern ourselves with whether he has or hasn't achieved anything of permanent enough significance that an article about him will still need to exist in the 2030s or the 2040s. Winning election to a notable office passes that test, while simply being a candidate does not. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While Curtis Bashaw is indeed a candidate, the argument for his notability extends beyond simply running for office. First, as a prominent entrepreneur, Bashaw has been a notable figure in New Jersey for decades through his successful redevelopment of historic properties, including the high-profile Congress Hall. These ventures have cemented his public profile far before his candidacy. In addition, according to Ahrefs data, there are at least 130 active searches per month specifically for “Curtis Bashaw Wikipedia + Curtis Bashaw wiki” indicating public interest in his background and career . This level of search traffic demonstrates that the public finds him notable enough to seek more information, thus warranting a Wikipedia page. 2601:80:4884:C8D0:5C5:A042:84C9:44A (talk) 23:11, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Curtis Bashaw’s notability extends beyond his candidacy. He is a well-known entrepreneur and preservationist in New Jersey, recognized for his revitalization of Congress Hall and other historic landmarks, which have had a lasting impact on the state’s economy. His contributions have been covered by reliable sources like The New York Times and Cape May Magazine, satisfying the criteria for notability per Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
Per Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for politicians (WP:NPOL), candidates who win major primaries are presumed notable if they are one step away from holding notable office. Curtis Bashaw’s win in the GOP primary for U.S. Senate positions him as such. Furthermore, his political stance as an openly gay Republican candidate and his business contributions have garnered significant media coverage, qualifying him for lasting notability as required by WP:NPOL. 2601:80:4884:C8D0:5C5:A042:84C9:44A (talk) 23:40, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, candidates are not presumed notable under NPOL just for winning primaries. Candidates only become notable if they win the general election and thereby hold a notable office. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in New Jersey. To the IP basically commenting on everyone's notes, not everyone is entitled to a Wikipedia page. His page right now is WP:ROUTINE coverage for the election, and he does not pass WP:NPOL, that includes "significant media coverage" which is still just routine coverage. However, I do somewhat agree with Alansohn that there may be coverage from previous years that can make him pass WP:GNG, but as of right now, it's not showing. Critical coverage of him can be done in the election page itself. reppoptalk 17:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Ahrefs data, there are at least 130 active searches per month specifically for “Curtis Bashaw Wikipedia + Curtis Bashaw wiki” indicating public interest in his background and career . This level of search traffic demonstrates that the public finds him notable enough to seek more information, thus warranting a Wikipedia page. 2601:80:4884:C8D0:5C5:A042:84C9:44A (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Public interest doesn't translate into a Wikipedia article. Public interest also doesn't translate into notability. See something like WP:BFDI, a series that has millions of views but has no article. As of right now, this article fails both NPOL and GNG. reppoptalk 04:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this seems like you're attempting to bludgeon the process by commenting on everybody's comments. reppoptalk 04:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Explain to me why Dan Osborn, who is running against the incumbent Republican, is allowed a page.
I think we know why you only only have an issue with this one. Scmillennium2004 (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe because this page fails GNG and NPOL while Osborn's seemingly passes GNG through his actions in the 2021 Kellogg's strike? Wouldn't have an issue if Bashaw passed GNG but he doesn't right now. reppoptalk 22:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to 2024 United States Senate election in New Jersey - He has received coverage for his hotels and for his being an openly gay Republican. There is a credible claim of notability, but the article as it stands is not ready for prime time. Most of the sources are about the election; the sources about him are from his campaign website and from routine coverage. This source from New Jersey Monthly is clear in-depth coverage, but much more would be needed here. The article does not meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG as it stands. The viable material should be merged over and a redirect would allow the article to potentially be recreated as additional material is found. Alansohn (talk) 13:39, 8 October 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.
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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Triangle and Robert

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

I'm not sure if this webcomic is notable. The single reference that's in the article brings up Triangle and Robert a few times ([3]), though Google Books only lets me see snippets, so I can't tell if it's significant coverage or not. It has also been mentioned ([4]) in The Comics Journal, where it even says "This [...] strip is virtually never talked about when Web comics are discussed". The article was previously kept at an AfD, but that was back in 2005 when standards were very different. toweli (talk) 12:17, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, RL0919 (talk) 13:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 5 October 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.
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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 13:09, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian podcasts

edit
List of Indian podcasts (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)

Promotional article fails WP:NLIST. Almost all items are non-notable. Ratnahastin (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Weak Keep. I don't see how the article is promotional and its a well sourced list. It serve as a informational list per WP:LISTPURP. The problem is it needed more expansion. Warm Regards, Miminity (talk) (contribs) 15:18, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 5 October 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.
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 redirect‎ to Mehrabad International Airport#Accidents and incidents. Relevant content can be Merged wherever editors believe it to be appropriate. Liz Read! Talk! 20:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2000 Tehran airport collision

edit
2000 Tehran airport collision (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, only primary sources exist on the event with no secondary sources existing on the event. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the crash. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

•Merge into Runway Incursion and Tehran Airport Accidents and incidents sufficently covered there. Notable but doesnt warrant its own article as shown by nom @Aviationwikiflight Lolzer3k 18:18, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correction, * ground collision there is no accident description there, needs to be created. Lolzer3k 18:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 5 October 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.
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 redirect‎ to Ingush nationalism without prejudice against selective merger. There is consensus that this isn't suitable for a standalone article, and that much of the content is unencyclopedic. If a better redirect target is agreed upon on the Talk page, go ahead and change the redirect. Owen× ☎ 18:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National liberation struggle of the Ingush people

edit
National liberation struggle of the Ingush people (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 a POVFORK and we already have a decent article at Ingush people. There may be some elements of this article that can be merged there, but I don’t think this article as a whole should be retained. Mccapra (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any content worth merging?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 5 October 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.
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 redirect‎ to Local government in New South Wales. While WP:CRYSTAL doesn't apply here, the fact that an article will exist under this topic at some point is not a reason to keep it today, if sources don't currently establish notability, as per the consensus here. Owen× ☎ 12:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2028 New South Wales local elections

edit
2028 New South Wales local elections (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 feels like it's WP:TOOSOON for this election to have an article. The election is four years from now. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk? | contribs) 10:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I understand why you say that but I'm going off the sorta-precedent of the 2026 Victorian state election, 2027 New South Wales state election, etc pages being created right after the previous one ended
There's already coverage in multiple reliable sources about the 2028 elections and the changes that'll occur then, I think that meets enough coverage to keep the page
Otherwise if it was to be deleted, I would argue it should instead redirect to Local government in New South Wales Totallynotarandomalt69 (talk) 10:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not a good argument. If you think those articles shouldn't exist then nominate them. TarnishedPathtalk 06:05, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good point. State elections are vastly more important than local elections, plus WP:OTHERTHINGS, as TarnishedPath says. Steelkamp (talk) 12:27, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep these elections will take place on the specified date by law and there are reliable sources covering events that will take place (e.g. Clover Moore retirement, referendum results).
If not redirect to Local government in New South Wales Goodebening (talk) 10:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there are potential misunderstandings of the context and scope of local government in the Australian project in general - it is not something that is in general discussion in the mainstream media that could even facilitate adequate reliable sources, simple enough to realise that it is out of scope.JarrahTree 11:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because it will need to be an article sooner or later. Might as well leave it alone. I don't get all you deletionists who try to remove Australian local government articles given there is so much other stuff that gets a pass here that Twitter accounts like "depths of Wikipedia" can thrive. But if it is not kept, then clearly it should redirect to Local government in New South Wales as proposed above. Axver (talk) 05:33, 12 October 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.
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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 08:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presumed security

edit
Presumed security (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 term seemingly coined by a single blog post. The post does not appear to have received secondary coverage and Wikipedia now seems to be primary source of the term. Brandon (talk) 08:23, 5 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Italy–Turkey relations. Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Turkey, Rome

edit
Embassy of Turkey, Rome (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. Article based on primary sources and a directory listing. LibStar (talk) 08:15, 5 October 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 08:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin Class 12-32 ¼ E

edit
Baldwin Class 12-32 ¼ E (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 only source I could find which discusses the subject in depth is https://locomotive.fandom.com/wiki/Baldwin_Class_12-32_%C2%BC_E which is not a reliable source. References in the article do not discuss the subject in depth. TarnishedPathtalk 08:12, 5 October 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.
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 of the discussion was: Withdrawn‎ per the recent findings of multiple sources by @Cunard. (non-admin closure) Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TransAsia Airways Flight 510A

edit
TransAsia Airways Flight 510A (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis. The event does not have in-depth nor sustained continued coverage with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. No lasting effects or long-term impacts on a significant region have been demonstrated. Additionally, none of the sources found provided significant coverage of the event. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 07:48, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The event meets Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Duration of coverage in that it has received significant coverage in a 2016 book published 21 years after it took place on 30 January 1995.

    The event is notable since the Routledge book The Dragon in the Cockpit: How Western Aviation Concepts Conflict with Chinese Value Systems noted, "From the CAA report, we can infer some cultural factors in the accident. Although these inferences are not part of the original report, they are consistent with the events of that night and with what we know about Chinese culture. In the accident report from the CAA, the conversation between crewmembers, the radio communication between crewmembers and traffic controllers, together with all kinds of sounds, were disclosed." If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage in a book published 21 years later.

    Sources

    1. Jing, Hung-Sying; Batteau, Allen (2016). The Dragon in the Cockpit: How Western Aviation Concepts Conflict with Chinese Value Systems. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. pp. 25–31. ISBN 978-1-4724-1030-6. Retrieved 2024-10-05 – via Google Books.

      The book notes on page 25: "At 7:16pm, Flight 510A departed from Magong Airport without any passengers on board, scheduled to land in Taipei at 8:20pm. Sixteen minutes later the crew called Taipei approach, said the plane was 16 n.m. from Miaoli Houlong, and would descend and maintain an altitude of 9,000 feet. The approach tower directed the crew to pass Houlong and descend to 4,000 feet, and prepare to land on runway 10 of Taipei Songshan Airport. When the plane passed through Houlong, the crew asked to fly directly to Linkou, and proceed with visual approach. The approach tower agreed and directed the plane to lower the altitude to 4,000 feet."

      The book notes on page 26: "Two years later, the CAA published the accident report (Civil Aeronautics Administration 1997). In the report, there were no primary causes revealed. Only the conclusions of the investigation were listed. Among them, several main points were given as below."

      The book notes on page 27:

      Why and how did this happen? From the report of the CAA, it can be found that the CAA again attributed the cause to lack of training. Therefore, reinforcing crew training can prevent such tragedies from happening again. However, after every single plane crash, accident reports always suggest to reinforce training. "Reinforcing training" is almost a cliché in flight safety of Taiwan. Yet, plane crashes continue to happen. Why is that? Is it because the training is still not enough? Or, is it because that reinforcing training is very hard? Is it possible that training is not the real cause? Or were there some more profound explanations other than training? What is the truth?

      From the CAA report, we can infer some cultural factors in the accident. Although these inferences are not part of the original report, they are consistent with the events of that night and with what we know about Chinese culture. In the accident report from the CAA, the conversation between crewmembers, the radio communication between crewmembers and traffic controllers, together with all kinds of sounds, were disclosed. From 13:23 after 7:00pm when the flight was approved by Magong for take-off, until 43:57, the total length is 30 minutes and 34 seconds. From the moment when the plane was still on the ground, there was the voice of a flight attendant (F/A) in the cockpit.

      The book notes on page 30: "Why didn't the crewmembers stop the flight attendant when she interfered with their communication to the controller? In Chinese culture, who would treat a good friend like this given such a relaxed atmosphere? Again, relationship favor played a very important role in the behavior of the crew. As for the reason why the crewmember replied to the flight attendant first, in Chinese culture, the relationship favor is hierarchical. If there are two people, one is a good friend, the other is a stranger, the two stand at quite different psychological distances in our mind. Every Chinese person would be inclined by instinct to attend to a friend first, not the stranger."
    2. 1995 sources:
      1. "Taiwan plane flew too low when it crashed". Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 1995-02-01. Archived from the original on 2024-10-05. Retrieved 2024-10-05 – via Newspapers.com.

        The article notes: "A Taiwanese airliner was flying too low when it hit a mountain on a wet night this week, killing all four people aboard, aviation officials said on today. They said the Foshing Airlines twin turboprop ATR-72 was flying at about 1,000 feet through a rainy night when it crashed less than 15 minutes before it was due to land in Taipei on Monday. ... Foshing is also called TransAsia Airways."

      2. Cai, Zhenyuan 蔡振源 (1995-02-08). "復興空難 黑盒子解讀 發現'有不正常訊號'" [TransAsia Crash: Black Box Analysis Reveals 'Abnormal Signals']. United Evening News [zh] (in Chinese). p. 3.

        The article notes: "民航局副局長張國政上午表示，從座艙通話紀錄器的解讀資料中發現，除夕夜失事的復興航空510A班機，在失事前「飛行可能有偏，而且有不正常訊號出現」，但細節張國政不願多說，只表示還要再對座艙通話紀錄資料詳加研讀後，在下午4時公布。"

        From Google Translate: "Zhang Guozheng, deputy director of the Civil Aviation Administration, said in the morning that from the interpretation of the cockpit call recorder, it was found that TransAsia Flight 510A, which crashed on New Year's Eve, "may have been deviated in flight and had abnormal signals" before the crash, but Zhang Guozheng had no details. He did not want to say more, but said that he would make a detailed study of the cockpit call record data before announcing it at 4 p.m."

        The article notes: "今天上午，失事調查小組人員，包括民航局、復興航空、法國民航局及ATR公司代表已就黑盒子資料作過初步意見交換，但張國政說「大家都沒辦法解釋清楚」。在開完記者會後，調查小組人員繼續開會判讀。"

        From Google Translate: "This morning, members of the crash investigation team, including representatives from the Civil Aviation Administration of China, TransAsia Airways, the French Civil Aviation Authority and ATR, had a preliminary exchange of opinions on the black box information, but Zhang Guozheng said that "no one could explain it clearly." After the press conference, the investigation team members continued their meeting for interpretation."

      3. "復興失事客機黑盒子通話內容公布 最後廿秒出現異常 隨後撞山" [TransAsia Crash: Black Box Communication Contents Released; Abnormalities Detected in the Last 20 Seconds Before the Crash]. Min Sheng Bao (in Chinese). 1995-02-09. p. 18.

        The article notes: "民航局昨天公布除夕夜復興航空失事客機上座艙通話器(俗稱黑盒子)錄音帶內容判讀結果，顯示失事飛機在飛行途中一切正常，只有最後廿秒出現異常，即失事撞山。"

        From Google Translate: "The Civil Aviation Administration of China yesterday announced the results of the interpretation of the audio tape of the cockpit intercom (commonly known as the black box) on the TransAsia Airways plane that crashed on New Year's Eve. It showed that everything was normal during the flight. Only the last 20 seconds caused an abnormality, when the plane crashed and hit a mountain."

      4. "復興班機墜毀龜山 四組員罹難 機上無乘客 兔坑村山區火光可見 松山機場還關閉跑道等候降落 另兩班機因此改降中正機場" [TransAsia Flight Crashes in Guishan; Four Crew Members Killed, No Passengers on Board. Flames Visible in the Mountain Area of Tuku Village. Songshan Airport Closed Runway Awaiting Landings; Two Other Flights Diverted to Taoyuan Airport]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1995-01-31. p. 1.

        The article notes: "大年夜發生大不幸，復興航空公司昨由馬公空機飛回台北，編號B二二七一七的五一○A春節加班機在桃園縣龜山鄉兔坑村附近山區失事墜毀，機上四名組員罹難。罹難者屍體及飛機殘骸均已找到。罹難者是：機長王洪佳，副駕駛李光志，空服員劉慧卿、林子雅。 "

        From Google Translate: "A big tragedy occurred on New Year's Eve. Yesterday, TransAsia Airways flew a Malaysia Airlines flight back to Taipei. The 510A Spring Festival overtime flight numbered B22717 crashed in the mountains near Tukeng Village, Guishan Township, Taoyuan County. Four people on board were on board. A team member died. The bodies of the victims and the wreckage of the plane have been found. The victims were: Captain Wang Hongjia, co-pilot Li Guangzhi, and flight attendants Liu Emily and Lin Ziya."

      5. "上月購進 飛行時數僅兩百餘小時 失事客機 昨天飛行11趟" [Purchased Last Month, the Crashed Aircraft Had Only Flown Just Over 200 Hours and Made 11 Flights Yesterday]. United Daily News (in Chinese). 1995-01-31. p. 4.

        The article notes: "昨天失事墜毀的復興航空公司客機，上個月才購進，飛行時數僅兩百六十五小時，落地三百九十四次，但昨天一天已飛行十一趟，單日飛行密度很高。復興航空目前有十三架ATR七十二型飛機，昨天失事的這架是最新購進。 機長王洪佳已有一萬七千一百三十小時的飛行時數，其中飛行ATR為一九八七小時；副駕駛李光志的飛行時數為六千九百廿六小時。 "

        From Google Translate: "The TransAsia Airlines passenger plane that crashed yesterday was purchased only last month. It had only flown for 265 hours and landed 394 times. However, it had flown 11 times yesterday, and the flight density in a single day was very high. . TransAsia Airways currently has 13 ATR 72 aircraft, and the one that crashed yesterday was its latest purchase. Captain Wang Hongjia has 17,130 flying hours, including 1,987 ATR flying hours; co-pilot Li Guangzhi has 6,926 flying hours."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TransAsia Airways Flight 510A to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 10:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I had just found the mentioned book above, The Dragon in the Cockpit, and was planning on withdrawing the nomination. Also, good job on finding the multiple sources above. I agree that these do indeed establish the event's notability. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:11, 5 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Sanctum (company). Liz Read! Talk! 07:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AppShield

edit
AppShield (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)

AppShield the product does not appear to independently establish notability beyond Sanctum, the company that created it. As a testament to that the version of the article prior to my edits describes three different products or research projects entitled AppShield, all erroneously presented as a single topic. Brandon (talk) 07:30, 5 October 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.
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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz Read! Talk! 06:58, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aliheydar İbragimov

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

I’m not sure this military commander is notable, though much decorated. The Azerbaijani site has no sources at all, and the sources in the Russian article are very scanty. If nobody can find anything else more solid I think deleting would be appropriate. Mccapra (talk) 07:11, 5 October 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.
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 redirect‎ to Art competitions at the 1928 Summer Olympics#Lyric works. Liz Read! Talk! 06:16, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Schaller

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

I can't find any trace of meeting WP:GNG. The lyrical competition of the Olympics is probably not the venue that would make a writer notable. It can be confirmed that Antoine Schaller wrote lyrics based on Hippolyte Ackermans [fr], being one of 30 names - with surnames starting with S, that is - mentioned in a large list. I can find nothing but WP:PASSING mentions elsewhere; both Google and Google Books throw around a lot of namesakes from our time. Geschichte (talk) 06:58, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Cunard. Seems like a decent target PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:33, 8 October 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.
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 delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 05:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yogananth Andiappan

edit
AfDs for this article:
Yogananth Andiappan (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's no more indication of notability this time than there was last time, as far as I can tell. The SCMP article doesn't even seem to mention the article subject. I can't see any indication of how it might meet BASIC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:24, 5 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Keep !votes argue that the page does not meet one WP:ONEOTHER as there are four possible target articles including 3 with similar names, and the near-synonym "lecture hall". (non-admin closure) Rjjiii (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lecture room (disambiguation)

edit
Lecture room (disambiguation) (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)

Unnecessary per WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:SMALLDETAILS, none of the disambiguated titles overlap or conflict with each other. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 04:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:SMALLDETAILS are guidelines of Wikipedia:Article titles, not of Wikipedia:Disambiguation. Even WP:DIFFCAPS and WP:SMALLDETAILS clearly state that readers are guided as swiftly as possible to the topic they might reasonably be expected to be looking for, by such disambiguation techniques as hatnotes or disambiguation pages (italic added). Lecture room (disambiguation) has three disambiguation entries, lecture room, Lecture Room, and The Lecture Room, which only differ in capitalization and the definite article (the) and should be included on the disambiguation page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"The other link" that you mentioned above refers to The Lecture Room, which is a redirect page to AKB48 Show!#The Lecture Room. It is acceptable because, according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Where redirecting may be appropriate, [a] redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if only that section discusses the disambiguated topic. --Neo-Jay (talk) 11:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An article with only a single ref and heavily dubious notability. It's not great to resort to stall/bureaucracy tactics like "you have to delete that article before deleting this one!" when the link is clearly not merited on the page. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:36, 6 October 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.
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 redirect‎ to List of diplomatic missions in London#Embassies and High Commissions in London. Liz Read! Talk! 03:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Algeria, London

edit
Embassy of Algeria, London (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. 2 directory listings provided as sources. A search for sources only came up with this incident which doesn't really add to notability. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977qndxndxo LibStar (talk) 03:46, 5 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn by nominator‎. Additional entries were added following the nomination to the point where the DAB page does seem needed. (non-admin closure) ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:05, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Letter of the law (disambiguation)

edit
Letter of the law (disambiguation) (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)

Unnecessary DAB page - see WP:PTM for why. None of the disambiguated pages are solely called "Letter of the law" or even "Letter of the Law". ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:PTM does not indicate that this disambiguation page should be deleted. Letter of the law (disambiguation) has three disambiguation entries, each of them is legitimate. 1. Letter of the law redirects letter and spirit of the law, which should be a disambiguation entry at Letter of the law (disambiguation). 2. The Letter of the Law has article "The", and "The plus disambiguation term" should usually be included on the disambiguation page for the disambiguation term (see Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Partial title matches ( WP:PTM): For instance, the Mississippi River article [...] is included at Mississippi (disambiguation) because its subject is often called "the Mississippi"). 3. Takeru: Letter of the Law's subtitle is Letter of the Law, and a work may often be referred to by its subtitle. Furthermore, I have added a link to Wiktionary:en:letter of the law into this disambiguation page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 06:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"May be"? Is there evidence that Takeru: Letter of the Law is referred to by only its subtitle without its actual title? It appears to only be referred to as "Takeru" or "Takeru: Letter of the Law" in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added four more disambiguation entries to the disambiguation page. --Neo-Jay (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think there's enough DABMENTIONs here to merit withdrawing the AfD. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:04, 5 October 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Given the new sources, I'm closing this as Keep. A discussion on an article rename can occur on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 01:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wright Investors' Service Holdings, Inc.

edit
Wright Investors' Service Holdings, Inc. (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 GNG. There’s a news article about them donating some dam properties but that’s it. Northern Moonlight 03:20, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as National Patent Development Corporation meets WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. The NPDC's role in the history of the development of soft contact lens, as well as its IP, is very well documented (though it is tricky to untangle the "real" story with all its legal twist and turns and international intrigue). A few examples include this 2022 article in Hindsight: Journal of Optometry History; the 1989 book Communist Entrepreneurs: Unknown Innovators in the Global Economy; and this 1997 Business Week article, "Ready to Rise from the Dead?" which explains the company's poor financial performance in the late 1980s and 1990s. It's to the point that I did wonder if this article should be renamed to its historical name, but given that there is more recent coverage about the company as Wright Investors Service Holdings, particularly with regard to the dams in Connecticut as the nominator pointed out, it's fine as is for now. Sources have been added, but the article still needs more citations and clean up, which can take place over the normal course of editing. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the references added by Cielquiparle and discussed above plus the Bruce Montgomery International Directory of Company Histories item that I previously linked are sufficient to demonstrate that this firm has met WP:NCORP. Like Cielquiparle, I have been thinking that the article would be better under the National Patent Development Corporation name, but the present redirect is adequate. AllyD (talk) 07:17, 10 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_October_5&oldid=1250852537"