Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

27 August 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< August 26	August 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Socialist Trade Union Centre

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

Fails criteria laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:07, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:15, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this nomination was one of nine made in under 10 minutes, all related to trade unions in Kerala, all with exactly the same cut and paste nomination, all containing the same vague wave at NEWSORGINDIA. None demonstrate any WP:BEFORE, nor show any searching in local language press, although the editor who nominated these appears familiar with Kerala. I'd appreciate if this could be relisted so I can have a chance to search for sourcing - I've addressed four of these nominations (all in my opinion keep), but the time required for each one is longer than I have before this hits the seven day threshold. Thanks and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 05:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn, reminder ping. -- asilvering (talk) 01:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep argument here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Trade Union Congress (Bolshevik)

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

Fails criteria laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this nomination was one of nine made in under 10 minutes, all related to trade unions in Kerala, all with exactly the same cut and paste nomination, all containing the same vague wave at NEWSORGINDIA. None demonstrate any WP:BEFORE, nor show any searching in local language press, although the editor who nominated these appears familiar with Kerala. I'd appreciate if this could be relisted so I can have a chance to search for sourcing - I've addressed four of these nominations (all in my opinion keep), but the time required for each one is longer than I have before this hits the seven day threshold. Thanks and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly Procedural Keep. Copy-pasting deletion rationale, and no indication of WP:BEFORE. UTUC(B) was a notable organization for a few years in early 2000s (a period from which we don't find a lot of online sources of regional news media online). Here is coverage on KMML issue [1], [2]. It should be noted that during RSP(B)'s heydays, it was very rare to see the name 'Bolshevik' written out in full (it was generally thought of as allusion to Baby John). See for example coverage like [3] --Soman (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Trade Union Congress (Marxist)

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

Fails criterias laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this nomination was one of nine made in under 10 minutes, all related to trade unions in Kerala, all with exactly the same cut and paste nomination, all containing the same vague wave at NEWSORGINDIA. None demonstrate any WP:BEFORE, nor show any searching in local language press, although the editor who nominated these appears familiar with Kerala. I'd appreciate if this could be relisted so I can have a chance to search for sourcing - I've addressed four of these nominations (all in my opinion keep), but the time required for each one is longer than I have before this hits the seven day threshold. Thanks and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn and another reminder ping on this one. -- asilvering (talk) 01:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is an unbolded Keep here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:02, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cochin City Motor Thozhilali Union

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

Fails criterias laid down at WP:ORGCRITE. Lacks in-depth coverage, WP:CORPDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill routine news by WP:NEWSORGINDIA are inadequate. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Transportation, and India. Gan Favourite (talk) 14:04, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this nomination was one of nine made in under 10 minutes, all related to trade unions in Kerala, all with exactly the same cut and paste nomination, all containing the same vague wave at NEWSORGINDIA. None demonstrate any WP:BEFORE, nor show any searching in local language press, although the editor who nominated these appears familiar with Kerala. I'd appreciate if this could be relisted so I can have a chance to search for sourcing - I've addressed four of these nominations (all in my opinion keep), but the time required for each one is longer than I have before this hits the seven day threshold. Thanks and regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:00, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced stub for 19 years, can't find sources to meet WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 04:53, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting and noting that there is an unbolded Keep opinion here so Soft Deletion is not a good option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Government Degree College, Nawabshah

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

Non-notable educational institution. No independent, RS could be found that contain significant coverage of it. I am only able to find routine coverage with many passing mentions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 12:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Schools. Shellwood (talk) 12:41, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Penelope Brudenell, Countess of Cardigan

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

If there is any significant coverage of Lady Cardigan in reliable sources, I am not seeing it either in this article or in my Google Books search. All I see are genealogy compilations and that is indeed what the article amounts to for the most part. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Royalty and nobility, United Kingdom, and England. Surtsicna (talk) 19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I can't deny that we don't (or I don't) know much about the countess, but she was a Lady of the Bedchamber, for which we have a category. I feel we're a bit dismissive of female roles in society in past centuries, and that's one of the many reasons Wikipedia's gender balance is poor. Deb (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I sort of agree with Deb. She had a relatively notable role in court. I wish someone with more knowledge or expertise could step forward and improve the article a little bit. Keivan.f^Talk 11:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But all three of us know that which role she held (and only for a few months, if I may add) is not what determines encyclopedic notability. The criterion (WP:GNG) is whether she has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". So far I do not see evidence of significant coverage. I also think that having a biography with 95% of its content being who the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law were is not doing much at all for the state of women's biographies on Wikipedia. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

-) You don't think that having all those children was an achievement? Deb (talk) 07:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can cite a historian who considers it an achievement, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 12:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can measure a woman's level of notability by the number of children she has given birth to. But if indeed it was a notable achievement then one can cite a source and include the relevant info! Keivan.f^Talk 21:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Deb Killuminator (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Killuminator, could you please explain how Deb has demonstrated that the article passes WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject")? Surtsicna (talk) 15:47, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The way the article itself is written does not make the subject look notable enough. As nominator explains, writing about the subject's parents, husband, children, and brother-in-law, etc., does not make her notable enough for a standalone encyclopedia article. The subject does not meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Prof.PMarini (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Trying to search on newspapers.com [4] but i can't access. 58.136.119.76 (talk) 18:40, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, and because she was the central character of a notable painting, England: Richmond Hill, on the Prince Regent's Birthday. Women of her time and station had a lot of influence without any formal power. Bearian (talk) 03:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) P.S. I added fascinating information about her family connections to the Charge of the Light Brigade and other famous descendants in British history. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm very conscious of the need to address the gender imbalance on Wikipedia, but it should be achieved by focusing on women scientists, doctors, engineers, activists and leaders. Not by keeping an article on someone who fails WP:NBIO that is virtually entirely describing a woman through the context of her husband, brothers, father and many children. Frankly, that's an insult to the goal of improving women's biographies on Wikipedia. This is a textbook case of WP:INVALIDBIO: "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A); relationships do not confer notability." AusLondonder (talk) 17:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:37, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Raj

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

Apart from the obvious undisclosed paid editing by Pinknetwork123, a fairly new account with 20 edits, comes up with a 20000 bytes draft. It was quickly accepted by a reviewer who I believe did not properly evaluate it. At this point, the article was majorly based on primary sources. Interviews, commentaries, and his opinion pieces do not contribute towards GNG. I believe the rest are paid PR articles and there is no significant coverage of Prateek Raj in independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Economics, Social science, and India. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments.

1. Edits are not at all paid. Sorry if they appear to be. Have edited Wikipedia in the past, but usually do without logging in.

2. Subject’s recently published paper got significant media coverage (mentioned in references), which triggered me, an acquaintance, to create the article including all of his previous media coverages.

3. Subject gained salience on D&I issues since activism on hate speech and LGBT issues.

4. Has significant social media following.

5. Have used credible third party sources for all information, from websites and reputed media houses that pass Wiki’s credibility check

6. I defer judgement to editor consensus, thanks. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jharkhand-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I want to draw everyone’s attention to Wikietiquette Article for Deletion, WP:AFDEQ, especially on the fourth point “Do not make unsourced negative comments about living people. These may be removed by any editor.” I would recommend editors to be unbalanced and take a constructive approach here, given that it concerns a living person.

First, the claim that the article has "obvious undisclosed paid editing" is not correct, as I have already explained before. Additionally, the assertion that he gives “interviews on paid promotional sources” is baseless. Which interviews specifically are paid? Those with The Times of India on hate speech, NDTV, Bloomberg, or discussions on caste and income in The Indian Express, The Hindu, The Telegraph, New Indian Express, or the op-eds on LGBT rights? Just a simple Google search shows that subject has several engagements. And his bio is openly available across academic space to help people create his profile.

It may be reasonable to debate the subject’s notability, it is inappropriate to dismiss their legitimate work as “paid” without evidence. I encourage editors to adhere to Wikietiquette WP:AFDEQ to remain impartial and decide constructively in this discussion. Thank you. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pinknetwork123: What unsourced negative comments do you think have been made here? jlwoodwa (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot @Jlwoodwa for your comment. The comments made here on 1. “obvious” undisclosed paid editing 2. “paid PR articles” and 3. interviews on “paid promotional” sources, make unsourced negative claims about the subject and his work, which affects their reputation in this public space. This is not in line with Wikietiquette policy.

The article cites several reputed and credible secondary sources from the Indian media specifically covering the subject and his work. After this discussion, I agree there are some primary sources which can be removed, and the article can be modified to Wiki standards. The article has been put twice by two different editors in the mainspace.

I understand that editors can put any article to AfD, but I agree with Wikietiquette that AfD should not become a place for making unsubstantiated claims about the work of a living person. I’d welcome a more measured tone when dealing with living persons. Thank you! Pinknetwork123 (talk) 09:39, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while a lot of the sources aren't at par with what I'd expect when looking for WP:BLPRS, I do believe there are atleast three reliable sources that satisfy the bar for notability:
- [5] is a article in The Hindu talks in detail about a paper the individual coauthored.
- [6] is another article in The Hindu that talks about a study he lead.
- [7] is another article in The Telegraph (India) that talks about research that he lead.
- [8] is another article in Indian Express that also talks about his research.

I think the fact that the findings in his research are being covered by newspapers of record and the fact that he holds the position of a assistant professor at IIM Bangalore would sufficiently qualify him to meet WP:NACADEMIC#7. Sohom (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I disagree. Many are passing mentions coming from a report released by the Indian Institute of Management. The Hindu article has no byline and the impact of the report is nowhere to be seen. The second Hindu article is authored by a freelance journalist and a study/ report done with 2 others. 3 has some interview bytes and 4 only mentions his name once.

The position of Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore doesn't carry much weight when evaluating for WP:NACADEMIC. I believe the extensive coverage about the latest report is only because it is related to Karnataka's govt, which i beleive only makes it as routine coverage.

I fail to see Prateek Raj's reports creating substantial impact in terms of citations or otherwise. AFAICS, they fail to meet all eight criterias listed in WP:NACADEMIC. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:14, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira To clear one thing up, I did not imply that the position "Assistant Professor at IIM Bangalore" carries much weight. What I implied was that given the fact that he is a professor, we should use the WP:NACADEMIC criteria to evaluate him instead of the more stringent WP:GNG criteria. Sohom (talk) 19:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot to both of you for your comments. The academic is known for 3 separate issues, reported in reputed and prominent media houses of India. I will highlight only media mentions that cover exclusively or prominently him.

1. for his recent paper on Dalit economy, where he has been interviewed in the Hindu, the Telegraph, the Indian Express, the New Indian Express, the Times of India. All these interviews are referenced in the article, like, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/bangalore/dalit-business-owners-experience-income-gap-of-16-when-compared-to-other-disadvantaged-groups-finds-study/article68505789.ece

2. for his work on hate speech. He has a full interview with The Times India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/podcasts/the-times-of-india-podcast/how-hate-can-hurt-indias-economic-dreams/videoshow/102992737.cms. He also has a detailed interview with Indian Express and NDTV, and well as a full interview on history of media markets in Bloomberg.

3. for his advocacy of LGBT rights. His October 2023 OpEd in the Indian Express merits him a notable place in LGBT Academics category, which is underpopulated, and needs more biographies https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/sc-marriage-equality-judgment-8992557/.

Thanks to this review process, which is helpful as it helps identify what is noteworthy about the subject. The constructive way forward may be to trim the article with only the most noteworthy information. Pinknetwork123 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The sources on the page are quite poor with some written by the subject himself and some others with passing mention and interviews on paid promotional sources. Some sources are also unreliable. The subject has not had a significant noteworthy impact through his profession and outside the profession nationally or internationally to warrant a page on. Page also reads as resume. RangersRus (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for some more opinions here. But, Pinknetwork123 know that interviews don't help establish notability. Their content can be used to verify article content but having the subject talk about themself and their work doesn't help demonstrate that the subject themself is notable (as Wikipedia judges notability).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Crewe

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted article. Per sources in article and what I could find, still fails WP:GNG/WP:NORG. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shame i'd have thought a bbc article aswell as the league its in having its own wikipedia page(a previously stated condition on the previous deletion) as well as multiple other teams in the same league having their own pages would have given it the merit you deemed warranted? Can you elaborate specifically on why AFC Crewe do not merit a page but say Lichfield City F.C. - Wikipedia do?

Thanks Iblethebible (talk) 08:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please see "What about article x?" -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies Iblethebible (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For example the intralinks inside wiki with Gary Taylor-Fletcher - Wikipedia certainly give it more merit. He is an ex professional player at the highest level in England and is now a professional manager managing the team AFC Crewe Iblethebible (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:18, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Salting is usually a bad idea Iblethebible (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if by any chance the article is kept, it needs massively reworking. The club's history should not be written in the present tense and there's simply no need for 18 level 3 headings, each covering one event -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:46, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, assuming this uncited stuff originates from club websites, needs to be seriously cut per WP:ABOUTSELF. A WP-article about AFC Crewe is supposed to be a summary of independent WP:RS about AFC Crewe, and if that means a short article, that's fine. WP:LEAD is not good atm either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The links are either from the BBC the largest broadcaster in the UK or from the FA website which is the official footballing body in england. Iblethebible (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My bad i was unsure of structure thanks vey much for sorting it out. Iblethebible (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:30, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Life origination beyond planets

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

This is WP:FRINGE of the highest magnitude. I mean, come on, extraterrestrial life in stars? I may finish the deletion proposal right here... but, just in case, let's go on.

Life in the sun? A 1774 rant may have a place elsewhere, such as in History of the extraterrestrial life debate, but only if placed in context (meaning, detailing the notions held at the time that allowed it, and the way they were eventually refuted), or contrasted with the actual knowledge we have of the sun that forbids such nonsense.

Life within other stars? According to Science alert, yes, it may be possible... if a proposed arrangement of particles can actually exist, and if we change the definition of life. Neat. But what if we don't? What if we stick to our current definition of life (which is flexible enough already) and the chemistry that we know for sure exists? Then this is just bullshit, a sensationalist clickbait article... and according to their article, Science Alert is already known for sensationalism.

Life elsewhere. I can't check the source (I already passed the quota of free articles per month), but the way it is written, it seems as just an Argument from authority. Has Drake provided an idea of how or why life on neutron stars may be possible? Or was it just a hasty generalization or a wishful-thinking argument?

Not even the "In fiction" section is salvageable. Just "some works of science fiction", with no specific examples. And we follow the link, just 2 obscure novels (life on neutron star systems does not count, and neither does "Star-Trekking" around neutron stars). Even for TV Tropes that would not be enough. The idea of life on stars is so absurd that not even the suspension of disbelief required for works of fiction can cope with it. Cambalachero (talk) 14:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- A 1774 rant may have a place elsewhere - this 1774 rant was noted by a notable modern astronomer. --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Life within other stars? According to Science alert, yes, it may be possible. This article was seriously discussed in several reliable sources. I cited only one because I am a lazy writer and I didnt want just to refbomb, but I can readily do it. --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Just "some works of science fiction", with no specific examples, do you want me to copy the text from the wikilinked articles? Sure I can easily do this, but I didnt wasnt to bloat this section. (Added some refs just now.) --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WTH is "Argument from authority" doing here? If you question Drake, read it first. Not to say that Drake's hypothesis was discussed by serious sources. Againg, I didn want to refbomb, but I added one more, from the Astronomy magazine --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

keep Nomination without merit. Several reliable sources are cited. Yes, it is a speculation, but it is a notable speculation, and there have always been many bold scientific speculations. That's how science evolves. --Altenmann >talk 16:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- delete changed an opinion during discussion which convinced me I am an overconfident ignoramus in the subject. --Altenmann >talk 03:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  To be clear, I think that there is likely something here. I just don't think as it is presently constructed the article is quite up to the standards that we would want for a search-engine-facing article. I think of the general philosophy at Wikipedia these days to be, fundamentally, a non-innovative reference work. I think there may be ways to look at how the literature discusses these "out there" ideas you have identified, but doing so requires a bit more care in framing. jps (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much better than many of the articles I read on Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't call this article "fringe of the highest magnitude", but I would call it "fairly unbothered speculation". I mean, Frank (RIP) was fairly notorious for this kind of extrapolative excitement over the possibilities of life out there in the Universe, but unlike the actual fringe-y characteristics of certain present-day actors, he wasn't claiming empirical basis that was not actually there. This is akin to the rest of the speculation included in this piece. If it is a problem, it may be because it is WP:SYNTH rather than it being WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:SYNTH means "to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". If you see any of them, I am happy to rework the text. --Altenmann >talk 19:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If there is any indication that these examples were identified by third-parties as being relevant to each other, I'd like to see it. Preferably more than one source on identifying the compendium. jps (talk) 19:57, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is a certain WP:SYNTH concern here. Has anyone pulled together these particular bits and pieces before? Are fictional speculations about sentient black holes really the same topic as ruminations from the 1700s about sunspots? XOR'easter (talk) 19:50, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In "Stellar Graveyards, Nucleosynthesis, and Why We Exist" Clifford A. Pickover does discuss the topic of various weird aplanetary lives in the universe. Other authors question the conventional wisdom that any plausible extraterrestrial form of life must resemble the life on Earth. I dont think that to cover a topic in general by "pullin together these particular bits and pieces" without drawing extra conclusions is SYNTH. And assigning "a bit" to the topic is just a common sense, I believe commonly used in Wikipedia. --Altenmann >talk 20:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the chapter in The Stars of Heaven? Unfortunately, I don't have access to it. Which of the examples does Pickover include in that chapter or is it just a recounting of the general critique that, really, the question of "life beyond Earth" is perhaps malformed? jps (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got access to it due to a weird Google Books bug: it showed the content of Stars of Heaven instead of Shades of Freedom. The author had a multipage speculation on non-planetary life forms I mentioned in the article. He also discusses Dragon's Egg, ventures into metaphysical/religious musing on why God created life, about one in 10¹⁰⁰ chance of life, and Cosmological Darwinism, and other cabbages and kings. --Altenmann >talk 21:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that what you describe is speaking to the topic of this article. It's a collection of novel, obscure, and even wacky astrobiological proposals, but it isn't "life origination beyond planets". jps (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative keep: the concept of Panspermia is also considered fringe science by some, but it still gets studies in astrobiology. I don't think we can completely rule this out, so it seems like a valid topic for an article given suitable sources. I'll also note that there is also a paper on the topic of life in a cool brown dwarf atmosphere, so technically not a planet either.[9] Praemonitus (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for the dwarves; it turns out there was a wider discussion of this. I added a bit (three bits :-). --Altenmann >talk
Keep. I see enough independent coverage of the concept to meet WP:GNG. New York Times, Scientific American, Astronomy. I'm unfamiliar with many of the others to evaluate how reliable the others are, but it's possible that more of them add to GNG, and I haven't bothered to independently search for sources, feeling that there are already enough to meet GNG. The "in a nutshell" summary of WP:FRINGE says, "To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability." (plus one more sentence which I don't think applies here). This isn't an article about a mainstream idea, so the second sentence applies, which I think is met, so I really don't see FRINGE as a reason to delete. From what I can see, the rest of the nominator's statement appears to be complaints about how the article is presented as well as a complaint about the validity of the concept itself. Yeah, I get that, and they are all valid points, but it's still not a reason to delete an article about what others have written on the subject. RecycledPixels (talk) 05:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Draftify per jps. Though covering a heavily speculative topic—as do pretty much all articles covering extraterrestrial life as well—this is still notable speculation with appreciable academic coverage, and FRINGE alone is usually not grounds for deletion. Of course, this article has multiple issues (possible SYNTH, organizational and prose issues, and scope issues), but these are also not grounds for deletion. ArkHyena (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think at the very least we need a new title for this article and a better identified scope. This might serve as a place to include the most speculative proposals about life in unusual contexts. Might I suggest something like "Life outside the habitable zone? which is perhaps a better framing? jps (talk) 14:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- The point of the text about brown dwarfs is the extension of the traditional "habitable zone", not to say the title will be an oxymoron. In any case, article scope and title must be discussed in the article talk page, not here. --Altenmann >talk 16:20, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-planetary biogenesis. Praemonitus (talk) 17:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Whether the life is on planets or something that is not a planet is largely a semantic game. The more interesting question is whether life can arise in environments that diverge substantially from Earth with its solid surface, liquid water, primarily stellar energy source, and protective atmosphere. A brown dwarf is just a wacky as life in the atmosphere of Jupiter from that perspective, and that's the real categorical. jps (talk) 18:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I would certainly agree with Praemonitus's suggested title. Regarding the scope of this article, we can pretty solidly go by the geophysical definition of a planet, as the dynamical definition of a planet has little bearing on if an object is habitable beyond controlling elements like instellation or tidal heating.
  
  This would exclude "classical" planets, dwarf planets, planetary-mass moons, and sub-brown dwarfs. It would probably include brown dwarfs, however, alongside stars, stellar remnants, small minor planets, or other objects. ArkHyena (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The question for me is, why would we want to distinguish between life appearing on geophysically defined planets and as opposed to other contexts? What is the organizational principle or logic behind dividing into these two categories? Why would we include brown dwarfs but not giant moons? Getting hung up on whether the life is on planets or not is increasingly WP:OR argumentation as we try to isolate the topic. jps (talk) 00:55, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Good point. It should also probably be pointed out that sourcing on hypothetical life on stars and stellar remnants is probably not broad or thorough enough for there to be an entirely separate article dedicated to it. There is appreciable coverage over the potential habitability of non-planetary asteroids (so excluding Ceres), and the possible role asteroids and comets may play in abiogenesis—as far as I can tell, there's no dedicated article for that form of non-planetary biology. However, this would be such a massive scope change it might as well be an entirely different article. ArkHyena (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify as WP:SYNTH. This article is not yet ready for prime-time, and I'm not convinced that it is framed correctly. jps (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Please cite the lines of WP:SYNTH policy that are violated; I believe there are none. --Altenmann >talk 23:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You have not demonstrated that there is anyone who has written about "life origination beyond planets" as a topic. jps (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You must be kidding: just google "life beyond planets" or "life beyond Earth". --Altenmann >talk 01:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Repeating: Please cite the lines of WP:SYNTH policy that are violated --Altenmann >talk 01:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The conclusion this article makes is that all these ideas are related by being part of some overarching category of "life origination beyond planets". The sources do not make this synthetic claim. jps (talk) 01:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well, the article makes no such "synthetic conclusion", it merely reports on the subject stated by a descriptive title. --Altenmann >talk 01:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  If I write an article Novels where villains eat beets, there is an implied synthetic conclusion that such a topic has been the interest of some other source, and it isn't good enough that I can quote directly from the novels illustrating that everything is impeccably soured. Remember WP:TERTIARY and that Wikipedia is not for indiscriminate collections. We collect things that people have said are worthy of being collected. In this case, no one has declared these disparate ideas as worthy of being in a single article except for you... at least not that I have been able to find. jps (talk) 02:01, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I dont think moving it into draft space is a good idea. Nobody will see it there, and the article surely can benefit from extra eyeballs. --Altenmann >talk 23:19, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The idea is for you to improve it and resubmit it to WP:AFC after you address the criticisms. jps (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  This is a bad idea. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. There was no catastrophic criticisms which make the article critically bad. Draft space is for novices who do not know how to write articles. --Altenmann >talk 01:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You and I have been around these parts to know that it has changed. Sure, there was a time back when you were writing articles fast and furiously when it was just get it all up on the site and let the collaboration take over. We have a responsibility as a top-10 website to not mislead our readers too badly. We cannot be perfect, but in this case I worry that we are presenting a novel interpretation that has not been validated.
  
  Anyway, I am happy to help you with the framing and trying to address the concerns over the topic being "invented".
  
  jps (talk) 01:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Red herring, strawman, barking at wrong fence, whats not. How in Universe my article is "to mislead our readers too badly"~ --Altenmann >talk 01:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You have no source which distinguishes between "life origination on planets" and "life origination beyond planets". Thus, you are misleading readers into believing that such organization schema exist outside of Wikipedia. I take WP:NOR very seriously. I think the idea you have is fine for a blog or external publication. But until this idea takes root in the relevant sources as an entire topic, it strikes me as being completely arbitrary. jps (talk) 01:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  You must be kidding: just google "life beyond planets" or "life beyond Earth". --Altenmann >talk 01:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  The article is not about Life beyond Earth. "Life beyond planets" does not return any sources similar to what you have presented. You are it, as far as I can tell! jps (talk) 02:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Even if the ideas themselves have merit or some modest acceptance, they must be still contrasted with the mainstream ideas (that's what FRINGE is about). And the mainstream idea is that life on stars (the Sun or others) is not possible, at all. The article does not mention that, at all. For starters, there's NASA: "The Sun could not harbor life as we know it because of its extreme temperatures and radiation. Yet life on Earth is only possible because of the Sun’s light and energy." Cambalachero (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is kinda why the true topic of the article is life as we don't know it (lol at that redirect). I agree that addressing these points of how unlikely life as we know it to be able to survive in hostile environments is an organizing principle with a lot of usable sources! jps (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you are implicitly assuming "life as we know it", while the article is about not it. --Altenmann >talk 02:24, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
??? I explicitly wrote "life as we don't know it"? jps (talk) 12:51, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect you used is an "easter egg" linking to Hypothetical types of biochemistry, which is still "life as we know it" only slightly different. --Altenmann >talk 16:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that page does already have a section on Nonplanetary life, which includes speculation about neutron stars. XOR'easter (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic the section Hypothetical_types_of_biochemistry#Nonplanetary_life must be deleted as WP:SYNTH because google say nothing about "nonplanetary life". --Altenmann >talk 19:56, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about Google (and I would in fact advise everyone to treat them as untrustworthy). Maybe that section does need to be cut, or heavily revised, but we're not here to debate that. XOR'easter (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I... don't know what to say here exactly. I guess I shouldn't have put in the wikilink? My point is that the topic is something other than "Life origination beyond planets". It's more "life as we don't know it". Okay? jps (talk) 20:20, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if extraterrestrial life is speculative, any speculation must be based on things we do know, that's the way science works. Astrobiology usually considers "Life as we know it" because it is a known example of life that actually works. Ideas about "Life as we don't know it" are not usually taken very seriously outside of pop science pages in need of a clickbait, because it would not be enough to point that an aspect of life may be replicated in a context that wouldn't allow life, such as the surface of stars: they would need to explain how the proposed idea can meet all the requisites we would expect from a lifeform. Cambalachero (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. This is the most straightforward criticism of these proposals and absolutely deserves to be frontloaded in any future article that deals with these subjects. An interesting aside is given by those like of David Kipping who points out the lamppost reasoning that necessarily is invoked when making this point. But it's also nearly impossible to decide what is or isn't plausible when fumbling around in the dark. Suffice to say, there are often a few lines here, a page or two there, about these kinds of speculations in secondary sources trying to summarize astrobiology as an emerging discipline. jps (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point about frontloading. How about that some of the content may be merged into Hypothetical types of biochemistry, section "Nonplanatary life"? This article has plenty of frontloading and appears to be overlapping in subject with mine? --Altenmann >talk 19:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely help work on that other article, but I think you have made good points that this other article cannot contain the entirety of what is possible to write about this subject. It is, after all, limited to discussions of biochemistry and there are some hyperbolic speculations about processes (as on neutron stars) which are barely recognizable as "chemical". jps (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I remain unconvinced that there is a well-defined, recognized-in-this-form-by-prior-sources topic here. Assembling bits and pieces of speculation under a common heading advances the idea that all the pieces so assembled really are parts of the same thing. Whether that is legitimate here is unclear. The current text is overly dependent upon primary sources and pop-science media. All things told, it reads more like a blog post or a 2004-era Wikipedia article than what we need now. (The title is also awkward.) So, let's incubate it for a while. XOR'easter (talk) 19:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP: TNT. This is the second of two articles proposed for deletion on a single day that does not contain any information about what it purports to cover, which is speculation. The title doesn’t match the content, and what content is in there is poorly written and sourced. We have two other options: move to a “correct” title and cut it down to fit the actual content, or ask someone who is willing to work on it to userfy it. I can do the former, but the latter is exactly why we have TNT. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hypothetical types of biochemistry: possibly with very selective merging. The article is clearly a mess, but the topic is notable, and already covered nicely by the proposed target. Owen× ☎ 21:38, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually after being "brainwashed" by this discussion, I posted the suggestion to remove the corresponding section there. --Altenmann >talk 21:56, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in an attempt to rescue the article I googled the term "nonplanetary life", with little success: got two reliable refs only. While the texts were reasonable, not enough for WP:GNG. --Altenmann >talk 22:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:28, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ji (surname 蓟)

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

Nonnotable surname (only one notable individual with this surname, who probably died 1800 years ago and who has no page on enwiki); material can be merged into Ji (surname). We don't need so many articles with Chinese disambiguators. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 03:10, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, unless a stronger reason for deletion can be provided. The article currently cites multiple sources – is there something wrong with them? It doesn't make sense to merge to what is effectively a disambiguation page. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:09, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Project Kuwait

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

I don't see that the article meets the notability policy; it's just a plan and has not been implemented in reality.-- فيصل (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Kuwait. فيصل (talk) 14:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Petroleum industry in Kuwait, which was partially sourced with a link to the Central Intelligence Agency. Written the same year as this one, it's much more clear and concise about the subject matter. — Maile (talk) 18:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that there is no mention of Project Kuwait at Petroleum industry in Kuwait at this time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:26, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li (surname 莉)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Li Surname (莉)

Articles for deletion/Li (surname 莉) (2nd nomination)

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

Nonnotable surname (no notable individual with this surname); material can be merged into List of surnames romanized Li. We don't need so many articles with Chinese disambiguators. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 02:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Happy to second deletion for this one out of this lot of Li (surname x) articles, since there doesn't appear to be any reason to keep this and there is no sourced info to merge into List of surnames romanized Li. A redirect would be fine, I guess, but why? I don't think anyone's going to be searching for "Li (surname 莉)". -- asilvering (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Li (surname 理)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Li Surname (理)

Articles for deletion/Li (surname 理) (2nd nomination)

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

Nonnotable surname (no notable individual with this surname); material can be merged into List of surnames romanized Li. We don't need so many articles with Chinese disambiguators. Yinweiaiqing (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's anything here worth merging, since Folk etymologies of Chinese surnames and Surnames in Chinese mythology are both redlinks. I don't have access to any complete biographical dictionaries of Chinese historical figures anymore, but it's telling that the Kangxi entry for 理 as a surname lists only the single individual 理徵, who seems to have been invented or repurposed to make sense of a bit of the Yellow Emperor myth where somehow he was the ultimate progenitor of a dozen different surnames.
The phenomenon of earlyish Chinese families backdating their surnames to mythological and legendary figures to bolster their own reputations — that's an interesting subject and probably deserves better coverage than we currently give it, but just uncritically repeating myths and folk etymologies without contextualising them as such is not what we should be doing here. I'm landing at delete, but also copypaste sourcing to zh:理姓 (unsourced). Folly Mox (talk) 08:39, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 04:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Vandenberg

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Only primary sources provided, a search for his name and birth name yielded only namesakes in Google news, books and Australian database Trove. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, Netherlands, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:41, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Represented his nation. Multiple secondary sources available on British newspaper Archive, I have added two of them and there are plenty more available. Racingmanager (talk) 13:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NMOTORSPORT. SpacedFarmer (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Air Serbia destinations

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

Fails WP:NOT, WP:NCORP, WP:NLIST.

WP:NOT is failed because this is a complete listing of the services of a company. As such it is excluded under WP:NOTCATALOG no. 6 which states that "Listings to be avoided include [...] products and services". It is also an indiscriminate listing - all destinations ever flown to, however briefly, are listed without any attempt to summarise them which is against WP:IINFO. In reality this list is mostly services the airline doesn't present fly, does not fly year-round, or charter flights. It is therefore not a list of flights that Air Serbia actually offered in August 2023.

WP:NCORP (which applies to the services of companies as well as the companies themselves) is failed because none of the sources here are independent, third-party, reliable sources. This article is sourced entirely to old airline-issued timetables, the company website, press releases, enthusiast blogs like aeroroutes.net and www.exyuaviation.com/, or to run-of-the-mill articles in trade-press. Sources that clearly pass WP:ORGIND are needed, but none are present.

WP:NLIST is failed because none of these sources are independent, third-party, reliable sources giving significant coverage to the topic of the services this airline offers as a group. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Products, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Lists, and Serbia. FOARP (talk) 11:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all of these WP:NOT arguments are wrong and are inconsistent with the most recent RfC. First, third party reliable sources frequently cover Air Serbia destinations, even in Croatian [10]. This even quotes Vučić about a specific route. Sourcing is not an issue here. The catalogue argument fails because destinations are not "services" in the sense of another business - where an airline flies is clearly essential to understanding the airline, unlike an old style catalogue which is trying to sell you products. WP:IINFO doesn't apply because there's nothing indiscriminate about this at all. This is a valid list and while the sourcing could be improved, there's absolutely no reason to delete this. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

”per the recent RFC” - care to give us a link here? I’m not aware of a new RFC having closed in this field lately. Having checked on VPP, the Aviation project page, and the WP:NOT talk page I also don’t see one. Regarding the sources you raise, the Jurnarji List source is based entirely on Croation Aviation Portal, apparently a blog, the link to which is 404 but an archived version shows the information apparently to come entirely from the airline since no source is cited. Quotes from government officials hardly matter for notability of what is the state airline.

I also note that this is essentially the same argument that you've made multiple times in a long string of AFDs (15 out of the last 15), all of which closed delete/redirect/merge. FOARP (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No - I don't have time to try to save all of these articles right now, but it was the RfC which was appealed which basically said this sort of information is fine to include in the encyclopedia if WP:DUE is mentioned. I also think you're absolutely wrong on policy here, and whenever these are opened up to the community there's never been a clear consensus to delete. Some of these articles do need to be deleted on sourcing grounds, so your 15 for 15 argument is worthless. I also don't know how you can argue Jutarnji isn't reliable, either, it's the second largest news portal in Croatia. SportingFlyer T·C 19:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don’t know what RFC you’re talking about. I suspect it’s one of the ones about Airports, which are obviously not the same topic as Airlines. FOARP (talk) 05:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge This is not a resource for doing business so NOTCATALOGUE doesn't apply. It is well defined and of limited scope so it is not indiscriminate. Sources do cover the topic, and even if alternative formats for presentation may be better, it does not need to be deleted outright. Reywas92^Talk 23:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDB. This is just the airline's route map in list form. Also an exhaustive list of the places this carrier has flown to since it was founded nearly a century ago is a clear case of an indiscriminate collection of information. Sunnya343 (talk) 14:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Per Reywas92. — Sadko (words are wind) 13:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge Per Reywas92. Боки ☎ ✎ 23:11, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge We should merge these information into the airline's article, as per others said,they don't violate it, in addition, we need to stop trying to have airlines destinations list deleted because Wikipedia is the only place that has these information, it is a big mistake that the other ones got deleted, especially the one for Lufthansa, United Airlines and American Airlines, if we really don't need these to exist as a article, we should have merged the airlines destinations list into the airline article itself, a pity that the ones that got deleted was no longer available.... Metrosfan (talk) 05:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: At a minimum, it's not clear whether editors prefer keeping or merging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:17, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BeForU

AfDs for this article:

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

An old article that fails a "before" test.

I probably would've nominated this for PROD if it hadn't gone through an AfD over 14 years ago, shortly after the band disbanded. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Japan. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 03:56, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Oricon shows one of their singles had charted in the past: https://www.oricon.co.jp/prof/269713/products/ lullabying (talk) 04:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am not sure what the deletion rationale is here. The keep comments by Nihonjoe in the last deletion discussion were very clear: "they more than meet WP:BAND (specifically, they meet #2 (charted single or album), #5 (2+ major label albums), and #10 (performed music for a work of media that is notable: DDR is clearly very notable))". Sources to back this up were included in the previous discussion, and notability is not temporary. Here is a more recent article in English, and for #10, they also performed a theme song for the anime adaptation of Major (manga). Dekimasuよ! 04:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yun Chol (footballer)

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh Yong-nam

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of MPs who lost their seat in the 2024 United Kingdom general election

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

Entirely sourced to primary results, no evidence of WP:NLIST being met. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United Kingdom. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:07, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ufa center

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

Failed to find sources neither in english nor russian. Tagged unreferenced since 2019 Appears to be machine translated from Bashkir Wikipedia, where there are no refs either. --Altenmann >talk 01:34, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 August 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it does not seem it can be verified to exist Traumnovelle (talk) 03:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shomari Figures

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

Non-notable congressional candidate. Figures is likely to win, but he doesn't currently seem notable based on his current news coverage, which is almost entirely campaign-related and/or passing mentions. I'd support a redirect to 2024 United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama#District 2, and obviously this page can be recreated if/when he wins. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 00:44, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the preponderance of sources satisfy notability. Draftifying would be preferable to deletion. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The man just spoke at the DNC. Why would we delete his page? 2605:C840:806:136C:2D3B:B267:787B:1AD0 (talk) 00:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP, of course. Why would anyone delete a public figure's page. I literally just came here to read about him after his succinct and powerful DNC speech. Such charisma and face!!! Keep! 2603:7000:9600:36C:56D0:9999:AA68:2740 (talk) 08:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the page until if/when he wins, he's not notable yet as he hasn't won an election. Talthiel (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of people who haven’t won elections have Wikipedia pages. 2605:C840:806:136C:2D3B:B267:787B:1AD0 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. They are such perpetual haters. Small, insipid, soulless so and so's. The page should be kept based on his exceptional handsomeness and posture alone ;). 2603:7000:9600:36C:56D0:9999:AA68:2740 (talk) 11:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is dependent on coverage, not whether people win elections or not. Sources are very good and if the news considers him notable enough to care about, why shouldn't Wikipedia? Mrfoogles (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, if the next president of the USA considers him worthy of a prime time speaking slot in the once-every-four-years DNC, who is tiny wiki next to that clout? KEEP. Or do whatever you want, he is still a superstar that's generating immense buzz. He actually helps the site by being featured, but whatever makes small people happy, I guess. 2603:7000:9600:36C:56D0:9999:AA68:2740 (talk) 11:10, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Figures has already won the Democratic 2024 Primary for AL2 and is likely to win in the General election in 2024. 104.129.205.26 (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing notable about this fellow other than his run for office, which is not enough to pass muster per the notability guidelines on living persons.XavierGreen (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to election page until if and when he wins. Agree with Talthiel, candidates for office, even if they are in safe seats, are not inherently notable. Bkissin (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the sources are sufficient to establish notability. While a candidate isn't inherently notable, sufficiently extensive coverage in reliable sources can, and in this case does, exist to support notability.OnAcademyStreet (talk) 23:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect because he's not notable yet as he hasn't won an election and it isn’t a guaranteed win. NathanBru
Redirect per nom. Currently fails WP:NPOL and existing coverage is routine campaign coverage, not sufficient for establishing notability (see WP:NOTNEWS#2). Restore the full page if/when he wins the general election. Sal2100 (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets notability standard. If there were any question, he just spoke at the 2024 Democratic National Convention Ecphora (talk) 00:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I'd say him speaking at the DNC now makes him notable, even if he weren't to win. Slamforeman (talk) 02:45, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree with this. 174.83.134.221 (talk) 14:18, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:53, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. We're just going to have to rewrite it in November anyway. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, even split between those arguing for a Redirect and those who believe existing sources establish GNG. A source review might help here as no one has talked specifically about which sources establish notability. And I don't think speaking at a convention (hundreds did during those 4 days) is enough to establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:39, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is enough for GNG from looking at the article, the first part of WP:BLP1E is met but the second part doesn't apply. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I think him being a DNC speaker and the coverage for the VRA district makes it hard to delete this just to resurrect a few months later when he very likely does win according to all election forecasters ShortlegPenins (talk) 03:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional radio stations

AfDs for this article:

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

Same reasons List of fictional television stations was deleted. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Radio, and Lists. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Again, no indication of LISTN or any encompassing notability of the subjects as a group, and the list itself is a largely indiscriminate selection of subjects. No need for this list to exist, and it's better off deleted. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:13, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I came extremely close to AfDing this myself (I actually made the edit that added an AfD tag, and then changed my mind while composing the rationale). I don't think this is quite as bad as the television station one was, since there are at least two sources making a pretense of discussing the topic of fictional radio stations collectively. But one of them is no longer accessible and the other seems to be some random person's blog, so I guess it fails to hold up to closer scrutiny. Delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Desmond Murphy

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

We don't normally create articles for players playing just 1 first class match. Only primary sources provided. Fails WP:NCRIC. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Ireland. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The worst case situation here is a redirect to List of Irish first-class cricketers, with a partial merge to a note so that the biographical details and references can be preserved. Given the quality of information at this source the chances are that there are contemporary press records offline that could be used to build a proper biography. Liddle appears to be the go to expert on Irish cricketers and clearly wrote for the ACS on the subject - a set of his biographies can be found here for future reference. It might be worth a keep based on Liddle's biography and the fact that he got a Wisden obituary (which is not a gimme, especially for single appearance players), but I'd rather see something a bit more contemporary in news sources. But it really is redirect at the worst - this is never a delete situation. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:17, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails notability standards; no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Prof.PMarini (talk) 13:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. International cricketer for a major cricket playing nation. AA (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't meet WP:NCRIC. Questionable if Ireland is a major playing nation as they don't play world Test series. LibStar (talk) 04:08, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Considering Ireland were awarded Test status by the ICC in 2017, I'd consider them a major cricketing nation. AA (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus, we have editors arguing to Keep, Delete, Redirect and Merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of current heads of state of states with limited recognition

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

Is it accurate to consider countries like China and Israel as partially recognized states? Are there any sources that list the leaders of these countries in a table format? If not, the article's theme seems to be defining arbitrarily according to the author's own understanding. 日期20220626 (talk) 01:18, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed to the deletion. This list is included in other articles, including the source material of "List of current state leaders by assumption date of office". As the original author of this page, I nominate this page for speedy deletion, because after almost a decade, the page is within the same range of validity as it originally was and the content is easily disputed such as the inclusion of Israeli president. Gag0409 (talk) 02:19, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not see NLIST being made and this almost feels like a coatrack to say certain countries that are well recognised have 'limited recognition'. Traumnovelle (talk) 03:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Kazakhstan, Ottawa

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

Article merely confirms it exists with its own website as the only source. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Kazakhstan, and Canada. LibStar (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Embassy of Japan, Kyiv

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

Fails GNG. Whilst it looks like a lot of sources, most of these are used to confirm previous ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Japan, and Ukraine. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which Medical Device

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

Fails WP:GNG. I almost tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:A7. Bbb23 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Medicine, Websites, United Kingdom, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]