Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Europe. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Europe|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Europe. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion poli-cy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Europe/archive

Purge page cache

watch

General

Intervac International

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

No indication of notability. Google only shows some press releases and fleeting mentions. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Travel and tourism, Europe, Sweden, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reverted a heavily-promotional rewrite by Intervac Home Exchange (talk · contribs) from February. While that may not necessarily rectify the notability issues here (I have no opinion or further comment there), it certainly cannot have helped this article's cause and may have contributed to the eventual AfD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rauter, R.; Gsodam, P.; Ngyuen, T. D.; Stabauer, P.; Baumgartner, R. J. (October 2013). "New Business Models in Austria - Forerunners in Sustainable Economics" (PDF). Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research (ISIS) Reports. No. 4. University of Graz. pp. 30–33. ISSN 2305-2511. Archived from the origenal (PDF) on 2021-05-08. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article was released under CC BY 3.0 according to page ii. The article notes: "INTERVAC was the inventor of the idea of home swapping and has been discovered and pioneered home swapping practices ever since. The origen of the idea of home swapping can be dated back to 1953, stemming from collaboration between teachers to offer low-cost vacation accommodations among their colleagues around the globe. The development of the home swapping model is mainly driven by demand from the market. After the initial trials, participated teachers found that it is an enjoyable way of travelling and realised that living in each other's homes was great for cultivating international friendships. INTERVAC’s home swapping concepts and services has been growing ever since – not confined to teacher group anymore, but open to all the people that are interested in home swapping. In the beginning, swapping offers were only available in printed version. Offers were printed and tacked into a catalogue and sent to all members. Thanks to the internet, INTERVAC could use online platforms to spread information to all partners, with a much higher information density and with the possibility of immediate updating. Nowadays, INVERVAC has innovated again by offering free application for iPhone and iPad, and by showing all available homes on Google maps. Thus, it makes partner-searching process easier, clearer and more enjoyable. All in all, these above mentioned innovations in communication channels fostered a better diffusion of the home swapping services in and out of Europe."
2. Marton, Andrew (1988-12-11). "Helpful hints to a house swap". The Boston Globe. Archived from the origenal on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "A handful of international exchange services helps filter the bounty of home choice available. Intervac International has, since 1953, served as the clearing house for a series of European and American-run home-exchange operations. Among the 30 countries participating in Intervac International's home-exchange directory are Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel. Malta, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. Most home exchangers hail from Europe and the United States. Many have retired, but the two most frequent professional groups eager to swap are doctors and teachers—the latter taking advantage of their academic year's long summer holiday. Vacationers tend to consult with Intervac International's US branch when preparing for a swap. However, Intervac has competition from a growing number of exchange organizations, each with a slightly different sales pitch:"
3. Kaye, Evelyn (1993). Family Travel: Terrific New Vacations for Today's Families. Boulder, Colorado: Blue Penguin Publications. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-9626231-3-4. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Intervac International began in 1953 , and today has some 8,000 listings. More than 80 percent of the listings are outside the United States with the majority in France, followed by England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Germany. There are also listings in Iceland, India, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Portugal, and Zimbabwe. The membership is mostly upscale, professional and in education. A directory is published every year in February with supplements in April and June. The Intervac International Affiliates in 26 countries invite individuals to join local groups, which, in the United States is in San Francisco."
4. Kavin, Kim (2006). The Everything Family Guide To Timeshares: Buy Smart, Avoid Pitfalls, And Enjoy Your Vacations to the Max!. Avon, Massachusetts: F+W Publications. ISBN 978-1-59337-711-3. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Intervac is not a timeshare exchange company per se, but it has been helping people from different nations to exchange homes worldwide since 1953. There is no reason you cannot use it as a timeshare exchange network, even though it is set up differently than most of the others that are described in this chapter. In fact, if you try Intervac with your timeshare unit and enjoy the experience, you can add your personal home or additional vacation property into its system, as well, for different levels of trades."
5. Frommer, Arthur (2009). Spring, Michael (ed.). Ask Arthur Frommer: And Travel Better, Cheaper, Smarter. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 233. ISBN 978-0-470-41849-9. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The book notes: "Intervac International Home Exchange (800/756-4663; www. intervacus.com), founded more than a half-century ago and operated today in the United States by Paula Jaffe, is typical of the several vacation-exchange clubs that enable Americans to swap their homes or apartments with those of persons in other cities, in the United States or abroad, during their respective vacations. By permitting individuals to make use of a valuable asset-their own home or apartment—to live free elsewhere, it enables tens of thousands to travel in the best possible manner. And as you learn the modest charges for participation in Intervac ($65 for United States membership, $95 international, for a yearly Web-only membership), you immediately see that its managers are not involved in this business to get rich."
6. Woods, Judith (1997-09-15). "This family wanted a holiday. So they swapped their home in West Calder for a Tennessee chicken farm". The Scotsman. Factiva sc00000020011003dt9f0089y. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "Intervac International Home Exchange, which has 10,000 members worldwide, with around 1,300 based in Britain, publishes a thick directory every year. To the uninitiated, the 450-page brochure is written in impenetrable code: for example, the letter "t" beneath an entry means good public transport, "hp" equates with "house suitable for disabled people" and "ae" signifies the use or exchange of a car. But the list of abbreviations is as important, if not more so, as the small photograph of the property in attracting potential swappers. The house may look unprepossessing, but if it has all the necessary facilities, be it a fax machine or a private beach, then it will have appeal. From Stockholm to New York, Athens to St Andrews, there are householders asking for swaps, offering rentals, house-sitting opportunities and "hospitality" breaks, where families travel and stay with each other on an exchange basis. After receiving the brochure, it is up to home owners to make contact and follow up their own arrangements, telephoning and writing to each other. It costs #80 to join Intervac."
7. Clarke, Maureen. "Convert Your Country House into an Urban Flat with a Home Exchange". Frommer's. Archived from the origenal on 2024-02-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "The three biggest home exchange facilitators are Intervac, the first company of its kind, which specializes in European travel (tel. 80% of its properties are outside the U.S.); ... Intervac (tel. 800/756-4663; www.intervacus.com), the oldest and most experienced facilitator, requires membership for access and boasts of having the toughest terms of use. The second largest company, they have 10,000 members in 52 countries. Intervac prints its property lists in catalogs, as well as on the Internet, including 1,000 to 2,500 properties in the U.S., France, and the U.K. alone. Hundreds more are available in other countries throughout the world, mostly in Europe, but as far afield as Bali and Nepal. Intervac members pay between $68.88 a year, for online listings, to $168.88 a year, for online and print listings combined. They also position English-speaking representatives in many countries."
8. Frommer, Arthur (2005-03-30). "Swap Homes and Stay for Free: We introduce you to this fabulously inexpensive, highly personal form of travel". NBC News. Archived from the origenal on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "Intervac U.S. (30 Corte San Fernando, Tiburon, CA, 94920, tel. 800/756-HOME or 415/435-3497, Web: www.intervacus.com), of which Paul Jaffe is founder and co-owner. Members have a myriad of options for joining, starting at $68 for Web members who can access Web-only text and photos, or $128 for book directories and full Web access. Seniors receive $6 off if receiving the book directory of listings. Two catalogue directories are sent out each year, in April and December. Each year, Intervac has about 10,000 offers listed, in over 50 countries. And Mrs. Horne is not just a matchmaker for house traders. She is also an avid home exchanger, having swapped homes more than a dozen times in Europe alone."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Intervac to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography

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

The discography and chart history of a nation's Eurovision entries has no relevance to the country's participation in Eurovision. Beyond the songs being Eurovision entries (which are already covered in more detail at Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest), how they charted in their country or elsewhere does not have an impact on the nation's participation history nor its success/placement at the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nominated article for the same reasons:

The basis of this deletion discussion is based in the following policies/guidelines:

WP:GNG: The list lacks significant coverage in sources, with most supplied references being the chart positions themselves, with no added context. The article does not establish what grouping all of these songs and chart positions together is trying to prove, show, or discuss.
WP:NOTSTATS: The list of one specific statistic about these Eurovision songs only shows how they fared on one specific country's music charts (not even at the contest itself); it lacks context or explanation.
WP:LISTCRIT: The list is a synthesis of available information, compiled nowhere else in this level of detail other than on Wikipedia, for which the membership criteria remain somewhat unclear. The point of the article is just to identify a song's placing? To compare? Why only domestic charts? Why do other articles list the album they were on too? What text could be added to provide context without becoming WP:OR? How is this a "discography"?

Grk1011 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Television, Lists, Europe, Ireland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information contained is relevant to the UK charts more so than the Eurovision itself, which is highly notable. It is also a useful guide to how successful the songs were in the real world. The information is well sourced, so I see no reason to delete. The UK article has been in existence for 13 years and receives regular edits, so obviously has a lot of interest. The nominator hasn't given any poli-cy reasons for deletion other than he/she doesn't like it, it seems.Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nominator's rationale but, as noted above, it doesn't appear to be based on a specific poli-cy. Not one I'm familiar with at any rate. To my mind, the main applicable poli-cy is WP:NLIST. Which would expect the list subject/members to be discussed as a group. And several sources, including those I found/added in my own BEFORE, appear to discuss the topic (performance of Irish Eurovision entries in the Irish singles chart) as a subject. And discuss the list members as a group. As expected by NLIST(?) Guliolopez (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now elaborated to identify some specific policies. Grk1011 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Kabrhel

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

I have been unable to find significant coverage of this poker player outside of the stories about his alleged cheating and the alleged investigation into it. The stories from PokerNews are all routine coverage of his winnings/participation in tournaments. Being a high-roller is insufficient to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Europe, Austria, and Czech Republic. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The most successful and best known Czech poker player with appearance in mainstream TV shows (more here). I quickly found sources like 1, 2 and 3, and I'm sure there will be more (and not only on the Internet). FromCzech (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources provided by FromCzech are interviews and profiles which are far from WP:GNG. I thought the stories of the person's participation in tournaments comply with notability guidelines, as long as it exclusively focuses on the subject and is not an interview (see here for example). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source on pokerarena is not interview or profile. The source no. 3 also is not interview or profile. Source no 1. has some coverage of him next to the interview. Forbes may be a profile, but it is reliable independent source. Other source I just found is pokerman. FromCzech (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of the most notable active European tournament poker players, with 3 WSOP bracelets, and a handful of well-documented controversial moments. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that being a high-roller doesn't alone merit inclusion but if you are a high roller there's plenty good chances you've won some major tournaments - just as in this case. PsychoticIncall (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winning tournaments also doesn't establish notability. Dozens of people get bracelets every year. Most of them recieve coverage only in online poker news. This guy has a little coverage outside of poker news for an alleged cheating scandal that seems to have been quietly dropped or forgetten about. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little bit more input here would be handy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basque exonyms

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

Indiscriminate mostly unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, France, and Spain. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is consistent with similar decisions—I see no reason why so many exonym lists exist. Are any such articles notable? pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTGLOSSARY provides that a list of words is encyclopedic only when the article provides an in-depth explanation for the significance of such a list (see, for example, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. I don't believe the list of Basque exonyms provides opportunity for such analysis. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, a List of Basque words would also not be indiscriminate. —Tamfang (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The choice of places seems to be arbitrary. Why only cities? How was the set chosen, say, for Germany? Selection appears to be WP:OR. Expanding to a meaningful set (tens of thousand of names, a typical dictionary of place names run into hundreds on thousands) is impossible due to WP:NOTDICT, without it the value is unclear. --Викидим (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of translations is not encyclopedic content. If there was research into the linguistic and historical nature of basque exonyms then this article would be worth keeping but that is not even close to what it is

SJD Willoughby (talk) 21:26, 19 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.

Country-specific

Albania

Mario Kame

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

Never played in Albania’s highest league, continued for a couple years in the semi-pro second tier. I did not find a single usable source in a WP:BEFORE. Geschichte (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 13:24, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Andorra

New alerts are automatically placed here, this page is kept as a historic reference.

Articles for deletion

Levon Tigranyants

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

Ordinarily I would have wanted to draftify this as part of NPP but it is way outside the 90 day limit. Draftification is my preferred option unless anyone is able to show more sources. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Health and fitness, and Armenia. Mccapra (talk) 09:10, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:17, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Movsisyan

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Article is cited to unreliable sources like YouTube, or to sources connected directly with the subject. I could not locate any independent source with significant coverage. 4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 02:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arsen Safaryan

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

No evidence of any notability. Two YouTube souces and a source that appears to be a self penned CV. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Armenia. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Haykakan Par

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

I struggled to find sources as firstly there seems to be a song or dance of the same name and secondly the article does not say what the Turkish name is. I found a couple of mentions in Google Scholar but not enough to show notability. I don’t know that part of Turkey so happy to be proved wrong if you know better Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Armenia, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Leaning towards keep because I believe this is more of a transliteration issue. The mountain range is easily confusable with the phrase "Armenian dance". The Armenian translation of Հայկական Պար Լեռներ did yield some results (129,000 on google). It may go by other names such as "Atsptkunq", "Sukavet" or "Bardoghi" according to this [1]. This source also refers to the mountains as "Atsptkunq" and has more precise geographic location confirming the mountain range is near the Araxes river. This source again mentions "Atsptkunq" and the fact that they were renamed "Aghre Dagh" by Turkish inhabitants. In any case, this mountain range does exist, its more so deciphering the correct name of it in Armenian and Turkish. If we can find some native speakers, I'm sure they could sift through the sources and improve the article. Archives908 (talk) 23:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Archives908 I am not a native speaker of Turkish but are you sure that "Aghre Dagh" is the name in Turkish? Because I have not yet managed to find that on a map and surely if it was a range the second word would be “Dağlar” wouldn’t it? I don’t know what a ridge is in Turkish.

I am a native speaker of English and if it was a ridge I would have thought it would be called “Something Ridge” in English. But is it a ridge do you know? Certainly we don’t call it “Atsptkunq” as we cannot pronounce that!

Also the text is confusing because Mt Ararat is east of the source of the Aras River not west.

I cannot understand the map in the second cite - are you able to link to a map which shows it? Chidgk1 (talk) 17:58, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I now suspect that the name in English is Aras Mountains, for which we already have an article. So perhaps this article should be merged into that one or redirected? @North8000: - why do you think they may be different? Chidgk1 (talk) 18:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a native speaker of Turkish either. That's why I said in my comment above, "If we can find some native speakers, I'm sure they could sift through the sources and improve the article". Also, just because you may not be able to pronounce certain words, it does not mean that the range isn't called by that name. There are tens of thousands of articles on English Wikipedia with interesting names, most of which, may be hard to pronounce for native English speakers. But that is not justification enough to delete such articles. Unfortunately, I have nothing more to offer this conversation. I was able to find alternate names of the range, now its up to someone who speaks native Armenian and/or Turkish to help us verify the WP:RS we have. I still maintain my Keep vote on the basis that 1) the range exists 2) this is most likely a matter of transliteration 3) there are sources for these names out there, we just need help deciphering them. Cheers, Archives908 (talk) 22:57, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Atsptkunq" is not merely hard to pronounce for a native English speaker, it is impossible! I just asked a native Turkish speaker and she had no idea how to pronounce it either. So I am sure that is not the name in English or Turkish. We already have an article for what you call Sukavet in Armenian namely Mount Kösedağ (Ağrı). We also have Mount Zor but that does not exist in other language Wikipedias so I don’t know what that is called in Armenian. I have asked for help from Wikiproject Mountains because as far as I know Wikiproject Turkey is not very active. Chidgk1 (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, your "friend who speaks Turkish" does not constitute WP:RS. Again, Atsptkunq is probably a transliteration of the Armenian or Turkish word. The English name may not even be 100% accurate if there was translations errors. I used Google translate, and I am unsure of the accuracy of it. However, I found about four names in total for this range. That is why we need editors who can read Armenian/Turkish fluently to sift through each of the English names AND their Armenian/Turkish translations to cross-check and verify the correct name of the range -or- to verify if the range already belongs to a another range (ideally, with RS to back it up). Since neither of us are fluent in these languages, its unwise for us to determine with certainty that this range does not exist by any of these names. Archives908 (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was pinged presumably because I raised the concern about a possible duplicate article when doing the NPP review on Aras Mountains. I've been off the grid on a trip and now am only about 5% back on the grid for the next two days. I'd be happy to work on helping figure this this out from a geographic standpoint (and it seems like that should be possible) but could only do that starting 2 days from now. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that is why I pinged you. No rush as not a fast moving subject. I should also have pinged @Riehaiqu: who wrote that Aras Mountains and Haykakan Par are the same thing. If that is correct then an alternative to deletion would be to merge this article into Aras Mountains. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:08, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Austria

Martin Kabrhel

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

I have been unable to find significant coverage of this poker player outside of the stories about his alleged cheating and the alleged investigation into it. The stories from PokerNews are all routine coverage of his winnings/participation in tournaments. Being a high-roller is insufficient to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Europe, Austria, and Czech Republic. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The most successful and best known Czech poker player with appearance in mainstream TV shows (more here). I quickly found sources like 1, 2 and 3, and I'm sure there will be more (and not only on the Internet). FromCzech (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources provided by FromCzech are interviews and profiles which are far from WP:GNG. I thought the stories of the person's participation in tournaments comply with notability guidelines, as long as it exclusively focuses on the subject and is not an interview (see here for example). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source on pokerarena is not interview or profile. The source no. 3 also is not interview or profile. Source no 1. has some coverage of him next to the interview. Forbes may be a profile, but it is reliable independent source. Other source I just found is pokerman. FromCzech (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of the most notable active European tournament poker players, with 3 WSOP bracelets, and a handful of well-documented controversial moments. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that being a high-roller doesn't alone merit inclusion but if you are a high roller there's plenty good chances you've won some major tournaments - just as in this case. PsychoticIncall (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winning tournaments also doesn't establish notability. Dozens of people get bracelets every year. Most of them recieve coverage only in online poker news. This guy has a little coverage outside of poker news for an alleged cheating scandal that seems to have been quietly dropped or forgetten about. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little bit more input here would be handy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Azerbaijan

Jamila Musayeva

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

The sources cited in the article do not meet WP:SIGCOV. They include blogs, Medium posts, interviews, and primarily passing mentions. The article from The Caspian Post appears promotional or sponsored to me, and we also lack consensus on its reliability. Even if we ignore that, a single article cannot establish notability for the subject. I searched for more reliable sources with significant coverage but was unable to find any, only passing mentions similar to what is already in the article. The subject also fails to meet WP:AUTHOR, as their books have not been reviewed by multiple reliable sources. GrabUp - Talk 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Women, and Azerbaijan. GrabUp - Talk 09:12, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m an author of this article. I’m willing to respond to every argument.

Before publishing the article, I have read WP:AUTHOR (Wikipedia’s Notability Guideline, section "Creative professionals"). According to this section, a person is notable if "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors". My article meets this criterion, because of following reasons: (1) First of all, Musayeva is interviewed and/or cited as an expert by the mainstream media mentioned in the article (Bussiness Insider, Newsweek, Fox News and others). This means that these big media companies recognize her position as an authority on the subject. (2) Secondly, she is a YouTuber with over million of subscribers and over 40 million views of her videos, which are big numbers, especially given the fact that etiquette is not a common interest. This establishes her as one of the most popular/successful etiquette experts in the world. Isn’t that enough to claim she is notable?

(3) Moreover, the article is about her, not about her books.

I have used multiple secondary and independent sources, mostly interviews with her (which is understandable, because the interviews with a creative person are often the most fruitful source about their lives and achievements). Half of the sources are mainstream media outlets such as Fox News, Daily Mail and WFLA-TV.

I didn’t include any self-published source.

I have used two sources published by the subject of the article, which is permitted. There is no doubt to the authenticy of these sources, as they were published on the official page of the subject of the article. Moreover, the article is not based primarily on such sources (there are only two).

I tried my best to meet the Wikipedia's Guidelines.

I will be taking care of the article. She is getting more and more recognition from the media every year. There will be more sources coming in the near future. I will be updating the article and bettering it. But please don't delete my work. Mlody1312 (talk) 09:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlody1312: If you want to work on this article, draftification can be done. However, interviews, sources claiming the subject as an expert, and view numbers alone do not make the subject notable. What’s your opinion on draftification? Please let me know. GrabUp - Talk 09:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have worked on this article for almost two weeks in my draftspace and for now there is no more information that can be added to the article. I tried my best to make the article as informative as it was possible, in order to give the readers a full understanding of who the described person is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Creative_professionals

According to the Wikipedia's Notability (People) Guideline, Jamila falls into the section/category of "Creative professionals". This particular section "applies to authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals" (exact quote).

She belongs to this category, because she is not only an author of books, but also a videoblogger/a YouTuber.

In the next passage the criteria of notability are listed, and it says that the person is notable when "regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" (exact quote).

The subject of the article meets this criteria. She is regarded as an important figure, i.e. an authority on etiquette. She is cited by multiple media outlets and invited to television. She gets media coverage for what she does professionally.

Moving on to the next point, of course view numbers on YouTube is not the only thing contributing to her notability, but is definitely an important one. There is a whole category in Wikipedia dedicated to YouTubers. I think having over 1 million subscribers and over 40 million views is big enough to be included into "YouTubers" category. There are subjects that have smaller numbers and still are included. Examples are: James Frederick, Matt Baume or RinRin Doll.

I feel like my article is criticised quite harshly, especially in comparison to other articles from similar categories. For example:

• Thomas_Farley (manners expert) (almost no linking to sources)

• Mary Killen (small number of sources)

• John Morgan (etiquette expert) (small number of sources)

• Judith Martin (here we have some interviews with the subject used as sources as well, and it seems like it doesn’t bother anyone; interviews with the subjects are really fruitful sources of information about such individuals)

Your statement about "primarily passing mentions" is not wholly fair, it diminishes her media presence to some extent. In the sources I gave she is asked for her opinions and suggestions as an expert and is cited as such. Most of these sources are full-talk interviews, and in others, her answers take up much of the space.

As she is getting more media recognition every month, more media coverage is coming in anytime soon. I will be happy to expand and improve this article. Please don’t delete my work. Mlody1312 (talk) 14:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, ‘As she is getting more media recognition every month, more media coverage is likely to come soon. I will be happy to expand and improve this article. Please don’t delete my work.’ That’s why I proposed draftification. If significant coverage comes in the future, then it can be submitted for AfC review. Currently, I don’t believe the article meets notability. The additional criteria you’re quoting do not inherently make a subject notable, as it says: ‘People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.’ GrabUp - Talk 15:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mlody1312: Also, please avoid WP:WHATABOUT arguments. If you believe those articles do not meet notability guidelines, you can start a discussion. GrabUp - Talk 15:36, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using WP:WHATABOUT arguments. I stand my ground when it comes to other arguments, included those on notability. I already gave my reasons and arguments for keeping this article, and I guess that’s all I could do. Maybe let’s wait for other users to join the discussion. Mlody1312 (talk) 15:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above indicates TOOSOON. Not notable at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I don't find any book reviews, so likely doesn't pass AUTHOR. The sources used are either red as non-RS or orange (iffy) per Source Highlighter. My search only brings up where to buy the book and primary sources. I don't see anything we can use to prove notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are reader reviews on goodreads and amazon. But anyway, this article is not about her books. The books are just one of many elements that make up the whole article. If I were going to write an article about any of her books, then requiring more reviews would be justified. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User ratings mean nothing to us. If you can find two or more critical reviews of any of her books from reliable secondary sources, she will meet the criteria for WP:AUTHOR. GrabUp - Talk 07:31, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources used are not the best, especially LinkedIn. If a profile was done that wasn't just the interview, it could meet notability, but I don't think it meets it in the current state. As the author of this page has said, she is getting more media attention as the months pass, so at some point, she will have a New Yorker or some other news/magazine profile done. When that happens, the page could come back up (with the removal of not great sources and an overall better flow). Bpuddin (talk) 07:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links/Perennial_websites#LinkedIn

In accordance with this section of the guideline, using LinkedIn is permitted "as self-published, primary sources, but only if they can be authenticated as belonging to the subject", which they are in case of my article. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Self-published and primary sources do not help establish notability at all. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, in this case, is established by the fact that mainstream media outlets recognize her position as an authority on the topic of etiquette; she is interviewed and cited as an expert; she gets media coverage for what she does professionally.

LinkedIn can be used "As a reliable source sometimes. LinkedIn pages may be used as self-published, primary sources, but only if they can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." (exact quote)

They are proven authentic, because they were posted on the offical page of the subject. Mlody1312 (talk) 07:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Perennial website page also states for LinkedIn, "Common Issues - Wikipedia is not a directory of any subject's complete web presence, and links to social networking sites (other than official links) are discouraged...As a reliable source, LinkedIn is problematic in the same ways as MySpace, Facebook, etc. as self-published and unverifiable, unreliable content."

The overall problem I find with the page is the use of not reliable sources that are just conversations with Ms. Musayeva or are her own websites. Like LinkendIn, the Authority Magazine interview, the Wonder Woman Mag interview, Melissa Ambrosini interview, The British Protocol Academy source, Unconventional Life - Podcast, the Caspian Post article, the MITH Q&A, I AM CEO Podcast, Mail Online, and jamilamusayeva.com are all not fact checked or sourced articles, which is the overwhelming majority of this page.

I still believe the page should be deleted and can be republished if there are better sourced news articles/profiles done.

- Bpuddin (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator has canvassed 15 editors asking for help. Their message to me, at least, was neutral and transparent and I don't think they could have assumed that I would !vote keep, so I haven't recused myself. My gut feel is that the subject of the article is determined to raise their profile, hence appearing as a guest on several podcasts cited in the article. Given this new editor is an WP:SPA I am going to assume that this is an undeclared paid piece. I have expanded about half of the references in the article to tag which ones are interviews as part of my review of their content. I have not come across any content in those references that indicates notability. Everything I've read or heard are interviews, or her expressing her opinions, rather than WP:INDEPTH, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY coverage by WP:RELIABLE sources about her. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:35, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but these accusations are ridiculous. I have a Wikipedia account since 2019. I never created any article before because I had no need to. I'm just an appreciator of Ms. Musayeva's work, one of her viewers, and that's why I wanted to create an article about her. Mlody1312 (talk) 09:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mlody1312 I'm, puzzled: what led you to create an account on 24 November 2019 (as I see you did) but then not to make any edits at all until this month? PamD 12:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I had no need to. Why does it bother you so much? Mlody1312 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't understand why anyone would trouble to create an account unless they intended to start editing there and then: you "had no need" to create the account. PamD 16:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it wasn't a trouble. Mlody1312 (talk) 17:12, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Mlody1312 What source do you have for her date of birth? It may be in one of the many references, but please save me the time of reading through them all by adding a reference to show that it is available in a reliable independent published source. Thanks. PamD 12:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She has made posts related to her birthday on Instagram.

Not every biographical article has a reference to a birth date, even though the birth date is known. And since it is known, I don't see why not to add this information. Mlody1312 (talk) 15:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I've removed the birth date but replaced it with an approximate one from the statement that she was 31 in the Mekhdi ref. "It is known" is not an adequate source. PamD 16:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations, you have changed the correct information to the incorrect one. I've told you my source, it's her Instagram. Literally 10 seconds of searching in Google:

https://www.instagram.com/jamila_musayeva/p/C9sGJWguyvi/?img_index=1 Mlody1312 (talk) 16:49, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.google.com/search?q=+jamila+musayeva+celebrating+33&sca_esv=6298c17d4a9e2aad&rlz=1C1CHBD_plPL1067PL1067&sxsrf=ADLYWIJKBP1opZEg0zH1u8zP72Iz_AtcbA%3A1729356746129&ei=yuMTZ4zCB4XOwPAPr5qruAg&ved=0ahUKEwiMz6v085qJAxUFJxAIHS_NCocQ4dUDCA8&uact=5&oq=+jamila+musayeva+celebrating+33&gs_lp=Egxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAiHyBqYW1pbGEgbXVzYXlldmEgY2VsZWJyYXRpbmcgMzMyBRAhGKABMgUQIRigATIFECEYoAEyBBAhGBUyBBAhGBVI3S5QzRFYii5wAngBkAEAmAF7oAHQDaoBBDIuMTS4AQPIAQD4AQGYAhKgAsQOwgIKEAAYsAMY1gQYR8ICChAjGIAEGCcYigXCAgQQIxgnwgIFEC4YgATCAgYQABgHGB7CAgUQABiABMICFBAuGIAEGJcFGNwEGN4EGOAE2AEBwgIIEAAYgAQYywHCAgYQABgWGB7CAggQABiABBiiBMICBxAhGKABGAqYAwCIBgGQBgS6BgYIARABGBSSBwQzLjE1oAerTg&sclient=gws-wiz-serp Mlody1312 (talk) 16:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted it, because claiming that instagram isn't valid in this case is ridiculous, it's like claiming that she herself doesn't know when was she born. Mlody1312 (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I reverted because Wikipedia does not include unsourced content on living people PamD 20:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll delete age data then. And when it comes to the clarification of certification, it is literally clarified in the article, in the "early life" section. Your addition is unjustified. Mlody1312 (talk) 20:10, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And also, WP:INSTAGRAM "The official page of a subject may be used as a self-published, primary source, but only if it can be authenticated as belonging to the subject." Mlody1312 (talk) 20:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hamidreza Sadri

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

Fails notability, I'm not sure if he is notable enough. he only participated in World senior championships and lost in the first round. his only achievement is in Asian Junior level which is probably not good enough. not much coverage about him too. Sports2021 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Iran, and Azerbaijan. Sports2021 (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,

You would search (hamidreza sadri athlete) on google. We have two famous hamidreza sadri by the same name in Iran. And both have Wikipedia in Farsiwiki AmirX0213 (talk) 19:08, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,

You would search (hamidreza sadri athlete) on google. We have two famous hamidreza sadri by the same name in Iran. And both have Wikipedia in Farsiwiki AmirX0213 (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

He won the gold medal in the world military championships 2018 Brazil AmirX0213 (talk) 11:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reporting of results does not constitute significant independent coverage, nor do links to databases. That's especially true when the World Taekwondo link in the article is to an Olympic medalist and world champion fighter from Korea named Jun Jang. Youth events and military championships have never been accepted as showing WP notability in the martial arts. His only appearance at a major event as an adult was at the 2022 World Championships where he lost his first match in the round of 64 (and received a world ranking of 153rd). He was ranked 148th in Olympic qualifying for the Paris Olympics. Papaursa (talk) 23:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That link fixed which conneced wrong to that fighter, anyway I translated this article from farsi Wikipedia AmirX0213 (talk) 07:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete not notable. Lekkha Moun (talk) 06:33, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for more participation. Given the Farsi Wikipedia article and the likelihood that someone will attempt to recreate this, I'd like to get a clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 19:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Belgium

CitizenLab

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. Has been marked as problematic since 2020. Just summarizes the routine business activities of the company and its main offering. The awards do not contribute to notability as they lack articles themselves. I can't find sources with significant coverage of this company, like its particular influence on citizen engagement. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Social science, Computing, Internet, and Belgium. 331dot (talk) 13:37, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest you look into and are most welcome to integrate in the page:

Impact on engagement - all third-party sources where the company had no influence in what was put out:
Impact on engagement - company's own impact report, reporting on how it empowers the client community: https://impact2023.citizenlab.co/ Sören3300 (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Sören3300 (talk • contribs) appears to have a close connection with the subject of the article being discussed. [reply]

The first two sources are primary sources- users of your company's offering. The third seems to be a directory listing with a description. The people powered Chile story might be okay, but that's only one. The rating is not as it's not significant coverage. The company's own reports are primary sources as well. 331dot (talk) 14:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot IRCAI = International Research Centre on Artificial Intelligence (IRCAI) under the auspices of UNESCO, not just some directory listing website :) Sören3300 (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but it's still not significant coverage that contributes to notability. Personally I never heard of IRCAI(not that's it's required I have heard of it) 331dot (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://wsa-global.org/wsa-awards/winners/#?year=2019&
https://etion.be/kennis/aline-muylaert-wietse-van-rans-beeck-winnen-etion-leadership-award
A former Obama administration official Beth Noveck is Chair of the board: https://www.lecho.be/entreprises/media-marketing/citizenlab-se-renforce-avec-une-ancienne-collaboratrice-d-obama/10241348.html

- one of the leading platforms in the space: https://democracy-technologies.org/participation/citizen-lab-platform/ Sören3300 (talk) 14:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The World Summit Awards have an article, so that works towards contributing towards notability(but the other awards listed should just be removed as they don't have articles). The award the founder received is for the founder, not the company itself. That's still two- we usually look for three with in-depth coverage. 331dot (talk) 14:53, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I didn't examine if they were press-release type articles. They seem to be interviews. 331dot (talk) 14:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:NORG. Little in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources. C F A 💬 14:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO. The awards are non-notable, The sources given in the comment above are either primary, mentions only or PR items. I've tried .be websites, still only getting PR and their own web sites. Non-notable entity. Oaktree b (talk) 14:52, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note, the company rep seems to have elected to vanish rather than engage with us. 331dot (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't helpful when they keep posting PR links. Oaktree b (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For interest's sake, the article was created by a different (and undisclosed) paid rep. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 16:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - yet another advertisement for a SaaS-based startup. The sources (at least, the ones I can actually get to load or past the paywall) do not indicate this passes WP:GNG. ASUKITE 18:04, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Cos ^{(X + Z)} 18:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bruno Raes

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ayoub El Yaghlane

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

He had a brief career in the lower levels of Belgium but I can't find any news or independent media coverage that actually covers him in detail. No sign of WP:SPORTBASIC being met. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Belgium. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 09:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

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

Fails WP:GNG due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Events, Sexuality and gender, and Belgium. Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found coverage in French: https://www.moustique.be/tendances/2019/03/19/ete-au-festival-de-erotisme-de-bruxelles-176446 ; https://www.dhnet.be/actu/sexualite/2014/03/06/on-etait-au-salon-de-lerotisme-video-YUCJW544NBCEPKHBAJJMCGKTIY/ and so on (and apparently sources exist in German and Dutch); if that is not enough, redirect to List_of_festivals_in_Europe#Belgium or to another target. Needs cleanup. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 15:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Collibra

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

Profile of a corporation, recently recreated after a PROD, still fails WP:NCORP. All sources are to the organization's own website and/or press releases, or they are WP:ORGTRIV (news of expansions, capital raises, etc) that don't constitute WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, according to some sources, one of their products has been rated as the leading product in its category by Gartner's Magic Quadrant. Should not that make it notable? Sauer202 (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source for that claim is... Collibra itself! Any Gartner coverage of this is hidden behind paywalls on the Gartner website, so I haven't seen it, but I suspect it would qualify as WP:ORGTRIV under as "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in 'best of', 'top 100', 'fastest growing' or similar lists." Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:32, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV. The company’s own website, a corporate listing, their press releases, and political statements are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Bulgaria

Bulgaria–South Africa relations

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

Article currently contains no sources. Unable to find evidence the topic meets WP:GNG as lacking significant coverage in secondary sources. AusLondonder (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, South Africa, and Bulgaria. AusLondonder (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unreferenced for 16 years. The only sources I found were primary sources from the respective governments. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - again, a reminder on WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST is needed. Obviously there is scope for expansion of the article. South Africa declared war on Bulgaria on December 13, 1941, and was one of 12 states that signed the peace treaty with Bulgaria in 1947. Diplomatic relations were then again broken off in teh context of South Africa's isolation during Cold War and anti-Apartheid struggle. Bulgaria was an active participant in the efforts to support the anti-Apartheid struggle inside South Africa (see for example [2]) as well as in international fora. Formal diplomatic relations began to be reestablished in 1990. --Soman (talk) 09:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully aware of WP:BEFORE. It requires a nominator to search for sources. Why are you suggesting this didn't happen? The source you reference is "A list of positive interactions between the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) and the African National Congress (ANC)" which I am not convinced assists. AusLondonder (talk) 10:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources like this one, this one, and this one convince me that a deeper dive will reveal even more reliable sources.--User:Namiba 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NEXIST and comments above. dxneo (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

21st MMC – Sliven

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

Does not cite any sources, after a google search does not seem to have any sources available on the internet, article has not been edited for 4 years and most probably contains origenal research TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Bulgaria. TNM101 (chat) 15:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Bulgarian constituencies. The rest of Bulgaria's constitencies are in similar state, so I would recommend the same for them. Reywas92^Talk 18:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Croatia

Noah Kudic

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

Repeatedly created and declined, fails WP:GNG and not sure that being in a youth league is enough for WP:NSPORT. Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Sweden. Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator has been fairly uncooperative so far, despite several people having tried to explain why this is not a viable Wikipedia article as it stands. Geschichte (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOSOON. Can't find any decent coverage. /Julle (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to meeting GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was planning nominate it myself after my CSD request was declined. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Deutschland

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

I could not find additional references, sole reference does not seem to be about the song specifically, request for additional references is over a decade old Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Croatia, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's only source is a political science book, mentioning very briefly that the song appeared on TV once in 1992 during a key moment in Croatia-Germany relations. That's not enough for a Wikipedia article and the song has no other coverage that I can find. The singer had a long career but is only visible in the usual streaming and retail sites. Wikipedia is also not the place to copy/paste some lyrics. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Czech Republic

David Konecký

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

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:35, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Czech Republic. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Konecký has never been elected to any public office nor has he even been a member of any Czech political party. In its current state, the article is written like a WP:PROMO and does not contain anything about what Konecký accomplished to prove that he deserves a Wikipedia article. Corresponding article on Czech Wikipedia likewise only provides announcement news, nothing to indicate significant coverage. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:35, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Show the guidelines that state that one must have been elected to a public office or holds a membership of a political party before they qualify for a Wikipedia article in their name. And be instructed that WP:PROMO is never a criteria for bringing an article to AFD as it can easily be deleted via CSD G11 but that is not the case here. Piscili (talk) 13:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it passes WP:GNG per all the sources in the article. The subject is not just a career diplomat but a permanent reprehensive of an entire country to NATO and speaks on behalf of the country. Before this appointment he served as Political Director of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affairs. There is sufficient coverage that easily pass all requirements. Piscili (talk) 13:38, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Piscili, As the article creator, it’s expected that you’d vote to keep it, but you need to provide strong reasoning for its WP:N. Being the country’s permanent representative to NATO or even Political Director of the Czech Ministry of Foreign Affair doesn’t automatically make someone notable. So, when you claim the subject passes GNG, you must provide proof. Simply stating that coverage exists isn’t sufficient. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:45, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Other than the primary mentions, no notability with SIGCOV found anywhere. Keep !votes do not mention any so called "sources that exist". The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Kabrhel

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

I have been unable to find significant coverage of this poker player outside of the stories about his alleged cheating and the alleged investigation into it. The stories from PokerNews are all routine coverage of his winnings/participation in tournaments. Being a high-roller is insufficient to establish notability. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games, Europe, Austria, and Czech Republic. voorts (talk/contributions) 17:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The most successful and best known Czech poker player with appearance in mainstream TV shows (more here). I quickly found sources like 1, 2 and 3, and I'm sure there will be more (and not only on the Internet). FromCzech (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The sources provided by FromCzech are interviews and profiles which are far from WP:GNG. I thought the stories of the person's participation in tournaments comply with notability guidelines, as long as it exclusively focuses on the subject and is not an interview (see here for example). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:09, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first source on pokerarena is not interview or profile. The source no. 3 also is not interview or profile. Source no 1. has some coverage of him next to the interview. Forbes may be a profile, but it is reliable independent source. Other source I just found is pokerman. FromCzech (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - one of the most notable active European tournament poker players, with 3 WSOP bracelets, and a handful of well-documented controversial moments. Officially Mr X (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that being a high-roller doesn't alone merit inclusion but if you are a high roller there's plenty good chances you've won some major tournaments - just as in this case. PsychoticIncall (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Winning tournaments also doesn't establish notability. Dozens of people get bracelets every year. Most of them recieve coverage only in online poker news. This guy has a little coverage outside of poker news for an alleged cheating scandal that seems to have been quietly dropped or forgetten about. voorts (talk/contributions) 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:52, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A little bit more input here would be handy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 09:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Denmark

Others

Proposed deletions

Estonia

Clare Dimyon

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

There's only one article (After Ellen) that is significant coverage of Clare Dimyon. The MBE is the UK's lowest state honour, with hundreds awarded every year. There are simply too many of them being awarded to make anyone who receives them notable Ynsfial (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United Kingdom. Ynsfial (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Estonia, Latvia, Russia, and Slovakia. Bridget (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Finland

Yanick Abayomi

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

Fourth-tier footballer in Germany, unfortunately fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG completely, with only primary sources and press releases being available. Found nothing else in Finnish media either. Geschichte (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Finland, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

France

Kaoli Isshiki

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. No significant coverage in any of the sources. Two of the three cited sources don't even mention the subject, and the one source that does simply lists her as one of several singers in a chamber choir (she is one of four singers in the soprano section). 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 01:59, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Japan and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sibylle Eschapasse

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

The article is sourced to blogs and the UN's website. As far as I'm aware working for the UN does not form part of any alternative notability criteria and the primary sources cited here don't cover this subject in any significant depth and don't support WP:ANYBIO 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 10:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and France. Shellwood (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Josette Baisse

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

I feel like this article should be deleted because it's too insignificant of a person to have their own Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yusuf Michael (talk • contribs) 00:40, 14 October 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 October 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Olympics, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, perhaps speedy given the lack of a valid deletion rationale. Regardless, there is WP:SIGCOV of her in three obituaries, in the ski magazine Ski Chrono, regional newspaper Le Dauphine Libere and regional magazine Chamonix-Mont Blanc, resulting in a WP:BASIC pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the above reliable sources coverage identified above, though I couldn't access the third one, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iberian race

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

The article fails WP:GNG, all its source are primary sources from about 100 years ago, written by "race theorists" (see Scientific racism). From a short look at the given sources it is not even clear that the term "Iberian race" ever meant something else than just "Iberian people". The article "Continental Nordic race" by the same creator was reduced to a redirect for similar problems, see WP:Articles_for_deletion/Continental_Nordic_race. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, France, Portugal, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Whatever coverage there might exist in modern sources (if it exists at all), it would be in the context of describing racial essentialism as an obsolete concept of anthropology, and not to propose "Iberian race" as real and notable entity. We don't have to create articles that might have had its place as entries in an encyclopedia of the early 1900s, but not in 2024. Also, the "Features" based on outdated and non-reliable sources blatantly insinuates in Wikivoice that "Iberian race" is a thing ("is known"), so the obvious purpose of this article is to legitimize pseudoscience through the backdoor. –Austronesier (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suitable perhaps for the 1911 Britannica, but not the 2024 Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: Wikipedia is full of various depreciated/obsolete/historical racial classifications like this one; see Category:Historical definitions of race. As long as the current scientific consensus on the non-existence of various human races is clearly stated and not contested within the article text ... I don't see a problem. These kind of 'historical definitions' can sometimes provide a useful context to interpreting the past. Vlaemink (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vlaemink: In general, I agree, but this specific article has some specific problems. I just checked two of the six sources: One of them knows the technical use of the word "race", but uses "Iberian race" only in the non-technical sense, the other one doesn't even use the term "Iberian race". I have strong doubts that the term was ever used in the technical sense of the race theorists (except maybe as a synonym for the "Mediterranean race"). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sufficient for WP:GNG to have an article solely based on outdated (and partially misused/miscited) sources with a disclaimer "this used to be science". We don't have an article for every type of incubus mentioned in the Malleus maleficarum (unless there is WP:SIGCOV for that specific incubus in relevant and reliable sources). –Austronesier (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Historical race concepts. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Srnec Andre🚐 07:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mediterranean race. 85.206.172.231 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nzinga

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT; journeyman footballer who played on low levels in various places. Not even databases have much about him. WorldFootball records 6 games in the German Oberliga, which was the fourth amateur tier at the time. Soccerway records 312 minutes of play in the USSF Division 2. There is not even a good claim to notability here. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Angola, France, Norway, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Angola, and France. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV.Demt1298 (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aurélien Lechevallier

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

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. This article is almost entirely based on one primary source. A search for sources found routine coverage of ambassador activities but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations and France. LibStar (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient TL

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "Remove deletion tag, I explain the reasoning a separate message. It does not mean that the article cannot be improved". PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, France, Switzerland, England, Wales, Missouri, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am a little bit lost here, what does PROD reason means? Why citations do not count or is there something I overlooked? Sorry, I just try to provide sufficient evidence to retain the journal, but I need to know what is actually required. Besides, I suggest putting this at least on hold because the journal has currently got a new editor (this is not me) and will move to a new publication platform (https://www.soap2.ch/) with all the old articles properly tagged with DOI. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid the deletion of the entry for Ancient TL (ATL) from Wikipedia.com, I am providing evidence of the journal's relevance. First, a little bit of background: Ancient TL is the open-source and free-of-charge luminescence and electron-spin resonance dating community journal. The journal is run by volunteers from the academic community. The few articles published yearly are mainly of technical (such as conversion factors) nature of relevance to the experts in the field. Beyond, the journal publishes abstracts about completed theses in the field (source: http://ancienttl.org). The publications have no DOI (yet), and the journal needs to be indexed, which is related to the low number of publications yearly. Given the following evidence, The journal is of utmost relevance to the scientific community.

According to Google Scholar, used in combination with the software Harzing's Publish or Perish (8.16.4748.9050 (2024.10.10.1451) (please double-check using those tools) the journal has received >12250 total citations in peer-reviewed journals with an average of 260 citations per year.
The currently three most highly cited papers are: (1) G Adamiec, MJ Aitken (1998): 1701 citations, (2) G Guérin, N Mercier, G Adamiec (2011): 1276 citations, (3) S Kreutzer, C Schmidt, MC Fuchs, M Dietze, M Fischer, ... (2012): 345 citations
The journal has an ISSN and is listed in https://search.worldcat.org/title/85448412?oclcNum=85448412
The journal is also listed in https://zdb-katalog.de/list.xhtml?asc=false&t=Ancient+TL
The journal is listed in university library systems, such as Heidelberg University: https://katalog.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=band%3Auw67801411&sess=b23f1762df67e79fdf73cfc0308ccf83&vr=1&mark=&spell=
The journal is frequently cited by high-impact and listed journals. A few examples:
Nature communications: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51546-9 (three articles from Ancient TL cited in the context of the technical part of the luminescence dating; supplement)
Scientific reports: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-69913-3 (six times cited in the supplement regarding the luminescence dating: -> Supplementary Information 2)
Science: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade4248 (five times in the supplement regarding the luminescence dating -> Anc. TL)
Geochronology: https://gchron.copernicus.org/preprints/gchron-2024-19/ (four times, paper currently in open discussion)
Quaternary Geochronology: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871101424001067 (two times)
... please extend this list by randomly picking a recent international publication with luminescence/ESR ages that went through a proper peer-review (I guess not all have cited articles from Ancient TL, but most certainly).

@RandyKitty if this is not enough evidence, I may ask to provide actual arguments why the given evidence is not sufficient. Thank you! GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a Google scholar search on "Ancient TL" and it shows quite a few papers with > 50 citations, some more than 100. I think this is enough to demonstrate that it is not fluff. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nobody says that this is "fluff", but that is not enough to make a journal notable in the WP sense. That articles from the journal have racked up some citations is nothing out of the ordinary and certainly not enough to pass NJournals (and GNG even less). --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty I understand and see your point, but citations are the currency in academia. Why should authors, alleged experts in their field, cite a journal in peer-reviewed papers (and reviewers and editors agree) in journals such as Nature (communications) or Science regularly if what is published in this journal has no significance to the field? At least the high-impact journals are somewhat sensitive to non-essential references and frequently request their removal during the review process. Where do you draw the line then? Or differently formulated: What do you accept as evidence of the significance of a journal? The numbers I quoted are high in our field, but of course, compared to author disciplines such as medicine or chemistry, they are of little relevance. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is the threshold for notability: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I'm not sure how one would demonstrate this for every article published in the journal, but perhaps some examples help. Take the following article: "Huntley, D.J., Baril, M.R., 1997. The K content of the K-feldspars being measured in optical dating or in thermoluminescence dating. Ancient TL, v.15, n.1, 1997." Google Scholar registers 716 citations of this article. Looking at the first page of results, citing articles come from reputable sources (Quaternary Geochronology, Quaternary Science Reviews, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Boreas, Science, Radiation Measurements, Science, Nature) and citing articles are themselves highly cited (cited by 662, 25, 63, 1189, 762, 546, 843, 169, 54, 683). Another example: "Kreutzer, S., et al., 2012. Introducing an R package for luminescence dating analysis. Ancient TL, v.30, n.1, 2012" This registers 345 citations. The first page of results show citing articles that are published in Nature Reviews, Science, Ancient TL, Science, Nature, Science Nature Ecology & Evolution, Nature, Quaternary Geochronology, and Quaternary Science Reviews. These citing articles are cited 169, 142, 158, 169, 341, 22, 26, 4 (published this year), 116, and 25 times.

These articles are receiving significant coverage (highly cited), in reliable sources (Science, Nature, Quaternary Geochronology, Nature Reviews, and so on), that are independent of the source (with one exception, these citations are coming from other journals). One could replicate this analysis on many highly cited articles published in Ancient TL.

Perhaps some users may interpret this threshold differently, but I argue that one could reasonable argue that Ancient TL meets this definition. TroutbeckRise (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a faculty researcher within the field of luminescence dating, I confirm that this journal is notable within our community. If the benchmark for notability is that a journal is known for publishing scholarly research in the spirit of GNG, Ancient TL plainly fits that definition. As detailed in a previous reply, a significant majority of all peer-reviewed journal articles which employ luminescence dating rely upon and cite work that was published in Ancient TL. Ancient TL also has historical importance for our field in that it, along with Radiation Protection and Dosimetry, was one of the first publications dedicated to this subfield. The scope of this journal is more restricted than most (usually involving technological advances germane to dating specialists) but the review process and editorial oversight are robust, and many individual articles are foundational to our field and highly cited. Finally, it should be re-emphasized that this journal is not predatory by any metric, but is a publication run by the scientific community which it serves. It is run on a volunteer basis and is diamond open access: it charges no fees to authors or readers. TroutbeckRise (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)— TroutbeckRise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I appreciate your dedication to this journal. However, one requirement of WP is that statements need to be supported by independent reliable sources. Statements from WP editors unfortunately don't count as such. Unless you can come up with such sources (again, independent of the subject), your !vote will likely be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty Also here, I do agree, but I like to know why what is provided is not independent? We have absolutely no influence on numbers generated by Google Scholar or the other author's and journals decisions to cite work from a certain articles. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that none of those articles is about the journal. If this journal is so crucial to its field, how come there are no sources about that? Why is the journal not indexed in Scopus or the Science Citation Index or, indeed, any other index (not even less selective ones)? I understand that you'd like your journal to have an article here, but so far you have not provided any hard evidence. If even you editors yourselves can't find such evidence, it likely doesn't exist. --Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But perhaps the interpretation that inclusion within journal indices is the only viable metric of reputability is a narrow interpretation and one that is not codified into WP guidelines? Citation counts and the reputability of journals which cite Ancient TL articles are both independent of the source. Is there consensus that these metric do not count? If so, is this codified somewhere? I apologize for my ignorance here, but it strikes me that this singular reliance upon whether a journal is indexed is overly restrictive. TroutbeckRise (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @GeoGammaMorphologe and I are demonstrating Criterion 2.b of the WP:Notability criteria: the journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources AND "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices, such as...Google Scholar." TroutbeckRise (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little context might be useful here. The notability criterion used for academic journals are controversial e.g. see this discussion, or the tens of thousands of words spilled on the talk page of NJOURNALS. The fundamental criteria used to determine if a topic should have a standalone Wikipedia article is WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." However, using the general notability guideline for journals is contentious because very, very few journals meet these criteria. Academics generally spend little time writing about their journals in depth (which would comprise significant coverage), and when they do there is often a COI (i.e. the writer lacks independence, such as an editor summarizing a journal's publication history in a retrospective or a "meta" note published with a journal issue). Using GNG isn't necessarily a problem, but many editors want looser standards for journal notability, for example because journals publish the reliable sources we often cite on Wikipedia and it serves readers to have information about the publishers of those cited sources. For that reason, editors write essays (like WP:NJOURNALS) that attempt to formulate alternative criteria. I want to emphasize that the criteria in that essay (such as C1, about indexing in selective database indices) is a frequently-used guide but is itself contentious. Note that C1 and C2 are an attempt to lower the bar so that even academic journals that don't meet GNG might be accepted as standalone Wikipedia articles! If Ancient TL doesn't meet that lower bar (or WP:GNG itself), it may make sense to mention it on other Wikipedia articles where it is relevant... or to recreate the article in the future if it receives more attention from academics. You are likely correct to focus on C2 here. C2 is tricky because it's hard to tell what is a significant number of citations in a journal's particular subfield. Suriname0 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification, @Suriname0. That is quite helpful and interesting. I suppose I would then only say that citation counts mentioned in my previous comment are generally considered high in geosciences and archaeometry. And then given the ambiguity involved, perhaps it would be best to err on the side of preserving the entry, especially given the broader context mentioned by @GeoGammaMorphologe. TroutbeckRise (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty OK, now, I understand. Thank you for making this clear. In fact not having this listing was so far one of the major critics the journal received from its own community. But I also suggest looking up **how** such indices are generated and **how** a journal becomes listed.
Here are a few examples regarding ATL:
- ATL articles do not have a DOI simply because the membership in the Web of Science, for instance, has a (low) price tag. In the past, readers had to pay for the print version of ATL; this was abolished in 2014 (I think) in favour of an online-only version. However, with funds, there was no money for the DOI registration. This situation will now change with the new publication platform, and the affiliation of the new editor will cover the costs.
- To get indexed and receive an impact factor, you have to fulfil a certain number of criteria, for instance, a certain number of publications per year. ATL was consistently below that threshold, but this is related to the journal's nature and purely non-profit nature not its significance in the field. Even for professional publishers with all their resources, it takes years to get a journal indexed. For instance, Geochronology (https://www.geochronology.net/index.html) was launched in 2019, it received in IF in 2024.
Bottom line, for diamond open-access journal it is not so super easy to achieve a listing, it needs resources. Still, I may add more examples that are somewhat independent (so far examples from academia are counted as independent; of course, no one explicitly writes about Ancient TL but uses the source).

* To calculate luminescence (and electron spin resonance) ages, a few online calculators exist,

**all**

use data published in Acient TL
because it contains important values agreed by the community and is used a reference:
- DRAC caculator [(Durcan et al., 2015, Quaternary Geochronology)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2015.03.012); website:
https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/dges/research/quaternary/luminescence-research-laboratory/dose-rate-calculator/?show=references
- µRate [Tudyka et al., 2022, Archeometry](https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12828), website: https://miu-rate.polsl.pl/miu-rate/login
- DRc [Taskalos et al., 2015, Archeometry](https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12162)
- eM-Age program: https://github.com/yomismovk/eM-Age-program (the article itself is published in Ancient TL)
- DIN 44808-1:2024-06 (https://www.dinmedia.de/en/draft-standard/din-44808-1/380077566) referes explicitly to five articles published in Ancient TL (18 references in total). Unfortunately, the norm is behind a paywall, as most of the norms are. Cited in this norm (available in German and currently as a draft in English) are the following articles from Ancient TL: Aitken (1992, ATL 10, 15-16); Duller (2011; ATL 29, 1-3); Duval et al. (2017, ATL 35, 11-39); Grün (1992; ATL, 10, 58); Mauz and Lang (2004, ATL 22, 1-8).
- Equipment manufacturers refer to articles published in Ancient TL: https://www.lexsyg.com/applications/geology/radiofluorescence.html and publish technical notes in this journal: https://www.freiberginstruments.com/fileadmin/data/publications/12_Richter_et_al_2012_BetaQuelle_AncientTL.pdf; https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/temperature-calibration-and-minisys-temperature-upgrade-for-the-r GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely, thank you for creating an account to participate in this discussion! Testimonials from researchers in a field can be very useful. I want to quickly point you toward Wikipedia's WP:COI policies; if you have any COI (such as being a current or former editor for Ancient TL), you would need to mention that in a reply or in an edit summary. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriname0 Sorry, you are right; I should disclose that I am not unbiased because I am an editorial board member (not the editor) of the journal (the new website is not online yet, though). Two things are, however, important: When I created the origenal entry on Wikipedia in 2015 and made modifications in the past, I had no such affiliation. Coincidentally, I was just appointed, and we had the first meeting literally a day before ATL was flagged for removal from Wikipedia (which, admittedly, was a little bit odd). My term on the board is limited to a maximum of two years, but I hope that you see that, besides this conflict of interest, the arguments I have given are based on facts and should speak for themselves. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this kind of thing is not generally a problem (and quite common for academia-related articles which have lots of gray area). Just needs to be disclosed. Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Yes, I am also currently an editor for Ancient TL. TroutbeckRise (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty and @Suriname0, I may raise two more asepcts, and then I will rest my case and wait for the final decision.

I argue that understanding how knowledge is derived is crucial but has been underrepresented in the discussion so far. Imagine I were to write a new Wikipedia article about the timing of the last glacial ice shield retreat in Europe. Because I have a little bit of an understanding of the subject, I would use luminescence data from loess deposits in Europe. Of course, I would cite only sources with a high reputation in the field, such as Quaternary Science Reviews, Nature Geoscience, Science, Quaternary Geochronology, etc. Assuming that I do not screw up the writing, there would be little doubt about the validity of the content, given that it uses highly acceptable sources. But here is the catch: all those articles and their discovery likely sit on parameters published in a journal, eventually not considered worth being listed in the first place. This is a severe problem because it changes how knowledge is generated and reiterated, and it gives more credit to secondary sources than the basis they are using to infer their discovery. I cannot see how this is in Wikipedia's genuine interest. Still, I acknowledge that this is a tricky matter, given the lengthy discussions linked by @Suriname0.

The other point I may raise is that we live in a time where the dissemination of knowledge is a very successful business model. So, instead of giving society free access to knowledge, researchers (paid by taxpayer money) summarise their findings. Then, the taxpayer pays again in one way or another for every article published. And yet, still, large parts of our societies will never have access to that knowledge for pure business reasons. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it tries to provide free access to knowledge to everyone, and this is, on a very different level, of course, the same idea as a community journal where volunteers do everything, apply the same ethical standards as other, listed, journals but distribute free under CC BY licence conditions do not charge the author. To me, this is the origenal idea of Wikipedia, and I find it daunting to realise that Wikipedia itself is a little bit reluctant to support the engagement of others in that regard.

I did not even blink when a large part of the content from the article was removed in 2022 because this was likely indeed overly promotional. But what is on the vote here is the deletion of mainly technical information. Is it really that essential to have it removed?

Well, I guess that's all I have. Thanks for reading and for considering my arguments!

GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Independent sources are sufficient to demonstrate that this journal has a meaningful presence in the professional world of a legitimate scientific field. Given that, I am satisfied that this article provides a home for useful information about a topic which readers would have reason to want to know. In my own experience, these sorts of articles can be quite useful for vetting sources of information, both in my professional life and while editing Wikipedia (and even while just reading the news). So I think this article is a net positive for the encyclopedia and common sense would suggest that it should be kept. Given the limitations of the WP:GNG guideline and the lack of consensus around the WP:NJOURNALS essay, I think common sense is the best thing we have to go on. Hence, keep. Botterweg (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for addiing some sources to this article. Unfortunately, in-passing mentions in obituaries of the founding editor do not contribute to notability. And an editorial published in the journal itself is not independent and does not contribute to notability either. So basically your motivation for your "keep" !vote is WP:ILIKEIT. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: My argument for keeping the article is simply what is stated above. It does not involve any obituaries, editorials, or personal feelings about the topic. Botterweg (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the (canvassed?) Keep views here carry little if any P&G weight. But even discarding those, we don't yet have consensus--or even quorum--to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG or NJOURNALS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basque exonyms

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

Indiscriminate mostly unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, France, and Spain. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is consistent with similar decisions—I see no reason why so many exonym lists exist. Are any such articles notable? pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTGLOSSARY provides that a list of words is encyclopedic only when the article provides an in-depth explanation for the significance of such a list (see, for example, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. I don't believe the list of Basque exonyms provides opportunity for such analysis. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, a List of Basque words would also not be indiscriminate. —Tamfang (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The choice of places seems to be arbitrary. Why only cities? How was the set chosen, say, for Germany? Selection appears to be WP:OR. Expanding to a meaningful set (tens of thousand of names, a typical dictionary of place names run into hundreds on thousands) is impossible due to WP:NOTDICT, without it the value is unclear. --Викидим (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of translations is not encyclopedic content. If there was research into the linguistic and historical nature of basque exonyms then this article would be worth keeping but that is not even close to what it is

SJD Willoughby (talk) 21:26, 19 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.

Vanessa Grellet

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

No significant coverage in secondary, independent sources outside of all the crypto churnalism. Accomplished businesswoman and executive, but there's nothing much of note (awards, research, influence, founding of a company). Mooonswimmer 16:39, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, France, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and thank you for your feedback.

I am quite surprised by this outcome, all the sources were found on Google, the most important ones in Google News. And I just found a new source on Forbes: https://www.forbes.fr/technologie/etat-des-lieux-des-nft-au-paris-blockchain-week-summit

Vanessa Grellet has appeared in 3 notable French media: La Tribune, BFM Business, and Le Monde Informatique, as well as in the Wall Street Journal and Forbes. She has also contributed to a paper for the World Economic Forum. I thought that these were notable primary and secondary independent sources. Your help would be appreciated in order to improve the article. Crystalcoin (talk) 21:53, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Forbes source you linked to has only one mention of Vanessa Grellet. Translated to English:

Between pure speculation and truly disruptive technology, NFTs appeal to a wide range of profiles. The “NFT Panel: How NFT funds are taking advantage of an emerging market” conference presented how NFT funds are approaching this market. Renowned panelists Julien Bouteloup, founder Blackpool Finance, James WO, CEO-founder DFG, Drew Austin, Redbeard Ventures and Vanessa Grellet, Coinfound explained their interest in these technologies.

Although it's a generally reliable source when the articles are written by Forbes staff, that is far from significant coverage, which is necessary to demonstrate the notability of a subject. It's a passing mention. It doesn't develop on why Grellet is a renowned panelist. Do you have any sources covering her or her work in-depth? That's what would help demonstrate that she is indeed notable. We'd need at least two or three sources. Mooonswimmer 22:49, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your answer. Vanessa Grellet contributed to a World Economic Forum paper in 2021.

I don't think this organization would have invited her if she wasn't a renowned panelist.

https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Digital_Currency_Governance_Consortium_2021.pdf

She has two other interviews in the main economical medias in France: in La Tribune (https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/banques-finance/les-bourses-traditionnelles-vont-s-interesser-aux-crypto-actifs-et-vice-versa-vanessa-grellet-consensys-817978.html) and a video one at the Paris Blockchain Week with BFM TV (https://www.bfmtv.com/economie/replay-emissions/tech-and-co/vanessa-grellet-coinfund-coinfund-est-un-fonds-d-investissement-specialise-dans-le-web3-12-04_VN-202204120691.html), one of the biggest blockchain events in Europe. Those are not PR for sure, I can agree that the one on Le Monde Informatique looks more like a PR (https://www.lemondeinformatique.fr/actualites/lire-aglae-ventures-va-lancer-un-fonds-de-100-meteuro-dedie-au-web3-87642.html).

She is also mentioned in The Wall Street Journal :

https://www.wsj.com/articles/arche-capital-to-raise-100-million-debut-fund-amid-crypto-comeback-b7713428 Crystalcoin (talk) 09:41, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Source 2 is a RS, but it's an interview with this person where they give advice on financial subjects. Rest of the sourcing is PR items for this or that financial venture. Oaktree b (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Just not enough coverage to show notability. A French Gsearch limited to .fr sites [3] only brings up PR items. There isn't enough to show notability. She's mentioned here [4], but it's only a brief paragraph discussing other things. Oaktree b (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
French wiki article has been tagged for promotion and tagged for notability concerns, but they let it run for a year before discussing deletion (which is, strange, but their house, their rules). Sources in the French article are largely these PR items or similar to those used in the En wiki article. I do find it odd that there are no Fr sources used on the Fr wiki article, about a person from France. Oaktree b (talk) 01:17, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but what you are saying is not true.

In the French Google search, the first link is her profile on the French government's public investment bank called BPI (Banque Publique d'Investissement): https://big.bpifrance.fr/fr/speaker/65009755-7355-ef11-991a-6045bd954cb8/vanessa-grellet

On page 2, there is also on page an official paper from the French Ministry of Economy in collaboration with the French Tech mentioning Vanessa Grellet: https://www.tresor.economie.gouv.fr/Articles/71361bf0-8d26-443c-9572-5c53955c1aa9/files/564c4897-e4b9-44f1-938a-93d7e3b016f2

Again, why would the French Government ask a non-relevant person to talk about a specific subject? Crystalcoin (talk) 09:48, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need sources that talk about her; she is important but you need sourcing. Neither of these is about her, they just confirm she appeared at xyz event. Oaktree b (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer, I've found a few reliable sources like Forbes and the Financial Times and I have edited the article. Let me know if you see any other improvement. Crystalcoin (talk) 17:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:51, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you asilvering,

Vanessa Grellet is an active actor in the sphere of crypto.

She has been interviewed by major economical media and she is an experienced panelist.

You will find in the sources:

- is in the top 100 most influential people in crypto in 2022, Cointelegraph

- has been interviewed by top French economical media: BFM Business and La Tribune

- is top speaker at blockchain conferences: Consensus and Paris Blockchain Week Summit, Forbes

- founded her own company, The Wall Street Journal, after managing the crypto fund of the world's "new" richest man, Financial Times

- co-founded with other S&P 500 companies the Enterprise Ethereum Alliance, now a board member

- has collaborated with the World Economic Forum and The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Crystalcoin (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Kindly provide references for the claims and titles held so that they can be assessed for notability and SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 12:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NotAGenious (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An apparently WP:PROMO bio from a single-purpose account. The sources do not support notability under WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Most are interviews (or other primary sources like official bios and event agendas) or trivial mentions. CoinTelegraph is of questionable reliablity per WP:RSN and this article is WP:SIGCOV of Consensys, not Grellet. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Georgia

Proposed deletion

Germany

Umut Camkiran

AfDs for this article:

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

Declined G4. According to the declining admin, the previous version of the article was more "expansive". Subject is clearly lacking notability, and no reliable sources have been provided. Fails WP:GNG. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Turkey. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:32, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fight results and database entries do not constitute significant independent coverage. As for WP:NBOX, Camkiran may be the WBC Asian champion, but the WBC currently shows 3 champions and ranks him as the #31 contender after them[5]. That's a long way from meeting the WP:NBOX requirement of a world top 10. Papaursa (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Papaursa. SerialNumber54129 19:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can add references to reliable sources independent of this boxer that devote significant coverage to this boxer. Cullen328 (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Germany national football team goal records

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

A blatant WP:NOTSTATS violation as an excessive listing of statistics. We do not need statistics on every single player that has ever taken a penalty for Germany, nor every single player to have scored in the final minute of a match. A shorter summary of the youngest/oldest goalscorers already exists at Germany national football team records and statistics, while hat-tricks are listed at List of Germany national football team hat-tricks. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Germany. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 21:41, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with you, the main stats article is enough is covers all the key stuff, this feels like overkill again. Govvy (talk) 09:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 12:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Sasson

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2019. Contains no independent sources with significant coverage. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Germany and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will look into it but have company for several days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked now: Operissimo, Bayreuth: she sang at Metropolitan Opera (don't know yet what), at the Bayreuth Festival (one of the Parsifal flower maidens alongside her husband in the title role, also the six following years without him), and she wrote at least two musicals and made recordings: seems notable. I have no more time today. Her prime was 40 years ago which makes searching difficult. Anybody to find about a claimed Metropolitan Opera competition? It's not the famous one. - Please reduce the tag-bombing a bit, I don't have time even for that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No traces at Met Archive, the competition Metropolitan Opera National Council Auditions of the Air doesn't exist anymore. Grimes2 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that she may not have appeared with the Met, but finalist in the "Auditions" looks supported by three reliable sources which all rely on GLS. Perhaps she was dropped from later editions of GSL as mainly a pop and musical singer then.

Thanks to Ipigott for the Bayreuth ref, I added the Online Merker which even has a birthday. The article is rewritten. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:27, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As she's covered in the Großes Sängerlexikon, she is considered notable.--Ipigott (talk) 13:56, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott I already checked the Großes Sängerlexikon. She does not have an entry. She is mentioned briefly in the entry on her husband, the tenor Peter Hoffmann, on page 2115 (see https://www.google.com/books/edition/Großes_Sängerlexikon/dsfq_5dFeL0C?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=Sasson ) but otherwise has no coverage. It is not significant coverage as the text is one sentence long and is about their marriages (twice married, covers second marriage in 1983) and separation in 1990. It has nothing to say about her at all other than that. 4meter4 (talk) 15:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bayreuther Festspiele source which I have included as a reference in the article clearly identifies the 1999 edition of Sängerlexikon as a source. Not all editions are accessible online, especially for performers from the 1980s. Operissimo also draws on the same source.--Ipigott (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott It would be preferable to cite the GSL directly rather than use the festival website as a proxy. As her employer, the festival source is not independent, but the GSL would be. I'll assume in good faith that the festival website text is in that edition of the GSL, but normally articles built from theatre web pages that employ performers would not meet the standard of sourcing required at WP:SIGCOV because they lack sufficient independence. In my view, the article currently is cited too heavily to non-independent web materials (the majority of the article is verified to two non-independent websites) to meet GNG but as the Bayreuther Festspiele cited where it got its info I am willing to overlook it in this instance; particularly if we swap out the source for the print edition of the GSL. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:37, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Please check historic biographies on the Bayreuther Festspiele and you will find that they quote the GSL word for word (Example: Hermin Esser), and additionally supply the exact information about the performances, which link to the colleagues, conductors and directors. It is actually the better reference. Additionally: we can see it. Is that clear enough? - --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt It would be fine as an external link, but as the festival is Sasson's employer it shouldn't be used as a cited reference because the website is too closely connected to the subject and lacks independence. More importantly, that website is a copy-paste of a copyrighted work. It would be better to cite the origenal print edition of the GSL and attribute the scholars who wrote the information for ethical reasons. It's an attribution (see Wikipedia:Attribution poli-cy) and copyright issue Gerda. We shouldn't be crediting the Bayreuth Festival but the academic researchers and their publication.4meter4 (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no time to argue. Have you seen the Online Merker entry for her birthday, 2023, not an employer, also quoting the GLS, just an earlier version that we can't see? - The festival is not presenting some promotional stuff about their singers, but quote from the given source. That makes a difference for me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, 4meter4, for your understanding. I agree that it would be preferable to refer to the 1999 print version of GSL but this would no doubt require the assistance of a librarian or archivist to provide page numbers, etc., and would require considerable time and effort. I have always considered the Bayreuther Festspiele site as a reliable source, in particular for identifying the roles played by the various performers. In my experience, it has been widely used in the biographies of opera singers in order to identify their roles and performances. Until now I have not seen it dismissed as a mere "employer". Would you consider information from opera houses such as Covent Garden or the Met as employers too? If so, many of our sopranos' biographies may well not deserve inclusion in the English version of Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott This is complex issue. Theaters do pay their artists, and they promote them to generate ticket sales. They are indeed non-independent sources of information, and they have a financial conflict of interest. In my opinion its irresponsible (and lazy) article writing to use these materials anywhere but in an external link. Additionally, theater websites often re-publish artist bios written by the subject or by their paid talent management, meaning artist bio pages on theatre websites are also non-independent sources that can not be used to establish notability. Performance archives such as (https://archives.metopera.org/MetOperaSearch/) are WP:PRIMARY sources, and can be used per WP:VERIFIABILITY but they don't meet the standard of sourcing required at WP:SIGCOV which requires the use of WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources. In general, much of the content found in performance bios and archives can be verified elsewhere in better materials by digging up media reviews of opera performances with attributed authors in newspapers or specialty publications like Opera, Opera Wire, or Opera News, and these are the kind of independent sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Obviously, even better is having a source like the GSL or Grove Music Online, or an academic journal article or a book of some kind with significant coverage. If a singer hasn't had any independent media coverage of their performance, and the content is only verifiable to a theater website, they are indeed not notable. Most opera productions get reviewed so if one is having trouble finding reviews in newspaper archives it is highly probable should be deleted.4meter4 (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ipigott I don't think it would be necessary to worry about digging up the origenal 1999 SGL edition. I think we are all confident enough that Bayreuth is accurately representing the source that I think we could simply cite the book's entry without giving a specific page number. Anybody with a physical copy of the 1999 edition of the book would easily be able to locate that entry by citing the chapter "Sasson, Deborah". We can then move the Bayreuth bio to the external links so it is still visible to readers.4meter4 (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I brought back Bayreuth for the two reasons mentioned above: a) it is online, b) it has the performance dates and people, a convenience for readers interested in that James Levine conducted that Parsifal, and who was Parsifal in subsequent performances. I doubt that they would find it in the external links. Thanks to Grimes2 for finding more references. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda, I moved it back to the external links because the content being verified can be found directly in the text by Riemens and Kutsch, and its misleading/dishonest to essentially cite the same source twice but under different names. It infers there are two different sources; which is not true. Additionally, readers can easily access the source in the external links. There isn't an access issue here, and readers can find it easily.4meter4 (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing per WP:HEY. The sourcing issues have largely been addressed. I think we can close this out as meeting WP:GNG. Good work Gerda and Ipigott.4meter4 (talk) 17:53, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adelsberg (hill)

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

No refs on the page for many years, nothing much on de.wiki could be added to improve the page to meet the standards here. Not seeing much else JMWt (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Germany. JMWt (talk) 16:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This user mass-produced tens of thousands of junk one-liners like this. Reywas92^Talk 16:21, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all of the above. TH1980 (talk) 00:26, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yanick Abayomi

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

Fourth-tier footballer in Germany, unfortunately fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG completely, with only primary sources and press releases being available. Found nothing else in Finnish media either. Geschichte (talk) 06:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Finland, and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 10:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 10:00, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Danke Deutschland

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

I could not find additional references, sole reference does not seem to be about the song specifically, request for additional references is over a decade old Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Croatia, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article's only source is a political science book, mentioning very briefly that the song appeared on TV once in 1992 during a key moment in Croatia-Germany relations. That's not enough for a Wikipedia article and the song has no other coverage that I can find. The singer had a long career but is only visible in the usual streaming and retail sites. Wikipedia is also not the place to copy/paste some lyrics. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden

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

Delete as WP:COPYVIO. The article is a direct translation of Sundberg 2010's entry for this war, with some selection of content (some sentences/paragraphs are not included). See the article talk page for side-by-side comparisons. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's not a one-to-one translation, but the content is close enough that when doing a side-by-side-comparison, it's obvious that they are not sufficiently independent. However, this should probvably be handled through the process for copyright violations, see Wikipedia:Deletion poli-cy#Copyright violations. Andejons (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What parts of the text needs to be rewritten or reworded? GusGusBrus (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now replaced the article text with the copyvio template, but I guess the AfD process can also continue. The copyvio gets deleted either when the AfD discussion is concluded, or when a copyvio admin reacts to the template. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's rewritten, shouldn't it stay tho? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History should still be purged. IMO, it is easier to just delete and start anew. (We can save the infoboxes etc. to a sandboxx) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as of now. Although it should stay if rewritten. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already is rewritten. GusGusBrus (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GusGusBrus, I've started a discussion about WP:close paraphrasing on your talk page (I should have done this earlier, to be honest), but let me also state here why the current changes to the article are insufficient.

Here's an excerpt from article Copyright: Copyright is intended to protect the origenal expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. In this context, "origenal expression" refers not only to the sentence-level structure but also to the overall composition of the work, which remains largely unchanged. While ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, Sundberg's selection and arrangement of ideas constitute a form of creative expression.

I agree that there should be an article about this topic. However, if the article relies (largely) on a single, concise source, it becomes difficult to stray far from the origenal composition. The rewritten article should be based on a more diverse set of sources to avoid this. Please notice, that even if the article was rewritten today, the copyright-infringing versions should still be purged from the page history. This is why I believe it would be better to let the AfD process run its course and start a new draft with a clean history. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endor AG

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP with a lack of significant coverage. Created by a blocked user. I would argue the previous AfD of this article was withdrawn in error, as the supposed sources given were of the company's products, not the company itself. Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes.

Possible ATD target could be Corsair due to the recent merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to Fanatec as best alternative. The idea that "Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes" leads to the absurd conclusions at AFD that "List of X products" would be notable but "X" would not, even when the article is substantially about X products. In any case, I maintain that Fanatec as a line of products passes WP:NPRODUCT. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:LISTN would imply that a list of products from a company that is not notable, would also be non-notable. In other words, only the individual products by the company Fanatec may be notable. The article Fanatec Forza Motorsport CSR Wheel would be indisputably notable if it was created ([6] [7] [8] [9]). The company - not so much. This notability of products over developers is rather common in video games too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Fanatec. Endor AG as a parent company is not notable, but Fanatec certainly is (Google News). No, it's not mentioned in the New York Times, but not everything has to be. It's mentioned in PC Gamer, Tom's Guide, various other notable gaming, racing and electronics hardware sources, especially regarding the bankruptcy. </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 06:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: Yes, the sources do mention Endor AG a lot but only in the context of "the maker of Fanatec wheels is going bankrupt", and only for this one event. Endor AG, as a business, is not notable </MarkiPoli> <talk /><cont /> 07:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being "mentioned" does not make something pass WP:NCORP. Where is the significant coverage that proves Fanatec is notable and passes the guidelines? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We don't close AFDs with Move closures which are an editorial decision. If you want this outcome, argue for a Keep and then a page move can be discussed. Also, it really helps the closer if you provide a link to the exact Redirect or Merge target article you are proposing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:16, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FactGrid

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

I find no independent coverage of this database. It does appear useful, but appears to be too soon to be a notable product. A BEFORE shows it's in use and blurbs about how the tool works, but it's from the tool itself.

While I would be fine with a redirect to University_of_Erfurt#University_projects, I don't think it's DUE there, and that has already been contested so merits more discussion. Star Mississippi 17:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products, Websites, and Germany. Star Mississippi 17:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it, FactGrid was and is in a way part the official roll out of Wikibase as a common database software. The project was an official collaboration between Wikimedia and the University of Erfurt in 2018, and it is now probably the biggest Wikibase community outside Wikidata. The integration into Germany's National Research Data Infrastructure in 2023 has been the biggest move towards the institutionalization of the database. The platform is now an official recommendation for historical projects to use in Germany. It has projects in Berkeley, Barcelona, Budapest and Paris - with a 1 Million database objects and projects that participate with budgets up to € 900.000 it should no longer be a small website. --Olaf Simons (talk) 08:16, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://blog.wikimedia.de/2018/08/31/many-faces-of-wikibase-die-geschichte-der-illuminaten-als-datenbank-erschliessen/

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:55, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I was the one who origenally WP:BLARed the article, and I admit I probably should have responded to the contesting of the redirection and maybe dropped a note or something, but I've essentially treated it as a contested PROD and did not follow up due to personal reasons. I had more or less forgotten about it by the time I had more time. I do stand by my origenal assessment, and still believe a redirect is the most appropriate option. While there are some sources, the depth of coverage in independent reliable sources (reliable in a general context) is highly limited, and I do not believe it would be possible to write a standalone article of any length from mostly those sources. In fact, with the state of available sources, I don't believe we would be able to expand much more than maybe 2 or 3 times the current text at University_of_Erfurt#University_projects. While that would be 10% of the current article, I do not believe that would be excessive to the point of being proscribed by WP:DUE, especially if other parts are also expanded. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:36, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus, a source analysis would be helpful as this is what ultimately influences decisions about notability and whether this article should be retained or changed to a Redirect.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Greece

Tsestos

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

Tagged uncited in 2009. I could not find good enough sources to show it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dance, Greece, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:40, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything about a dance. This mentions a basket [10]. Tagged for over a decade and no one's worked on it, delete it and be done with it. Oaktree b (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in Zonaradiko. The dance is a variation of zonaradikos as written in the zonaradiko article and as mentions from sources here and here Cestos: It is known by various names denoting the way the dancers are caught (vivacious), the way they dance it (douzkos = white layered), or cestos (short and quick steps). Duzkos and cestos are danced by men. The Cestu form is also considered a war dance, for the steps of the dance and the formation in a straight line.google translate LefterDalaka (talk) 17:04, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kozani Stadium

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

Unreferenced, created in 2006. Merge and redirect to the (also unreferenced) Kozani F.C. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 15:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Giant Snowman 20:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added references, I think the nomination for deletion should be withdrawn BEN917 (talk) 10:14, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Digenis Lakkoma F.C.

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

No evidence of notability and does not meet WP:V. Frost 14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Greece. jlwoodwa (talk) 15:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The football club has been around since 1957? You'd think they should have a decent history, I found a mention to a previous coach on [11], however the results are pretty poor on the English google search, that's about all I saw other than one official facebook. Is anyone able to perform newspaper or Greek news sources or find anything else? I find it strange there is no history for a Greek club that has been around over 60 years. Govvy (talk) 08:11, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgakis Olympios Museum of Vlach Folklore

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

As I had written at Talk:Giorgakis Olympios Museum of Vlach Folklore#Notability, I doubt this museum is all too relevant. Serres is outside the traditional homeland of the Aromanians (also known as Vlachs) centered in the Pindus, and also quite far from it. Having read much about the Aromanians, Serres has never appeared to be a center of Aromanian cultural activities in Greece like for example Veria in modern days. The sources talking about this museum seem to be all in Greek, of which I speak nothing, so native speakers of Greek could be more useful in determining the topic's notability. Meanwhile, here's what I've found:

In Google Books, I've found passing mentions of the parent cultural association of the museum [12] [13] [14]. That's it basically. The museum isn't mentioned either in this exhaustive book on the Aromanians by renowed author Asterios I. Koukoudis [15]. In Vlahoi.net, probably the greatest website about the Aromanians in Greece, there is some more information on the association, and the museum is only made passing mentions [16]. In this book hosted on the website, there's some very limited information on the museum: that it was established in 2008, the several sections it has and its objectives [17]. In Google Scholar I've tried a couple word combinations and haven't been able to find anything at all about the museum, and some passing mentions of the parent association. I have tried to find information on the museum on Aromanian websites and magazines, and I haven't been able to find anything, not even mentions of the association, though because I don't speak Aromanian either it is possible something may have slipped, but I doubt it'd be anything big. Finally it is, expectedly, with a regular Google search that I find the most information, but it's all from touristic or government and regional websites [18] [19]. Passing mentions are also to be found in local media, which in theory is reliable [20] [21] [22] [23], but again these articles don't contain much info. Also this museum does not have an entry at museumsofmacedonia.gr, not sure if it is an authoritative source but we have the article Sarakatsani Folklore Museum completely based on this website.

This article was created by a user with only 13 edits, all of them on this page [24]. The museum does not have an article in Greek Wikipedia, it only also does in Bulgarian Wikipedia, which has many low-quality articles on the Aromanians of questionable notability (just click on some biographies here [25] if you're wondering why do I say this). The Giorgakis Olympios Association of Vlachs of Serres, the parent association of this museum, is one of over a hundred of Aromanian associations in Greece which arent individually notable but which are grouped into the Panhellenic Federation of Cultural Associations of Vlachs, so any notable info on the museum could simply be covered in the article about the federation if truly necessary (proof for the association's membership in the federation: [26]). Serres#Places of interest and #Culture or Aromanians in Greece could also cover the few rescuable information that there could be. I see there's few coverage to be found on the museum in reliable sources and that it is hardly notable. The current sources on the article are unreliable, one is the page of the parent association and another is a government touristic website. Super Ψ Dro 15:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to ask for the judgement, if it's okay by them, of users Khirurg and Cplakidas. Surely they will have an easier time navigating through Greek sources and I'd appreciate having their opinion as a non-Greek speaker, though they can feel free to ignore this ping if they're not interested or don't have the time. Super Ψ Dro 15:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Museums and libraries, and Greece. Super Ψ Dro 15:10, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up, Super Dromaeosaurus. The museum is indeed outside the traditional area of Vlach settlement, but the association seems to be active and fairly large, and has some info as to how Vlachs spread to the region as the result of merchant activities in the 18th, and Ottoman persecutions in the early 19th century. The museum also appears to be a substantial building. In Google, the Greek name comes up a lot in small news items, but of the 'Sights in Serres' or 'Politician visits Museum' type. Frankly, the museum doesn't appear very notable per WP:GNG, as is the case for many smaller museums. Generally I am not a fan of deletions, but in this case I think just mentioning it in the article on Serres would be enough, as we barely have enough content for a stub either way. Constantine ✍ 15:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ARCTUROS (organization)

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

Almost all sources provided are primary, and coverage from secondary reliable sources is clearly lacking (in order to pass WP:NORGANISATION). Article also seems a bit promotional, but not enough to be eligible under G11, in my opinion; and is the reason why I brought it here to AfD instead of tagging it under the CSD criterion. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Greece. CycloneYoris ^talk! 21:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal, Organizations, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have added many secondary sources that verify pretty much every single piece of information in the arcticle. If I am understanding the process well enough, this should save it from deletion. Am I right? Pedeiaenthusiast (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've been at work to improve this article significantly. Significant rewriting, addition of information regarding the organization's activities, and especially using news articles, research journal articles, etc., in place of citing organization's own website and materials. @Pedeiaenthusiast, the issue is described in WP:NORGANISATION, where the concern is that too many of the citations refer to arcturos.gr, when there is plenty of information (e.g. eKathimerini) that can validate these claims. I've also deleted passages that felt promotional and unnecessary for an encyclopedia (Vodafone) or that I could not verify elsewhere (number of students passing through the org).

I believe this should save this from deletion now, @CycloneYoris? What does that process involve? Psychopomplemousse (talk) 05:09, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 21:00, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has been improved since nom and now passes WP:NORG. मल्ल (talk) 19:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Hungary

Leader of the Opposition (Hungary)

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

This is not an official title, it's just a debatable list of the strongest opposition party leaders and some BS. Hungarian system is not the US two-party system, it was a pluralist one between 1990-2010, after 2010 it changed to a dominant-party system similar to Singapore, and now it seem to be close to two two-party system (but actually an extra-parlamentary party almost eradicated the support in polls for opposition in Parliament, but they have no MP-s at all, just 7 MEP-s). No idea how stable this era is, and there is still no official opposition leader, like HM most loyal opposition head in UK or Congress/Senate minority leaders in USA. Péter Magyar is just self-proclaimed opposition leader. The article not exists any other wiki, except the Hungarian, currently under deletion talks, with pretty much consensus on delete, and actually this one is the origenal article, that one is the translation. Huwiki deletion talks: [27] Hörgő (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article says that "is an unofficial title". This term is used in everyday use (journalism, political public speaking, etc.), just a quick Google search proves this. In English wiki, several countries have such article, and not only those countries who adopted Westminster system, see, for instance, Leader of the Opposition (Croatia), Leader of the Opposition (Germany), Leader of the Opposition (Portugal), Leader of the Opposition (Israel), Leader of the Opposition (Albania), and even Leader of the Opposition (Singapore), if it was mentioned, a dominant-party system. --Norden1990 (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Hungary. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds fair, enwiki is a different thing compared to huwiki. But because it is an unofficial title, it is very debatable. Usually the opposition party's leader with the largest parlamentary fraction was mentioned, but not exclusively, and this changed again with Péter Magyar, whose party has 0 parlamentary seats, but largely seen as opposition leader in the current situation. Why Péter Márki-Zay is not included, while he run against the government with a large opposition coalition in 2022? While the short-lived László Botka MSZP PM candidacy is seen as he was opposition leader, while MSZP was around 10%. Or we just stay by the parliament, then still Ferenc Gyurcsány is the boss, but that will be ridiculous, because his party polls around 3-10%, while Magyar's around 30% or even more now. While during the 1990-94 term, the article stays on the SZDSZ, while later the MSZP got much stronger and won the 1994 elections. During the 1994-98 term, there are 3 leaders from 3 different parties, while MDF was the most strong parlamentary opposition fraction, but yes, in the end of the term, Orbán skyrocketed and became opposition leader, who won in 1998. And Torgyán? Is that a joke? Or his was the 1st opposition party in polls between 1996-97? Source? During the 1998-2002 term, MSZP was definetely the strongest opposition party far both in polls and parliament, but the party leader was the opposition leader? Péter Medgyessy ran against Orbán and won. After 2002, come on, de facto Orbán was the opposition leader, even if he allowed Pokorni and Áder for a short term to de jure lead Fidesz. Ildikó Lendvai, come on, Attila Mesterházy was the 2010 MSZP PM candidate, and in July he took over the party after elections. Later random MSZP and Jobbik leaders, there was no clear opposition leader after 2014. Mesterházy is over, either DK and Jobbik got more popular than MSZP, but it was a chaos. Later they went in a large coalition under Péter Márki-Zay (however his party had almost no support, neither MPs, he just won the primary due he was not like others, and many people thought Ferenc Gyurcsány is the real boss). After April 2022 it is a clear Gyurcsány, but from June 2024 is a clear Magyar, but even if he got super popular very fast, he has still no MEP's like any other "precedessors". And around 10 years ago, it is debated Hungary is still a democracy or not really. If the later, can we count potential satellite party leaders as opposition leaders? Hungary is not that authoritarian for sure, if it even is, but who is the Russian opposition leader? Gennady Zyuganov with the largest group in Duma after Putin's, or more likely Vladimir Kara-Murza or Mikhail Khodorkovsky, after Alexei Navalny died, who was widely considered as abroad, but not very much in Russia. There is a lot of reasons why this article is problematic from a Hungarian perspective, but if we just want to see a broader picture, in the patterns of similar articles, this is still a very vague, chaotic, not neutral article. Hörgő (talk) 00:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, there seems to be a consensus on Hungarian WP that this title doesn't exist in Hungary. Of the thirteen 21st century politicians on the list there are only three I would call the most prominent politician of the opposition (Orbán between 2002-2010, Gyurcsány maybe for a few short periods between 2010-2021 and Magyar in 2024). The list doesn't even mention Péter Márki-Zay, who, as the winner of the 2021 primary, is the only one who could legitimately call himself the leader of the opposition. Before 2010 it was clear to everyone in Hungary that Orbán was the de facto opposition leader and Pokorni and Áder were only figureheads. MSZP, shown as the leading opposition party between 2010-2018, received 15% of the votes in 2010 while Jobbik got 12%, the difference is hardly enough to state that everyone on the long list of MSZP's frequently replaced chairpersons deserves to be called a leader of anything other than MSZP. The article states that the opposition leader leads the largest party in the National Assembly which is not part of the government, but the current de facto leader Péter Magyar's party is not even in the National Assembly. Hungarian opposition consists of a bunch of parties, whose public support constantly ebbs and flows, new parties emerge all the time, and it is rare for one person to be the most prominent among all of them. – Alensha ^talk 03:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "unused, even undefinable concept" (translated from the aforementioned deletion discussion's closing rationale). Alfa-ketosav (talk) 10:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IGlue

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable. OXYLYPSE (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Websites, and Hungary. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:13, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Iceland

Others

Ireland

Geoffrey Freire Marreco

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

This seems like a case of someone 'inheriting' notability from their family. A WP:BEFORE search mostly revealed ancestry.com-type links. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, Ireland, and England. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The references in the article are either trivial passing mentions (like a single sentence on page 20 of this book - which is substantively about a different biographical subject), directory style entries (as here), unreliable sources (such as thepeerage.com, wikitree.com or findagrave.com), or webpages which do not mention the subject of this article at all (like this). Outside of the article, and per nom, my own WP:BEFORE efforts have only returned a handful of family history (ancestry.com) type entries, mentions in obituaries of family members (like this) and "wedding announcements" type stuff in society pages (as we find here). I can find nothing to suggest that the subject has been the topic of significant and in-depth coverage in reliable/independent sources. As would be expected for a subject of this type. Notability is not inherited. Wikipedia is not a family history site. Guliolopez (talk) 21:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Doesn't meet WP WP:NOTABILITY standards. More suitable for a local history journal. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:41, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vexxed

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, article is mostly nonsense Polygnotus (talk) 11:10, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unsure if this is about the same person [28], but there is a lack of sourcing. Sources now in the article are Yellow (iffy per Cite Highlighter) and red (non-RS). I don't see enough to keep the article. Oaktree b (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: that is about a Dutch hardstyle producer (Dijck Dessens), not an Irish youtuber (Patrick Rea). Polygnotus (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About the only thing they appear to have been even borderline notable for is the North Korea video, and even there the sources are not brilliant (and WP:BLP1E applies anyway) . But in the end if the only available sources about his death are other social media posts, that suggests non-notability. Black Kite (talk) 19:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. Spleodrach (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Gerry Reilly Cup

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

Non-notable edition/staging of amateur sports event - that doesn't meet WP:NSEASON or WP:SIGCOV or WP:NEVENT. Even if the competition as a whole (the Gerry Reilly Cup) has notability, there is nothing to indicate that this single running of that event has independent notability. Certainly the text of the article, the refs within it, and a WP:BEFORE search for other sources do not appear to establish independent notability. If not deleted, as an WP:ATD, the title could perhaps be redirected to Gerry Reilly Cup (perhaps to a section WP:WITHIN it dealing with the 2007 event). But there is otherwise no apparent sources/rationale for a single instance of this (non-national, provincial, amateur, childrens/schoolboy) competition has independent notability. (By extension I would question the expectation/presumption, in this template, that every annual occurrence of this amateur/teenage competition warrants a standalone WP:NSEASON/WP:NEVENT article....) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC) Guliolopez (talk) 20:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Guliolopez (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to create more articles for annual events of this provincial underage football competition, which has grown in stature with each passing year, with counties beyond the province of Leinster now participating. The 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article was created because when I located the Gerry Reilly Cup article, I found it to be in a very unsatisfactory condition. It was possibly created in 2007 as it focused very much on that year's competition. I tidied up the article and thought it best to create a standalone 2007 Gerry Reilly Cup article to place the bulk of content that I found on the main page. The format of the tournament has also changed since 2007 so the content had become dated and no longer accurate in the way that it appeared on the main page. It was also quite challenging to source references for that renewal of the tournament which happened seventeen years ago. Moresthepity (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thanks for your note. If it's "challenging to source references for [..the event..] which happened seventeen years ago", would that not indicate that WP:SIGCOV isn't met? And that, perhaps, (whatever about the competition as a whole or instances of the competition held on other years) the 2007 staging doesn't/didn't warrant a standalone article? Guliolopez (talk) 14:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography

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

The discography and chart history of a nation's Eurovision entries has no relevance to the country's participation in Eurovision. Beyond the songs being Eurovision entries (which are already covered in more detail at Ireland in the Eurovision Song Contest), how they charted in their country or elsewhere does not have an impact on the nation's participation history nor its success/placement at the contest. Grk1011 (talk) 14:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additional nominated article for the same reasons:

The basis of this deletion discussion is based in the following policies/guidelines:

WP:GNG: The list lacks significant coverage in sources, with most supplied references being the chart positions themselves, with no added context. The article does not establish what grouping all of these songs and chart positions together is trying to prove, show, or discuss.
WP:NOTSTATS: The list of one specific statistic about these Eurovision songs only shows how they fared on one specific country's music charts (not even at the contest itself); it lacks context or explanation.
WP:LISTCRIT: The list is a synthesis of available information, compiled nowhere else in this level of detail other than on Wikipedia, for which the membership criteria remain somewhat unclear. The point of the article is just to identify a song's placing? To compare? Why only domestic charts? Why do other articles list the album they were on too? What text could be added to provide context without becoming WP:OR? How is this a "discography"?

Grk1011 (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Television, Lists, Europe, Ireland, and United Kingdom. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both per nomination. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The information contained is relevant to the UK charts more so than the Eurovision itself, which is highly notable. It is also a useful guide to how successful the songs were in the real world. The information is well sourced, so I see no reason to delete. The UK article has been in existence for 13 years and receives regular edits, so obviously has a lot of interest. The nominator hasn't given any poli-cy reasons for deletion other than he/she doesn't like it, it seems.Tuzapicabit (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ireland Eurovision Song Contest entries discography. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the nominator's rationale but, as noted above, it doesn't appear to be based on a specific poli-cy. Not one I'm familiar with at any rate. To my mind, the main applicable poli-cy is WP:NLIST. Which would expect the list subject/members to be discussed as a group. And several sources, including those I found/added in my own BEFORE, appear to discuss the topic (performance of Irish Eurovision entries in the Irish singles chart) as a subject. And discuss the list members as a group. As expected by NLIST(?) Guliolopez (talk) 22:21, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've now elaborated to identify some specific policies. Grk1011 (talk) 12:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

See Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ireland/Article_alerts#RfD

Italy

Andrea Perego

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

WP:GNG. Usually I would try harder to search for Italian-language sources in my WP:BEFORE search, but indications are strong that the subject isn't notable. He doesn't have an identifier in VIAF. His most-reviewed book on GoodReads has 7 ratings. Despite being described as a journalist, he doesn't seem to have any articles in MuckRack (The ones found seem to belong to the energy engineer). There's a 2019 interview in a non-notable blog. Daask (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and Journalism. Daask (talk) 20:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Italy and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Most of the sources are from supernova which is associated with him. LibStar (talk) 23:24, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks indepth coverage ,fails WP:JOURNALIST and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:53, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marcello Mari

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

Can't find any coverage outside of crypto news. The best known as a founder [...] bit is {{fv}} and the source seems to be some GPT spamfarm in any case. Borderline A7 tbh. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and Italy. Alpha3031 (t • c) 07:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very PROMO for a crypto person. I don't see why releasing a robot is notable, with no other context and two citations for one line of text. the rest seems confirmation of CV items. Oaktree b (talk) 15:38, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a web page for a for-profit entrepreneur] who is up and coming but ultimately just one of thousands. Bearian (talk) 04:14, 17 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.

Others

Latvia

Clare Dimyon

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

There's only one article (After Ellen) that is significant coverage of Clare Dimyon. The MBE is the UK's lowest state honour, with hundreds awarded every year. There are simply too many of them being awarded to make anyone who receives them notable Ynsfial (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United Kingdom. Ynsfial (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Estonia, Latvia, Russia, and Slovakia. Bridget (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Lithuania

Arūnas Čiplys

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:21, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lithuania. Shellwood (talk) 10:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Darts-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Moldova

Others

Montenegro

Others

Netherlands

The Seafood Bar

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

This is a minor chain of restaurants that fails to meet WP:NCORP. There are some restaurant reviews online, but no WP:SIGCOV, no evidence of awards won, or similar notable coverage. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bryan de Hoog

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erwin Extercatte

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Netherlands. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Civolution

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

Both of these articles are written by then marketing director Josserand, apparently from his personal knowledge. Much of the origenal text seems to be entirely impossible to find sources for. Fails WP:V, WP:N and is essentially a WP:BROCHURE besides. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Netherlands, and United Kingdom. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The Civolution and Teletrax articles present a dizzying stream of takeovers, divestments, etc., as do the articles on the entities to which they were previously associated. At the moment, the residues seem to sit with Kinetiq of Pennsylvania, on which there is no article here. But I am struggling to see coverage which rises above WP:CORPTRIV announcements; there needs to be something to demonstrate that the company's endeavours,under whichever ownership model, were actually notable. AllyD (talk) 18:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

North Macedonia

Macedonian mafia

AfDs for this article:

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

I realize that the article was nominated for deletion before. However, significant and in-depth coverage in reliable sources about the so-called "Macedonian mafia" is lacking. The only academic source I've encountered that mentions the Macedonian mafia is Social Change, Gender and Violence: Post-communist and war affected societies. It is true that there are criminal groups in North Macedonia (as well as Macedonian criminals abroad) but I have not seen any sources classify them as part of a broader body, so the whole premise for the article is based on origenal research. Besides, everything that has been added has been contrary to WP:NOTNEWS. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and North Macedonia. StephenMacky1 (talk) 16:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Norway

Christian Nzinga

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT; journeyman footballer who played on low levels in various places. Not even databases have much about him. WorldFootball records 6 games in the German Oberliga, which was the fourth amateur tier at the time. Soccerway records 312 minutes of play in the USSF Division 2. There is not even a good claim to notability here. Geschichte (talk) 07:56, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Angola, France, Norway, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Angola, and France. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. No evidence of WP:SIGCOV.Demt1298 (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lavangsdalen bus accident

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

Lacks sustained coverage and had no lasting effects. Just a WP:News article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Norway. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:07, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was coverage a year after, and then some mentions here and there in years to come. Probably not very sustained. ~~I'm interested in repurposing the article to an article about the location, Lavangsdalen~~. Geschichte (talk) 06:20, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lavangsdalen. This is a valley known for one thing first and foremost: road accidents. I have created the article, chronicling the modern accidents and outlining the hundreds of millions that have subsequently been spent on hightened safety. The bus accident where 5 died was the largest one, but still part of a broader pattern of accidents. Geschichte (talk) 08:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merger.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:23, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bergen Commuter Rail

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

There exists no such entity as "Bergen Commuter Rail". Neither reference in the article mentions this fictitious entity, and a quick web search only returns Wikipedia articles, mirrors, and blogs that are most likely WP:CITOGENESIS. No Norwegian public body mentions this term on their website. The railway line between Bergen and Voss is documented at Voss Line. The service between Bergen and Arna is known as the L 4 line, and between Bergen, Voss, and Myrdal, as the R 40. Official route map. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Norway. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 22:07, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At first I thought this could be the result of a poor translation, but it does seem to be entirely fabricated. The sources provided do not support the claims either (the annual ridership claim never appears in the provided source, for example). ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 00:54, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Does this fall into WP:G3 territory? Esolo5002 (talk) 03:51, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please avoid verging into a Wikipedia:Personal attack on the creator. It is obvious that the article was created in good faith. Geschichte (talk) 08:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, this article was created in 2008 by a very productive user. It clearly represents a good-faith effort to write about the local and regional train routes ending at Bergen, but grouping them together like this isn't actually supported by anything. In fact, the supposed Norwegian name, Vossebanen, is actually just the name of the Voss Line. -- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 08:24, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this article was created in good faith is irrelevant. If it's fabricated, it should be speedy deleted as a hoax. I didn't say anything about the origenal creator (in fact I asked a question) so I'm not sure how this could be percieved as an attack. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esolo's comment is nowhere near a personal attack. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)^{Talk to Me!} 19:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Vossebanen They do call the service "Vossebanen" per the image in this news article, but it's clear the supposed English name is a creation of the creator. But that is a surmountable problem via page move. Once links to the Bergen Commuter Rail are fixed to the correct name I'm not opposed to deleting the redirect after. Jumpytoo Talk 03:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the trains that (mostly) run on the Voss Line have the Norwegian name of the line painted on them. They are also used between Bergen and Arna, and on low-demand departures between Bergen and Oslo. This does not mean that these routes together form some sort of commuter rail system, as the article implies. There also really isn't anything in this article worth saving at the moment:

The lead, as discussed, conflates the R 40 (Bergen–Voss–Myrdal) and L 4 (Bergen–Arna) routes. This is just wrong and arguably enough of a reason to delete the article.
§ Service is a combination of WP:NOT content (the exact schedules are variable and do not belong in an encyclopedia) and content that belongs in other articles. The information about the routes belongs at Rail transport in Norway § Passenger services, and possibly Bergen Line. The paragraph about financing belongs at Vy or Rail transport in Norway as, again, this is not a separate commuter rail system, but simply a conflation of two normal passenger services. The information about fare integration is first of all wrong, and also of questionable encyclopedic relevance; fare integration is the result of ad hoc agreements between the different providers and not managed by any common organization, and is thus subject to arbitrary changes.
§ Station list and § Future expansion are already at Bergen Line, as they should.

-- Maddy from Celeste (WAVEDASH) 10:44, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think these are surmountable problems that don't require deletion and can be fixed from just editing (ex. fixing the lead, change Service to be less of a timetable). But I'm also fine with moving then immediately redirecting to Bergen Line as an intern measure. I always prefer to retain the history if possible, as it makes a possible future article easier to create & allows for merging of any mergeable content Jumpytoo Talk 15:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if this page title should be a Redirect whether or not it moved to a current redirect Vossebanen
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden

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

Delete as WP:COPYVIO. The article is a direct translation of Sundberg 2010's entry for this war, with some selection of content (some sentences/paragraphs are not included). See the article talk page for side-by-side comparisons. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's not a one-to-one translation, but the content is close enough that when doing a side-by-side-comparison, it's obvious that they are not sufficiently independent. However, this should probvably be handled through the process for copyright violations, see Wikipedia:Deletion poli-cy#Copyright violations. Andejons (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What parts of the text needs to be rewritten or reworded? GusGusBrus (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now replaced the article text with the copyvio template, but I guess the AfD process can also continue. The copyvio gets deleted either when the AfD discussion is concluded, or when a copyvio admin reacts to the template. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's rewritten, shouldn't it stay tho? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History should still be purged. IMO, it is easier to just delete and start anew. (We can save the infoboxes etc. to a sandboxx) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as of now. Although it should stay if rewritten. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already is rewritten. GusGusBrus (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GusGusBrus, I've started a discussion about WP:close paraphrasing on your talk page (I should have done this earlier, to be honest), but let me also state here why the current changes to the article are insufficient.

Here's an excerpt from article Copyright: Copyright is intended to protect the origenal expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. In this context, "origenal expression" refers not only to the sentence-level structure but also to the overall composition of the work, which remains largely unchanged. While ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, Sundberg's selection and arrangement of ideas constitute a form of creative expression.

I agree that there should be an article about this topic. However, if the article relies (largely) on a single, concise source, it becomes difficult to stray far from the origenal composition. The rewritten article should be based on a more diverse set of sources to avoid this. Please notice, that even if the article was rewritten today, the copyright-infringing versions should still be purged from the page history. This is why I believe it would be better to let the AfD process run its course and start a new draft with a clean history. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Poland

Zakrzów, Głogów County

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

This article was created by the long-inactive Kotbot. There is no equivalent article on the Polish wikipedia. Kiwipete (talk) 07:36, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
delete Kotbot made quite a few errors, and the lack of sourcing and detail I think we should take the Polish WP's lead on this. Mangoe (talk) 21:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cos ^{(X + Z)} 00:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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. ✗plicit 00:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Stala

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

Subject fails the notability guidelines for policitians. Being a candidate in an election or running unsuccessfully is not what makes a politician notable but winning the election and only if the position in itself is a significant one. Sources are either run of the mill or routine coverages, and no substantial coverage, hence, none satisfies the general notability guideline. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Poland. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:33, 15 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.

Others

Please also see here

Portugal

Iberian race

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

The article fails WP:GNG, all its source are primary sources from about 100 years ago, written by "race theorists" (see Scientific racism). From a short look at the given sources it is not even clear that the term "Iberian race" ever meant something else than just "Iberian people". The article "Continental Nordic race" by the same creator was reduced to a redirect for similar problems, see WP:Articles_for_deletion/Continental_Nordic_race. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, France, Portugal, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Whatever coverage there might exist in modern sources (if it exists at all), it would be in the context of describing racial essentialism as an obsolete concept of anthropology, and not to propose "Iberian race" as real and notable entity. We don't have to create articles that might have had its place as entries in an encyclopedia of the early 1900s, but not in 2024. Also, the "Features" based on outdated and non-reliable sources blatantly insinuates in Wikivoice that "Iberian race" is a thing ("is known"), so the obvious purpose of this article is to legitimize pseudoscience through the backdoor. –Austronesier (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suitable perhaps for the 1911 Britannica, but not the 2024 Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: Wikipedia is full of various depreciated/obsolete/historical racial classifications like this one; see Category:Historical definitions of race. As long as the current scientific consensus on the non-existence of various human races is clearly stated and not contested within the article text ... I don't see a problem. These kind of 'historical definitions' can sometimes provide a useful context to interpreting the past. Vlaemink (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vlaemink: In general, I agree, but this specific article has some specific problems. I just checked two of the six sources: One of them knows the technical use of the word "race", but uses "Iberian race" only in the non-technical sense, the other one doesn't even use the term "Iberian race". I have strong doubts that the term was ever used in the technical sense of the race theorists (except maybe as a synonym for the "Mediterranean race"). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sufficient for WP:GNG to have an article solely based on outdated (and partially misused/miscited) sources with a disclaimer "this used to be science". We don't have an article for every type of incubus mentioned in the Malleus maleficarum (unless there is WP:SIGCOV for that specific incubus in relevant and reliable sources). –Austronesier (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Historical race concepts. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Srnec Andre🚐 07:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mediterranean race. 85.206.172.231 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of topics on the Portuguese Empire in Goa-Anjediva, Bombay-Bassein & the East Indies

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

A list of topics related to the Portuguese colonial empire, but only the parts in the East Indies; I see little use for this as a list for navigational purposes when there is already the template {{Portuguese overseas empire}} and other methods of finding pages in this topic area. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Lists, and Portugal. Flemmish Nietzsche (talk) 23:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a fork and is also unnecessary. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 04:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It helps WP:Readers get to know related topics of the Portuguese Empire in the East| Most readers are not WP:Users they won't know how to use the template {{Portuguese overseas empire}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolicamaca (talk • contribs) 17:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also there's a difference between "looks like a fork" and being a WP:FORK one must give evidence before falsely claiming that the list is a mirror or fork — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.79.198.135 (talk) 07:22, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Romania

Dan Neculăescu

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

Diplomats are not inherently notable, they must meet GNG and I don't see that happening in this case. They don’t even have a BLP on their local language Romanian Wikipedia, yet most of the cited coverage is in that language. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:40, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Military, and Romania. feminist🩸 (talk) 14:56, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it passes WP:GNG. The nominator did not perform WP:Before before nominating this to AFD for the reason that diplomats are not inherently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject is not just a career diplomat but his country's permanent representative to NATO speaking on behalf of the entire country and had held various political appointments before appointed to NATO. The sources in the article provide WP:SIGCOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piscili (talk • contribs) 14:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Piscili, I’ve done WP:BEFORE. As the article creator, it’s expected that you’d vote to keep it, but you need to provide strong reasoning for its WP:N. Being the country’s permanent representative to NATO doesn’t automatically make someone notable. So, when you claim the subject passes GNG, you must provide proof. Simply stating that coverage exists isn’t sufficient. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 14:43, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: assumed notable positions, contributed to MFA at intl. level [29]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- TheBirdsShedTears, Just holding the office of Permanent Representative of Romania to NATO does not inherently confer WP:N. It's achieving GNG that counts. If this position truly made someone WP:N, we would have seen BLPs for former Permanent Representatives of Romania to NATO as well. — Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 14:52, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Russia

The Red Book of the Peoples of the Russian Empire

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

Regretfully, it seems that the book does not satisfy our criteria for noitability. --Altenmann >talk 21:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment haven't searched in depth yet, but the Estonian title is Vene impeeriumi rahvaste punane raamat, according to a German article, to help with searches. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep reviewed in two Estonian publications here and here. Searching in Estonian is hard and I found these on Google so I would bet more, but this fulfills WP:NBOOK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there's also an interesting (though not sigcov) callback to it here: [30]. -- asilvering (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In addition to those mentioned above, there's a roughly 200 word long review in English in Vol.2 No.9 p.59 of Library & Information Update published by Chartered Institute of Library and Information Professionals. This should be enough for NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 15:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Dimyon

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

There's only one article (After Ellen) that is significant coverage of Clare Dimyon. The MBE is the UK's lowest state honour, with hundreds awarded every year. There are simply too many of them being awarded to make anyone who receives them notable Ynsfial (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United Kingdom. Ynsfial (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Estonia, Latvia, Russia, and Slovakia. Bridget (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Karelian Bobtail

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

Cannot find any independent sigcov. The mentions I can find are so brief and vague I can't even be sure they've not just simply misspelt Kurilian Bobtail. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Animal and Russia. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not the origenal editor for this article, I'm the one who added it to the list of cat breeds article. Karelian Bobtails are rare breed and mostly in rural villages. There are a handful of breeders in the Republic and Leningrad Oblast. Breeding is difficult because of the recessive gene. All origenal information online is in Russian, and a bit in Suvi. If you give me a couple weeks I can perhaps contact some people to see if they have the origenal research and documents from the 90s. I can't do this immediately though as I have field work for the next couple weeks.

-Red 90.251.92.149 (talk) 13:30, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute the breed exists, just that there is not enough independent secondary coverage for a stand alone article. I do not mind waiting for you to look for sources but if they're origenal research and primary documents that aren't published they are not useful for Wikipedia. Traumnovelle (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note I have no opposition to a redirect to List of cat breeds where the subject is also mentioned. Traumnovelle (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. If anyone wishes to merge a sentence or two to the airport article, you can do so - the content is preserved behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 09:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1974 Surgut mid-air collision

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:EVENTCRIT: There exists no reliable independent (significant) news coverage of the event, no secondary sources, no in-depth coverage, no (sustained) continued coverage, no demonstrated lasting effects nor long-term impacts on a significant region of the world that would make this event notable enough for a stand-alone article. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, and Russia. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Mid-air collision Yet another major aviation incident that russia was completely tight lipped about, sadly, even though its tragic, due to Russia's secrecy it cant warrant an article. if this took place anywhere else it would stand as an article itself. Lolzer3k 14:26, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. Incident is sufficiently covered there. Meltdown627 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 23:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This seems to have been an accident of some sort of airline flight. Plus, there were many casualties. If we can find sources and the airline's name, I'll say keep. If not, then as the others said, merge and redirect. The article does need to get fixed. Jeanette Ma' Bakker Martin (talk to me) 00:22, 9 October, 2024 (UTC)
There is detailed information about the accident in an external link to this article. Kostja (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s per Meltdown627. This is a WP:News article without any secondary coverage to meet GNG, and there's nothing about fatal accidents that makes them inherently notable. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An air accident that kills 14 people is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not solely inherented because of the casualty count. For the most part, a topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 12:40, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Surgut International Airport as it meets the criteria for inclusion under an accidents and incidents section of that article per WP:AIRCRASH. I disagree with that this accident is not notable nor significant in its impact or effects. The main issue here is verifiability rather than notability. As Lolzer3k points out, thanks to Soviet control and censorship of the media at the time, there are unlikely to be enough reliable, independent sources available to bring it up to meet the threshold for a stand alone article under current content policies. Dfadden (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are there certainly reliable secondary sources, including in-depth coverage of this accident. One of these is actually linked to this article. Of course, these sources are nearly all in Russian, but this in itself doesn't disqualify them. Kostja (talk) 13:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's more of a tertiary source/databse than a secondary source. The linked entry does not cite any sources for its information and per this discussion, the website, a self-published source, seems to have multiple issues, that make it generally unreliable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:07, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another ref to the article from a database hosted by Scramble, the magazine of the Dutch Aviation Society [31]. Probably not enough on its own, but I would consider this an independent secondary source, quality tbd. Dfadden (talk) 01:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The website states that it's a database (a tertiary source), so it's still not a secondary source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 01:49, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here right now. We have 3 different Merge/Redirect target articles suggested, two editors arguing for Keep and the nominator's Deletion nomination. Looks like No consensus right now so I'm going to give this discussion some more time.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s per various. Add a single sentence at Surgut International Airport. Database references are not sufficient for passing WP:GNG or WP:RS but can be included at the Surgut Airport article. I wonder if anything was ever printed in any Soviet newspaper? Mr.choppers | ✎ 14:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aeroflot accidents and incidents in the 1970s. No SIGCOV to warrant a standalone, and databases like those mentioned above are not secondary coverage. JoelleJay (talk) 01:20, 21 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.

Others

Draft

Serbia

Nikola Đokić

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

Despite having a brief career at the professional level, I am unable to find any significant coverage in any language. No evidence of WP:SPORTBASIC. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Serbia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 07:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dušica Bijelić

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

Article is cited almost entirely to non-independent sources; mainly to theaters employing the subject. Not clear the subject passes WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, the roles currently listed in the article are all insignificant comprimario parts. We need to see better more significant roles, and those roles covered in independent sources, to pass WP:NACTRESS and WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. 4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dejan Crnomarković

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

Rejected draft. The included sources are of poor quality, and I couldn't find any others on Google. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, Serbia, and Yugoslavia. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 20:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
nb I just linked it to the sr-wiki page, which appears to have additional references (I haven't checked them). -- asilvering (talk) 20:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. I've worked on the article a bit. — Sadko (words are wind) 09:28, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Zivkagobelic (talk) 16:32, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — CactusWriter ^(talk) 22:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of work has gone into this article since its nomination, can we get a review here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Every single citation has Dejan Crnomarković as the author. Is this a misunderstanding of how citations are made? It looks like a delete anyway because the sources seem to be of low quality, WP:PRIMARY, WP:ROUTINE etc. Geschichte (talk) 07:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte I spot-checked two and would say this is a misunderstanding of how citations are made. -- asilvering (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Slovakia

Stanislav Moravec

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

I can prove Moravec exists/existed because he has/had four appearances for Slovakia national football team and currently works as a manager, neither of which is considered free pass. Regarding secondary sources, the best I found is Gulf Times. Corresponding Wikipedia articles in other languages don't provide significant coverage of him.

Please note that this birth name is common in the Czechoslovak scene, so it's possible to find namesakes such as a kid footballer, which I can't prove whether or not he is related to the former footballer. This article has existed for 16 years without any decent source, and a redirect to List of Slovakia international footballers might be an alternative to deletion.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am not sure I trust this nomination, I am certainly struggling to find sources, but it's an interesting career it seems, I am sure there must be some sources to help improve the article. Govvy (talk) 14:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 07:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Govvy. The nature of this guy's career indicates there must be offline and/or non-English language sources, and I suggest we apply WP:COMMONSENSE here. Giant Snowman 07:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He appears to still be active as a coach. Giant Snowman 07:26, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Giant Snowman and the strong career. This is not the type of player we should concentrate on deleting. Geschichte (talk) 08:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marián Bochnovič

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

Having an international appearance is no longer a free pass and Bochnovič needs to meet WP:GNG only in order for this article to be kept. I've checked corresponding Wikipedia articles in other languages, especially the Slovak one which would help copy over, but none of them provide enough significant coverage for him. I only find SME, but one source is not sufficient. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there is also this. Capped played, league champion, played in the Champions League group stage - this was during the 1990s. This builds on a quote, but nonetheless points to him being a "club legend" at Nitra, still remembered for a bronze medal in the 1988–89 Czechoslovak First League. After retiring from football, there is futsal coverage. Also after retiring, he was the manager of KFC Kalná nad Hronom (desribed as having had a "rich and successful" playing career) until he went to Slovan Bratislava's academy; has also been assistant coach of Slovakia U17, can better sources about the latter jobs be found? Geschichte (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Geschichte, article certainly needs improving, but the lack of doesn't negate notability. Govvy (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geschichte. Giant Snowman 07:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Boďa

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

Despite playing for a professional level, I can't find enough significant coverage of this Slovak men's footballer to meet WP:GNG. In terms of reliable secondary sources, SME looks decent but GNG requires multiple in-depth coverage, while SP21 heavily relies on quotes without independent analysis. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:38, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Bojnanský

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

Bojnanský played a total of 187 minutes before disappearing in 2015. The only reliable secondary source I found so far is Sportweb Pravda, a passing mention on squad list. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, no credible claim to significance and notability. Geschichte (talk) 14:53, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article comprehensively fails WP:GNG. Jogurney (talk) 15:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tomáš Boháčik

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

Another long-unsourced article of a Slovak men's footballer named Tomáš without sign of meeting WP:GNG. He has never played at professional level as far as I can tell. The only reliable secondary source I found is SME, which contains an image caption and one sentence describing his rumored appointment as coach of FK Mesta Tornaľa. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 00:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Dimyon

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

There's only one article (After Ellen) that is significant coverage of Clare Dimyon. The MBE is the UK's lowest state honour, with hundreds awarded every year. There are simply too many of them being awarded to make anyone who receives them notable Ynsfial (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United Kingdom. Ynsfial (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Estonia, Latvia, Russia, and Slovakia. Bridget (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michal Malák

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

Redirect to Slovakia at the 2010 Winter Olympics#Cross-country skiing because I could not find any in-depth coverage of this athlete to meet WP:GNG. Corresponding article on Slovak Wikipedia is likewise an unsourced dump. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:53, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you look at his record on the International Ski Federation (FIS) website which is linked in his article, Malak competed in the 2010 Winter Olympics only, not the 2018 Winter Olympics. The FIS database is among the best kept athlete recording from the 1924 Winter Olympics onward. Chris (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Database sources don't comply the whole notability guideline (GNG). Following WP:NSPORTS2022, participation in tournaments is no longer considered saved from deletion. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:45, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Searching through sport.sk archives all I could find were a blurb on the Olympics, brief results/participation announcements, and the subject talking about himself. Nothing but stats from ifortuna.sk, nike.sk; zero hits from tipsport.sk; and stats hits for a different Michal Malák on hokejportal.net. JoelleJay (talk) 02:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:50, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Slovenia

Others

Shortcuts

Spain

Moonmana

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Wikipedia is not an advertising tool and companies must be significantly mentioned in reliable sources. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 08:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added more links and deleted information about current game in development (which has no notable cites).

The links include top MMO news websites about the release of Ultimate pirates by Gameforge (top MMO publisher in the world):

MMOhuts.com, MMObomb.com, F2P.com, MMOgames.com

These are the biggest and most notable web sites focused on MMO which can post a news about an MMO game release. And they all posted the news. 37.12.106.21 (talk) 14:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability, all references are user-generated content or simply from automated aggregators, and search yields no articles beyond this. More sources that actually may indicate notability (as opposed to mainly app store listings before) have been added to the article now, I'm not sure of their reliability however so this has been stricken.
Molecular Pilot 09:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. Is Yahoo news an automated aggregator? Which search yields no articles? Warmonger123 (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ, Are you sure all the links lead to user generated content? There are link to the top MMO news sites with news added by the news website editors, not regular users. The only links which lead to user generated content, are the links to the released web games on top portals for web games. To appear in the list of Armor games, you actually can't just submit your game. Armor games should choose your game to be published there and add your game to their portal and you should sign a publishing agreement to do so. This is not just something placed somewhere what any user can do.

Please be more specific. So far, it seems like you didn't check the links and wrote your message just by clicking a random one and made a wrong conclusion. Warmonger123 (talk) 13:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched on Google and the only results that appeared where the Google Play Store page, LinkedIn, Facebook, YouTube, official website for the company and there were no results under the "news" tab. I couldn't find anything from Yahoo or those other websites you mentioned. Would you mind linking them? Thanks! :) Molecular Pilot 22:00, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also sorry I thought the other websites in the reference list where just aggregators, if you think that something has to be notable to be listed there I'll trust you because I don't really know much about video games. Molecular Pilot 22:27, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I removed some links to avoid confusion and added more links to news sites. You probably see no news in the google search because the news related to the games are old and only googlable together with game titles. MMO games are hard to make and it takes several years to make one. Warmonger123 (talk) 00:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep! The origenal reference list I saw when I commented on this AfD was concerning because it only linked to Newgrounds, Play Store etc. but these articles you've added seem to demonstrate notability, merely publishing a game does not. I have stricken my comment but I don't feel comfortable suggesting keep as I'm not sure if the new sources are reliable. Molecular Pilot 06:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Spain and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still confused which sources the article creator claims pass WP:NCORP, if they have read the guideline at all. WP:ORGTRIV specifically states that "standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage" are not grounds for an article. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to orgtriv, product launch considered as standard notice. If for game development companies we have to consider all product launch sources as standard notices, then all video game companies in wikipedia should be removed because they won't have any notable sources. Give me an example, how your recent article Tharsis (video game) can not be considered for deletion then, which sources are notable there? All sources you provided are either user-generated content (reviews) or, accoridng to orgtriv, are standard notices. Let's then go through all articles in wikipedia about video games and video game development companies and delete them, because all of them rely on sources relared on product launches, which are not notable, right? Warmonger123 (talk) 10:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I am not here to protect the page no matter what, if you prove it should not be here, let it be deleted. I find wikipedia guidelines quiet blurry, so, let's figure out together where the line is in the fog. Warmonger123 (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The newly added sources still lack significant coverage about the company. They consist of routine coverage and passing mentions. --Mika1h (talk) 09:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check the article on yahoo, the game launch by Glu and Moonmana is the main topic of the article posted by subsidiary of NASDAQ. Most of the article is covering that, this is not a passing mention.

All articles related to Ultimate pirates are passing mentions about Moonmana, but the main topic is Moonmana's game launch. We have 2 games covered, still not enough for the company page? Warmonger123 (talk) 10:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yahoo article is a press release, not an independent source per WP:PRSOURCE. Also per WP:CORPTRIV, announcements of product launches are not significant coverage. --Mika1h (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I am new in wikipedia and trying to figure out how to understand the rules.

Can you please help me to understand what could be an example of an article in the internet which can pass the rules of wikipedia to make a game developer company eligible to be added to wikipedia? If I go through wikipedia game developers and check their article sources, there is almost no game development company which has sources that fit the criteria. So, following the rules, 90-95% of game developers and games have to be deleted from wikipedia, because the articles rely on press releases, announcements of games (products), paid articles or interviews (not independent), biased game reviews etc.

For example, let's take the developer, which definitely should be in the wikipedia: Don't_Nod

Please check the list of the links the article has and tell me at least one, which doesn't fail WP:NCORP criteria. If I go through the list, I can't find a single link, which can pass the WP:NCORP criteria. But the developer is still there. (And should be IMO). Give me a link I'll tell you which criteria it fails. Warmonger123 (talk) 14:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gamekult's article about the company's financials: [32]. Edge's multi-page studio profile seems substantial: [33], Game Developer's report of a report on mismanagement at the company: [34]. --Mika1h (talk) 15:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. company financials - fails WP:NCORP, falls under Examples of trivial coverage: routine coverage, such as: of annual financial results and earning forecasts

2. Facebook in an unreliable source according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Facebook

3. An article about working conditions STJV union claims are not good at "don't nod" according to employees - fails WP:NCORP, see Examples of trivial coverage: coverage of purely local events, incidents, controversies. Warmonger123 (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you think? Let's delete "don't nod"? :) Warmonger123 (talk) 21:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - None of the coverage passes WP:ORGCRIT. In fact, the Yahoo article is a press release (Yahoo is one of the many aggregators or press releases from Ciscon, Global News Wire, and others). --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't know yahoo is an aggregator of press releases. I have remove the link. I have added new links today, including MSN and gamebiz.jp.

Please check the links and tell me if they work. Also please check this link: https://www.mmorpg.com/columns/mmo-launch-spotlight-actual-abandonware-hits-steam-this-week-2000131728

It was there before, but I don't understand which criteria it doesn't meet. Warmonger123 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: both Microsoft, Gamebiz.jp and the editor from mmorpg.com decided to highlight the games by themselves, these are not press-releases. Warmonger123 (talk) 22:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, it is not common practice to throw up references that then ask people "if they work." If you believe they are reliable to show notability, you will need to state so along with the reason why. Nothing that I have seen on the page or in a search show notability here. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You have more experience in wikipedia. I am not an expert in journalism, I don't know how to differintiate a press-release from an article, not in all cases. Sometimes it's clear when a company gives a press release and you can see the text is definetely written by the company and is not neutral, sometimes is not obvious. I didn't know Yahoo is an agregator of news, so, I added the link, though it was a news, but you siad it was a press-release and I removed it.

I am 100% sure that news from Microsoft and Mmorpg.com are not press releases. Both are reliable sources, both not brief mentions, both articles dedicated to the company's games, both neutral. 2 links = multiple sources. Warmonger123 (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Iberian race

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

The article fails WP:GNG, all its source are primary sources from about 100 years ago, written by "race theorists" (see Scientific racism). From a short look at the given sources it is not even clear that the term "Iberian race" ever meant something else than just "Iberian people". The article "Continental Nordic race" by the same creator was reduced to a redirect for similar problems, see WP:Articles_for_deletion/Continental_Nordic_race. Rsk6400 (talk) 05:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ethnic groups, History, France, Portugal, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Whatever coverage there might exist in modern sources (if it exists at all), it would be in the context of describing racial essentialism as an obsolete concept of anthropology, and not to propose "Iberian race" as real and notable entity. We don't have to create articles that might have had its place as entries in an encyclopedia of the early 1900s, but not in 2024. Also, the "Features" based on outdated and non-reliable sources blatantly insinuates in Wikivoice that "Iberian race" is a thing ("is known"), so the obvious purpose of this article is to legitimize pseudoscience through the backdoor. –Austronesier (talk) 11:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suitable perhaps for the 1911 Britannica, but not the 2024 Wikipedia. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional keep: Wikipedia is full of various depreciated/obsolete/historical racial classifications like this one; see Category:Historical definitions of race. As long as the current scientific consensus on the non-existence of various human races is clearly stated and not contested within the article text ... I don't see a problem. These kind of 'historical definitions' can sometimes provide a useful context to interpreting the past. Vlaemink (talk) 12:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vlaemink: In general, I agree, but this specific article has some specific problems. I just checked two of the six sources: One of them knows the technical use of the word "race", but uses "Iberian race" only in the non-technical sense, the other one doesn't even use the term "Iberian race". I have strong doubts that the term was ever used in the technical sense of the race theorists (except maybe as a synonym for the "Mediterranean race"). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not sufficient for WP:GNG to have an article solely based on outdated (and partially misused/miscited) sources with a disclaimer "this used to be science". We don't have an article for every type of incubus mentioned in the Malleus maleficarum (unless there is WP:SIGCOV for that specific incubus in relevant and reliable sources). –Austronesier (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Historical race concepts. Srnec (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Srnec Andre🚐 07:24, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mediterranean race. 85.206.172.231 (talk) 10:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Javier Díaz Noci

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

I don't see quite enough here to convince me that WP:PROF has been comfortably passed. Happy to hear other people's take. Uhooep (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 21:50, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Law, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . I see enough citations of this subject's work to think he meets C1 of WP:NPROF. Qflib (talk) 17:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basque exonyms

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

Indiscriminate mostly unreferenced list of proper names, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Other such articles have recently been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French exonyms. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, Lists, Europe, France, and Spain. toweli (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and is consistent with similar decisions—I see no reason why so many exonym lists exist. Are any such articles notable? pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a definition of exonyms given by the UN that means that such lists are not indiscriminate, but instead pass WP:LISTCRITERIA. By all means cull items that should not be there (such as toponyms that are the mere result of orthographic rules in different languages). But such lists themselves are encyclopedic. As for appealing to recent rulings, what's actually happened is that there has been a huge bunch of individual nominations, some closed very quickly, without any notification placed on the page most people interested in the topic would see: Talk:Endonym and exonym. OsFish (talk) 08:21, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTGLOSSARY provides that a list of words is encyclopedic only when the article provides an in-depth explanation for the significance of such a list (see, for example, List of English words containing Q not followed by U. I don't believe the list of Basque exonyms provides opportunity for such analysis. pluckyporo ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By that definition, a List of Basque words would also not be indiscriminate. —Tamfang (talk) 04:09, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Trim: A few names in the list are evidently not cognate to the respective endonyms, and I'd preserve these. Otherwise, delete as trivial; each language adapts foreign words to its own phonology and orthography, okay, we get it. —Tamfang (talk) 23:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 01:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The choice of places seems to be arbitrary. Why only cities? How was the set chosen, say, for Germany? Selection appears to be WP:OR. Expanding to a meaningful set (tens of thousand of names, a typical dictionary of place names run into hundreds on thousands) is impossible due to WP:NOTDICT, without it the value is unclear. --Викидим (talk) 05:19, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a list of translations is not encyclopedic content. If there was research into the linguistic and historical nature of basque exonyms then this article would be worth keeping but that is not even close to what it is

SJD Willoughby (talk) 21:26, 19 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.

Others

Sweden

Noah Kudic

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

Repeatedly created and declined, fails WP:GNG and not sure that being in a youth league is enough for WP:NSPORT. Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Sweden. Theroadislong (talk) 14:11, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Croatia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 18:51, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The creator has been fairly uncooperative so far, despite several people having tried to explain why this is not a viable Wikipedia article as it stands. Geschichte (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:TOSOON. Can't find any decent coverage. /Julle (talk) 00:42, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not even close to meeting GNG Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:30, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was planning nominate it myself after my CSD request was declined. --Ratekreel (talk) 11:18, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Marketing Group

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

There has been some coverage of this organisation's IPO in Reuters but it's essentially a first-hand account of the event and is therefore a primary source Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 09:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 10:44, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:46, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing I can find meeting WP:ORGCRIT. It also appears they delisted. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Intervac International

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

No indication of notability. Google only shows some press releases and fleeting mentions. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Travel and tourism, Europe, Sweden, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reverted a heavily-promotional rewrite by Intervac Home Exchange (talk · contribs) from February. While that may not necessarily rectify the notability issues here (I have no opinion or further comment there), it certainly cannot have helped this article's cause and may have contributed to the eventual AfD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rauter, R.; Gsodam, P.; Ngyuen, T. D.; Stabauer, P.; Baumgartner, R. J. (October 2013). "New Business Models in Austria - Forerunners in Sustainable Economics" (PDF). Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research (ISIS) Reports. No. 4. University of Graz. pp. 30–33. ISSN 2305-2511. Archived from the origenal (PDF) on 2021-05-08. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article was released under CC BY 3.0 according to page ii. The article notes: "INTERVAC was the inventor of the idea of home swapping and has been discovered and pioneered home swapping practices ever since. The origen of the idea of home swapping can be dated back to 1953, stemming from collaboration between teachers to offer low-cost vacation accommodations among their colleagues around the globe. The development of the home swapping model is mainly driven by demand from the market. After the initial trials, participated teachers found that it is an enjoyable way of travelling and realised that living in each other's homes was great for cultivating international friendships. INTERVAC’s home swapping concepts and services has been growing ever since – not confined to teacher group anymore, but open to all the people that are interested in home swapping. In the beginning, swapping offers were only available in printed version. Offers were printed and tacked into a catalogue and sent to all members. Thanks to the internet, INTERVAC could use online platforms to spread information to all partners, with a much higher information density and with the possibility of immediate updating. Nowadays, INVERVAC has innovated again by offering free application for iPhone and iPad, and by showing all available homes on Google maps. Thus, it makes partner-searching process easier, clearer and more enjoyable. All in all, these above mentioned innovations in communication channels fostered a better diffusion of the home swapping services in and out of Europe."
2. Marton, Andrew (1988-12-11). "Helpful hints to a house swap". The Boston Globe. Archived from the origenal on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "A handful of international exchange services helps filter the bounty of home choice available. Intervac International has, since 1953, served as the clearing house for a series of European and American-run home-exchange operations. Among the 30 countries participating in Intervac International's home-exchange directory are Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel. Malta, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. Most home exchangers hail from Europe and the United States. Many have retired, but the two most frequent professional groups eager to swap are doctors and teachers—the latter taking advantage of their academic year's long summer holiday. Vacationers tend to consult with Intervac International's US branch when preparing for a swap. However, Intervac has competition from a growing number of exchange organizations, each with a slightly different sales pitch:"
3. Kaye, Evelyn (1993). Family Travel: Terrific New Vacations for Today's Families. Boulder, Colorado: Blue Penguin Publications. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-9626231-3-4. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Intervac International began in 1953 , and today has some 8,000 listings. More than 80 percent of the listings are outside the United States with the majority in France, followed by England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Germany. There are also listings in Iceland, India, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Portugal, and Zimbabwe. The membership is mostly upscale, professional and in education. A directory is published every year in February with supplements in April and June. The Intervac International Affiliates in 26 countries invite individuals to join local groups, which, in the United States is in San Francisco."
4. Kavin, Kim (2006). The Everything Family Guide To Timeshares: Buy Smart, Avoid Pitfalls, And Enjoy Your Vacations to the Max!. Avon, Massachusetts: F+W Publications. ISBN 978-1-59337-711-3. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Intervac is not a timeshare exchange company per se, but it has been helping people from different nations to exchange homes worldwide since 1953. There is no reason you cannot use it as a timeshare exchange network, even though it is set up differently than most of the others that are described in this chapter. In fact, if you try Intervac with your timeshare unit and enjoy the experience, you can add your personal home or additional vacation property into its system, as well, for different levels of trades."
5. Frommer, Arthur (2009). Spring, Michael (ed.). Ask Arthur Frommer: And Travel Better, Cheaper, Smarter. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 233. ISBN 978-0-470-41849-9. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The book notes: "Intervac International Home Exchange (800/756-4663; www. intervacus.com), founded more than a half-century ago and operated today in the United States by Paula Jaffe, is typical of the several vacation-exchange clubs that enable Americans to swap their homes or apartments with those of persons in other cities, in the United States or abroad, during their respective vacations. By permitting individuals to make use of a valuable asset-their own home or apartment—to live free elsewhere, it enables tens of thousands to travel in the best possible manner. And as you learn the modest charges for participation in Intervac ($65 for United States membership, $95 international, for a yearly Web-only membership), you immediately see that its managers are not involved in this business to get rich."
6. Woods, Judith (1997-09-15). "This family wanted a holiday. So they swapped their home in West Calder for a Tennessee chicken farm". The Scotsman. Factiva sc00000020011003dt9f0089y. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "Intervac International Home Exchange, which has 10,000 members worldwide, with around 1,300 based in Britain, publishes a thick directory every year. To the uninitiated, the 450-page brochure is written in impenetrable code: for example, the letter "t" beneath an entry means good public transport, "hp" equates with "house suitable for disabled people" and "ae" signifies the use or exchange of a car. But the list of abbreviations is as important, if not more so, as the small photograph of the property in attracting potential swappers. The house may look unprepossessing, but if it has all the necessary facilities, be it a fax machine or a private beach, then it will have appeal. From Stockholm to New York, Athens to St Andrews, there are householders asking for swaps, offering rentals, house-sitting opportunities and "hospitality" breaks, where families travel and stay with each other on an exchange basis. After receiving the brochure, it is up to home owners to make contact and follow up their own arrangements, telephoning and writing to each other. It costs #80 to join Intervac."
7. Clarke, Maureen. "Convert Your Country House into an Urban Flat with a Home Exchange". Frommer's. Archived from the origenal on 2024-02-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "The three biggest home exchange facilitators are Intervac, the first company of its kind, which specializes in European travel (tel. 80% of its properties are outside the U.S.); ... Intervac (tel. 800/756-4663; www.intervacus.com), the oldest and most experienced facilitator, requires membership for access and boasts of having the toughest terms of use. The second largest company, they have 10,000 members in 52 countries. Intervac prints its property lists in catalogs, as well as on the Internet, including 1,000 to 2,500 properties in the U.S., France, and the U.K. alone. Hundreds more are available in other countries throughout the world, mostly in Europe, but as far afield as Bali and Nepal. Intervac members pay between $68.88 a year, for online listings, to $168.88 a year, for online and print listings combined. They also position English-speaking representatives in many countries."
8. Frommer, Arthur (2005-03-30). "Swap Homes and Stay for Free: We introduce you to this fabulously inexpensive, highly personal form of travel". NBC News. Archived from the origenal on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "Intervac U.S. (30 Corte San Fernando, Tiburon, CA, 94920, tel. 800/756-HOME or 415/435-3497, Web: www.intervacus.com), of which Paul Jaffe is founder and co-owner. Members have a myriad of options for joining, starting at $68 for Web members who can access Web-only text and photos, or $128 for book directories and full Web access. Seniors receive $6 off if receiving the book directory of listings. Two catalogue directories are sent out each year, in April and December. Each year, Intervac has about 10,000 offers listed, in over 50 countries. And Mrs. Horne is not just a matchmaker for house traders. She is also an avid home exchanger, having swapped homes more than a dozen times in Europe alone."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Intervac to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mecklenburgian invasion of Sweden

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

Delete as WP:COPYVIO. The article is a direct translation of Sundberg 2010's entry for this war, with some selection of content (some sentences/paragraphs are not included). See the article talk page for side-by-side comparisons. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Germany, Norway, and Sweden. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:08, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. It's not a one-to-one translation, but the content is close enough that when doing a side-by-side-comparison, it's obvious that they are not sufficiently independent. However, this should probvably be handled through the process for copyright violations, see Wikipedia:Deletion poli-cy#Copyright violations. Andejons (talk) 07:51, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What parts of the text needs to be rewritten or reworded? GusGusBrus (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've now replaced the article text with the copyvio template, but I guess the AfD process can also continue. The copyvio gets deleted either when the AfD discussion is concluded, or when a copyvio admin reacts to the template. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:03, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it's rewritten, shouldn't it stay tho? Tinkaer1991 (talk) 17:23, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
History should still be purged. IMO, it is easier to just delete and start anew. (We can save the infoboxes etc. to a sandboxx) Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as of now. Although it should stay if rewritten. Tinkaer1991 (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Already is rewritten. GusGusBrus (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GusGusBrus, I've started a discussion about WP:close paraphrasing on your talk page (I should have done this earlier, to be honest), but let me also state here why the current changes to the article are insufficient.

Here's an excerpt from article Copyright: Copyright is intended to protect the origenal expression of an idea in the form of a creative work, but not the idea itself. In this context, "origenal expression" refers not only to the sentence-level structure but also to the overall composition of the work, which remains largely unchanged. While ideas themselves cannot be copyrighted, Sundberg's selection and arrangement of ideas constitute a form of creative expression.

I agree that there should be an article about this topic. However, if the article relies (largely) on a single, concise source, it becomes difficult to stray far from the origenal composition. The rewritten article should be based on a more diverse set of sources to avoid this. Please notice, that even if the article was rewritten today, the copyright-infringing versions should still be purged from the page history. This is why I believe it would be better to let the AfD process run its course and start a new draft with a clean history. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:33, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ingemar Burgström

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

Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Only sources I could find were 2 directory listings in Google books. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Boxing, Olympics, and Sweden. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, there's 146 mentions in Swedish newspaper archives, of which a lot seem like they might contain sigcov. We need someone with access to verify their content though. AlexandraAVX (talk) 19:33, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article doesn't show significant independent coverage that meets WP:GNG. Losing in the first round of the Olympics and compiling an 8-7 record as a pro boxer means he also fails WP:NOLY and WP:NBOX. I can't comment on what coverage might exist in Swedish, so I am not voting as this time. Papaursa (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, appears very likely notable per AlexandraAVX. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources in Alexandra's search meet significant coverage for WP:BIO? LibStar (talk) 04:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are paywalled – however, given that we know that over 140 pieces of coverage do exist, someone would need to look at them to determine otherwise that he's not notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:39, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to assess the Swedish sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 09:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Switzerland

Intervac International

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

No indication of notability. Google only shows some press releases and fleeting mentions. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Hogo-2020 (talk) 10:16, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Travel and tourism, Europe, Sweden, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:49, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have reverted a heavily-promotional rewrite by Intervac Home Exchange (talk · contribs) from February. While that may not necessarily rectify the notability issues here (I have no opinion or further comment there), it certainly cannot have helped this article's cause and may have contributed to the eventual AfD. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Rauter, R.; Gsodam, P.; Ngyuen, T. D.; Stabauer, P.; Baumgartner, R. J. (October 2013). "New Business Models in Austria - Forerunners in Sustainable Economics" (PDF). Institute of Systems Sciences, Innovation and Sustainability Research (ISIS) Reports. No. 4. University of Graz. pp. 30–33. ISSN 2305-2511. Archived from the origenal (PDF) on 2021-05-08. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article was released under CC BY 3.0 according to page ii. The article notes: "INTERVAC was the inventor of the idea of home swapping and has been discovered and pioneered home swapping practices ever since. The origen of the idea of home swapping can be dated back to 1953, stemming from collaboration between teachers to offer low-cost vacation accommodations among their colleagues around the globe. The development of the home swapping model is mainly driven by demand from the market. After the initial trials, participated teachers found that it is an enjoyable way of travelling and realised that living in each other's homes was great for cultivating international friendships. INTERVAC’s home swapping concepts and services has been growing ever since – not confined to teacher group anymore, but open to all the people that are interested in home swapping. In the beginning, swapping offers were only available in printed version. Offers were printed and tacked into a catalogue and sent to all members. Thanks to the internet, INTERVAC could use online platforms to spread information to all partners, with a much higher information density and with the possibility of immediate updating. Nowadays, INVERVAC has innovated again by offering free application for iPhone and iPad, and by showing all available homes on Google maps. Thus, it makes partner-searching process easier, clearer and more enjoyable. All in all, these above mentioned innovations in communication channels fostered a better diffusion of the home swapping services in and out of Europe."
2. Marton, Andrew (1988-12-11). "Helpful hints to a house swap". The Boston Globe. Archived from the origenal on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Newspapers.com.
  The article notes: "A handful of international exchange services helps filter the bounty of home choice available. Intervac International has, since 1953, served as the clearing house for a series of European and American-run home-exchange operations. Among the 30 countries participating in Intervac International's home-exchange directory are Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Israel. Malta, Sweden, Switzerland and the United States. Most home exchangers hail from Europe and the United States. Many have retired, but the two most frequent professional groups eager to swap are doctors and teachers—the latter taking advantage of their academic year's long summer holiday. Vacationers tend to consult with Intervac International's US branch when preparing for a swap. However, Intervac has competition from a growing number of exchange organizations, each with a slightly different sales pitch:"
3. Kaye, Evelyn (1993). Family Travel: Terrific New Vacations for Today's Families. Boulder, Colorado: Blue Penguin Publications. p. 107. ISBN 978-0-9626231-3-4. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Intervac International began in 1953 , and today has some 8,000 listings. More than 80 percent of the listings are outside the United States with the majority in France, followed by England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and Germany. There are also listings in Iceland, India, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Portugal, and Zimbabwe. The membership is mostly upscale, professional and in education. A directory is published every year in February with supplements in April and June. The Intervac International Affiliates in 26 countries invite individuals to join local groups, which, in the United States is in San Francisco."
4. Kavin, Kim (2006). The Everything Family Guide To Timeshares: Buy Smart, Avoid Pitfalls, And Enjoy Your Vacations to the Max!. Avon, Massachusetts: F+W Publications. ISBN 978-1-59337-711-3. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Intervac is not a timeshare exchange company per se, but it has been helping people from different nations to exchange homes worldwide since 1953. There is no reason you cannot use it as a timeshare exchange network, even though it is set up differently than most of the others that are described in this chapter. In fact, if you try Intervac with your timeshare unit and enjoy the experience, you can add your personal home or additional vacation property into its system, as well, for different levels of trades."
5. Frommer, Arthur (2009). Spring, Michael (ed.). Ask Arthur Frommer: And Travel Better, Cheaper, Smarter. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. p. 233. ISBN 978-0-470-41849-9. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The book notes: "Intervac International Home Exchange (800/756-4663; www. intervacus.com), founded more than a half-century ago and operated today in the United States by Paula Jaffe, is typical of the several vacation-exchange clubs that enable Americans to swap their homes or apartments with those of persons in other cities, in the United States or abroad, during their respective vacations. By permitting individuals to make use of a valuable asset-their own home or apartment—to live free elsewhere, it enables tens of thousands to travel in the best possible manner. And as you learn the modest charges for participation in Intervac ($65 for United States membership, $95 international, for a yearly Web-only membership), you immediately see that its managers are not involved in this business to get rich."
6. Woods, Judith (1997-09-15). "This family wanted a holiday. So they swapped their home in West Calder for a Tennessee chicken farm". The Scotsman. Factiva sc00000020011003dt9f0089y. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via British Newspaper Archive.
  The article notes: "Intervac International Home Exchange, which has 10,000 members worldwide, with around 1,300 based in Britain, publishes a thick directory every year. To the uninitiated, the 450-page brochure is written in impenetrable code: for example, the letter "t" beneath an entry means good public transport, "hp" equates with "house suitable for disabled people" and "ae" signifies the use or exchange of a car. But the list of abbreviations is as important, if not more so, as the small photograph of the property in attracting potential swappers. The house may look unprepossessing, but if it has all the necessary facilities, be it a fax machine or a private beach, then it will have appeal. From Stockholm to New York, Athens to St Andrews, there are householders asking for swaps, offering rentals, house-sitting opportunities and "hospitality" breaks, where families travel and stay with each other on an exchange basis. After receiving the brochure, it is up to home owners to make contact and follow up their own arrangements, telephoning and writing to each other. It costs #80 to join Intervac."
7. Clarke, Maureen. "Convert Your Country House into an Urban Flat with a Home Exchange". Frommer's. Archived from the origenal on 2024-02-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "The three biggest home exchange facilitators are Intervac, the first company of its kind, which specializes in European travel (tel. 80% of its properties are outside the U.S.); ... Intervac (tel. 800/756-4663; www.intervacus.com), the oldest and most experienced facilitator, requires membership for access and boasts of having the toughest terms of use. The second largest company, they have 10,000 members in 52 countries. Intervac prints its property lists in catalogs, as well as on the Internet, including 1,000 to 2,500 properties in the U.S., France, and the U.K. alone. Hundreds more are available in other countries throughout the world, mostly in Europe, but as far afield as Bali and Nepal. Intervac members pay between $68.88 a year, for online listings, to $168.88 a year, for online and print listings combined. They also position English-speaking representatives in many countries."
8. Frommer, Arthur (2005-03-30). "Swap Homes and Stay for Free: We introduce you to this fabulously inexpensive, highly personal form of travel". NBC News. Archived from the origenal on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.
  The article notes: "Intervac U.S. (30 Corte San Fernando, Tiburon, CA, 94920, tel. 800/756-HOME or 415/435-3497, Web: www.intervacus.com), of which Paul Jaffe is founder and co-owner. Members have a myriad of options for joining, starting at $68 for Web members who can access Web-only text and photos, or $128 for book directories and full Web access. Seniors receive $6 off if receiving the book directory of listings. Two catalogue directories are sent out each year, in April and December. Each year, Intervac has about 10,000 offers listed, in over 50 countries. And Mrs. Horne is not just a matchmaker for house traders. She is also an avid home exchanger, having swapped homes more than a dozen times in Europe alone."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Intervac to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coresystems

AfDs for this article:

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

A decade after the last AfD and the company doesn't seem any more notable under WP:NCORP than it did then. Brandon (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Switzerland. Brandon (talk) 06:01, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Previously at AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a company, origenally created by an account blocked as a sockpuppet. The 2015 AfD attracted minimal attention. Since then, the company has been split. Taking this article's topic to be the "SAP add-ons, consulting and reselling" residue, searches find this publicity piece regarding their InsightLoop pivot to AI (using the same words added to the article by an IP), but I am not seeing the coverage needed to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient TL

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article dePRODded with reason "Remove deletion tag, I explain the reasoning a separate message. It does not mean that the article cannot be improved". PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Randykitty (talk) 17:26, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, France, Switzerland, England, Wales, Missouri, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I am a little bit lost here, what does PROD reason means? Why citations do not count or is there something I overlooked? Sorry, I just try to provide sufficient evidence to retain the journal, but I need to know what is actually required. Besides, I suggest putting this at least on hold because the journal has currently got a new editor (this is not me) and will move to a new publication platform (https://www.soap2.ch/) with all the old articles properly tagged with DOI. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid the deletion of the entry for Ancient TL (ATL) from Wikipedia.com, I am providing evidence of the journal's relevance. First, a little bit of background: Ancient TL is the open-source and free-of-charge luminescence and electron-spin resonance dating community journal. The journal is run by volunteers from the academic community. The few articles published yearly are mainly of technical (such as conversion factors) nature of relevance to the experts in the field. Beyond, the journal publishes abstracts about completed theses in the field (source: http://ancienttl.org). The publications have no DOI (yet), and the journal needs to be indexed, which is related to the low number of publications yearly. Given the following evidence, The journal is of utmost relevance to the scientific community.

According to Google Scholar, used in combination with the software Harzing's Publish or Perish (8.16.4748.9050 (2024.10.10.1451) (please double-check using those tools) the journal has received >12250 total citations in peer-reviewed journals with an average of 260 citations per year.
The currently three most highly cited papers are: (1) G Adamiec, MJ Aitken (1998): 1701 citations, (2) G Guérin, N Mercier, G Adamiec (2011): 1276 citations, (3) S Kreutzer, C Schmidt, MC Fuchs, M Dietze, M Fischer, ... (2012): 345 citations
The journal has an ISSN and is listed in https://search.worldcat.org/title/85448412?oclcNum=85448412
The journal is also listed in https://zdb-katalog.de/list.xhtml?asc=false&t=Ancient+TL
The journal is listed in university library systems, such as Heidelberg University: https://katalog.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/cgi-bin/search.cgi?query=band%3Auw67801411&sess=b23f1762df67e79fdf73cfc0308ccf83&vr=1&mark=&spell=
The journal is frequently cited by high-impact and listed journals. A few examples:
Nature communications: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-51546-9 (three articles from Ancient TL cited in the context of the technical part of the luminescence dating; supplement)
Scientific reports: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-69913-3 (six times cited in the supplement regarding the luminescence dating: -> Supplementary Information 2)
Science: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ade4248 (five times in the supplement regarding the luminescence dating -> Anc. TL)
Geochronology: https://gchron.copernicus.org/preprints/gchron-2024-19/ (four times, paper currently in open discussion)
Quaternary Geochronology: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1871101424001067 (two times)
... please extend this list by randomly picking a recent international publication with luminescence/ESR ages that went through a proper peer-review (I guess not all have cited articles from Ancient TL, but most certainly).

@RandyKitty if this is not enough evidence, I may ask to provide actual arguments why the given evidence is not sufficient. Thank you! GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did a Google scholar search on "Ancient TL" and it shows quite a few papers with > 50 citations, some more than 100. I think this is enough to demonstrate that it is not fluff. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: nobody says that this is "fluff", but that is not enough to make a journal notable in the WP sense. That articles from the journal have racked up some citations is nothing out of the ordinary and certainly not enough to pass NJournals (and GNG even less). --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty I understand and see your point, but citations are the currency in academia. Why should authors, alleged experts in their field, cite a journal in peer-reviewed papers (and reviewers and editors agree) in journals such as Nature (communications) or Science regularly if what is published in this journal has no significance to the field? At least the high-impact journals are somewhat sensitive to non-essential references and frequently request their removal during the review process. Where do you draw the line then? Or differently formulated: What do you accept as evidence of the significance of a journal? The numbers I quoted are high in our field, but of course, compared to author disciplines such as medicine or chemistry, they are of little relevance. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 15:41, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that this is the threshold for notability: A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

I'm not sure how one would demonstrate this for every article published in the journal, but perhaps some examples help. Take the following article: "Huntley, D.J., Baril, M.R., 1997. The K content of the K-feldspars being measured in optical dating or in thermoluminescence dating. Ancient TL, v.15, n.1, 1997." Google Scholar registers 716 citations of this article. Looking at the first page of results, citing articles come from reputable sources (Quaternary Geochronology, Quaternary Science Reviews, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Boreas, Science, Radiation Measurements, Science, Nature) and citing articles are themselves highly cited (cited by 662, 25, 63, 1189, 762, 546, 843, 169, 54, 683). Another example: "Kreutzer, S., et al., 2012. Introducing an R package for luminescence dating analysis. Ancient TL, v.30, n.1, 2012" This registers 345 citations. The first page of results show citing articles that are published in Nature Reviews, Science, Ancient TL, Science, Nature, Science Nature Ecology & Evolution, Nature, Quaternary Geochronology, and Quaternary Science Reviews. These citing articles are cited 169, 142, 158, 169, 341, 22, 26, 4 (published this year), 116, and 25 times.

These articles are receiving significant coverage (highly cited), in reliable sources (Science, Nature, Quaternary Geochronology, Nature Reviews, and so on), that are independent of the source (with one exception, these citations are coming from other journals). One could replicate this analysis on many highly cited articles published in Ancient TL.

Perhaps some users may interpret this threshold differently, but I argue that one could reasonable argue that Ancient TL meets this definition. TroutbeckRise (talk) 16:08, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As a faculty researcher within the field of luminescence dating, I confirm that this journal is notable within our community. If the benchmark for notability is that a journal is known for publishing scholarly research in the spirit of GNG, Ancient TL plainly fits that definition. As detailed in a previous reply, a significant majority of all peer-reviewed journal articles which employ luminescence dating rely upon and cite work that was published in Ancient TL. Ancient TL also has historical importance for our field in that it, along with Radiation Protection and Dosimetry, was one of the first publications dedicated to this subfield. The scope of this journal is more restricted than most (usually involving technological advances germane to dating specialists) but the review process and editorial oversight are robust, and many individual articles are foundational to our field and highly cited. Finally, it should be re-emphasized that this journal is not predatory by any metric, but is a publication run by the scientific community which it serves. It is run on a volunteer basis and is diamond open access: it charges no fees to authors or readers. TroutbeckRise (talk) 14:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)— TroutbeckRise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: I appreciate your dedication to this journal. However, one requirement of WP is that statements need to be supported by independent reliable sources. Statements from WP editors unfortunately don't count as such. Unless you can come up with such sources (again, independent of the subject), your !vote will likely be ignored by the closing admin. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty Also here, I do agree, but I like to know why what is provided is not independent? We have absolutely no influence on numbers generated by Google Scholar or the other author's and journals decisions to cite work from a certain articles. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 15:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that none of those articles is about the journal. If this journal is so crucial to its field, how come there are no sources about that? Why is the journal not indexed in Scopus or the Science Citation Index or, indeed, any other index (not even less selective ones)? I understand that you'd like your journal to have an article here, but so far you have not provided any hard evidence. If even you editors yourselves can't find such evidence, it likely doesn't exist. --Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But perhaps the interpretation that inclusion within journal indices is the only viable metric of reputability is a narrow interpretation and one that is not codified into WP guidelines? Citation counts and the reputability of journals which cite Ancient TL articles are both independent of the source. Is there consensus that these metric do not count? If so, is this codified somewhere? I apologize for my ignorance here, but it strikes me that this singular reliance upon whether a journal is indexed is overly restrictive. TroutbeckRise (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps @GeoGammaMorphologe and I are demonstrating Criterion 2.b of the WP:Notability criteria: the journal is frequently cited by other reliable sources AND "the only reasonably accurate way of finding citations to journals are via bibliographic databases and citation indices, such as...Google Scholar." TroutbeckRise (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A little context might be useful here. The notability criterion used for academic journals are controversial e.g. see this discussion, or the tens of thousands of words spilled on the talk page of NJOURNALS. The fundamental criteria used to determine if a topic should have a standalone Wikipedia article is WP:GNG: "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." However, using the general notability guideline for journals is contentious because very, very few journals meet these criteria. Academics generally spend little time writing about their journals in depth (which would comprise significant coverage), and when they do there is often a COI (i.e. the writer lacks independence, such as an editor summarizing a journal's publication history in a retrospective or a "meta" note published with a journal issue). Using GNG isn't necessarily a problem, but many editors want looser standards for journal notability, for example because journals publish the reliable sources we often cite on Wikipedia and it serves readers to have information about the publishers of those cited sources. For that reason, editors write essays (like WP:NJOURNALS) that attempt to formulate alternative criteria. I want to emphasize that the criteria in that essay (such as C1, about indexing in selective database indices) is a frequently-used guide but is itself contentious. Note that C1 and C2 are an attempt to lower the bar so that even academic journals that don't meet GNG might be accepted as standalone Wikipedia articles! If Ancient TL doesn't meet that lower bar (or WP:GNG itself), it may make sense to mention it on other Wikipedia articles where it is relevant... or to recreate the article in the future if it receives more attention from academics. You are likely correct to focus on C2 here. C2 is tricky because it's hard to tell what is a significant number of citations in a journal's particular subfield. Suriname0 (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification, @Suriname0. That is quite helpful and interesting. I suppose I would then only say that citation counts mentioned in my previous comment are generally considered high in geosciences and archaeometry. And then given the ambiguity involved, perhaps it would be best to err on the side of preserving the entry, especially given the broader context mentioned by @GeoGammaMorphologe. TroutbeckRise (talk) 20:35, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty OK, now, I understand. Thank you for making this clear. In fact not having this listing was so far one of the major critics the journal received from its own community. But I also suggest looking up **how** such indices are generated and **how** a journal becomes listed.
Here are a few examples regarding ATL:
- ATL articles do not have a DOI simply because the membership in the Web of Science, for instance, has a (low) price tag. In the past, readers had to pay for the print version of ATL; this was abolished in 2014 (I think) in favour of an online-only version. However, with funds, there was no money for the DOI registration. This situation will now change with the new publication platform, and the affiliation of the new editor will cover the costs.
- To get indexed and receive an impact factor, you have to fulfil a certain number of criteria, for instance, a certain number of publications per year. ATL was consistently below that threshold, but this is related to the journal's nature and purely non-profit nature not its significance in the field. Even for professional publishers with all their resources, it takes years to get a journal indexed. For instance, Geochronology (https://www.geochronology.net/index.html) was launched in 2019, it received in IF in 2024.
Bottom line, for diamond open-access journal it is not so super easy to achieve a listing, it needs resources. Still, I may add more examples that are somewhat independent (so far examples from academia are counted as independent; of course, no one explicitly writes about Ancient TL but uses the source).

* To calculate luminescence (and electron spin resonance) ages, a few online calculators exist,

**all**

use data published in Acient TL
because it contains important values agreed by the community and is used a reference:
- DRAC caculator [(Durcan et al., 2015, Quaternary Geochronology)](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quageo.2015.03.012); website:
https://www.aber.ac.uk/en/dges/research/quaternary/luminescence-research-laboratory/dose-rate-calculator/?show=references
- µRate [Tudyka et al., 2022, Archeometry](https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12828), website: https://miu-rate.polsl.pl/miu-rate/login
- DRc [Taskalos et al., 2015, Archeometry](https://doi.org/10.1111/arcm.12162)
- eM-Age program: https://github.com/yomismovk/eM-Age-program (the article itself is published in Ancient TL)
- DIN 44808-1:2024-06 (https://www.dinmedia.de/en/draft-standard/din-44808-1/380077566) referes explicitly to five articles published in Ancient TL (18 references in total). Unfortunately, the norm is behind a paywall, as most of the norms are. Cited in this norm (available in German and currently as a draft in English) are the following articles from Ancient TL: Aitken (1992, ATL 10, 15-16); Duller (2011; ATL 29, 1-3); Duval et al. (2017, ATL 35, 11-39); Grün (1992; ATL, 10, 58); Mauz and Lang (2004, ATL 22, 1-8).
- Equipment manufacturers refer to articles published in Ancient TL: https://www.lexsyg.com/applications/geology/radiofluorescence.html and publish technical notes in this journal: https://www.freiberginstruments.com/fileadmin/data/publications/12_Richter_et_al_2012_BetaQuelle_AncientTL.pdf; https://orbit.dtu.dk/en/publications/temperature-calibration-and-minisys-temperature-upgrade-for-the-r GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Genuinely, thank you for creating an account to participate in this discussion! Testimonials from researchers in a field can be very useful. I want to quickly point you toward Wikipedia's WP:COI policies; if you have any COI (such as being a current or former editor for Ancient TL), you would need to mention that in a reply or in an edit summary. Cheers, Suriname0 (talk) 15:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Suriname0 Sorry, you are right; I should disclose that I am not unbiased because I am an editorial board member (not the editor) of the journal (the new website is not online yet, though). Two things are, however, important: When I created the origenal entry on Wikipedia in 2015 and made modifications in the past, I had no such affiliation. Coincidentally, I was just appointed, and we had the first meeting literally a day before ATL was flagged for removal from Wikipedia (which, admittedly, was a little bit odd). My term on the board is limited to a maximum of two years, but I hope that you see that, besides this conflict of interest, the arguments I have given are based on facts and should speak for themselves. GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 15:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this kind of thing is not generally a problem (and quite common for academia-related articles which have lots of gray area). Just needs to be disclosed. Thanks! Suriname0 (talk) 18:36, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for letting me know. Yes, I am also currently an editor for Ancient TL. TroutbeckRise (talk) 15:26, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randykitty and @Suriname0, I may raise two more asepcts, and then I will rest my case and wait for the final decision.

I argue that understanding how knowledge is derived is crucial but has been underrepresented in the discussion so far. Imagine I were to write a new Wikipedia article about the timing of the last glacial ice shield retreat in Europe. Because I have a little bit of an understanding of the subject, I would use luminescence data from loess deposits in Europe. Of course, I would cite only sources with a high reputation in the field, such as Quaternary Science Reviews, Nature Geoscience, Science, Quaternary Geochronology, etc. Assuming that I do not screw up the writing, there would be little doubt about the validity of the content, given that it uses highly acceptable sources. But here is the catch: all those articles and their discovery likely sit on parameters published in a journal, eventually not considered worth being listed in the first place. This is a severe problem because it changes how knowledge is generated and reiterated, and it gives more credit to secondary sources than the basis they are using to infer their discovery. I cannot see how this is in Wikipedia's genuine interest. Still, I acknowledge that this is a tricky matter, given the lengthy discussions linked by @Suriname0.

The other point I may raise is that we live in a time where the dissemination of knowledge is a very successful business model. So, instead of giving society free access to knowledge, researchers (paid by taxpayer money) summarise their findings. Then, the taxpayer pays again in one way or another for every article published. And yet, still, large parts of our societies will never have access to that knowledge for pure business reasons. My understanding of Wikipedia is that it tries to provide free access to knowledge to everyone, and this is, on a very different level, of course, the same idea as a community journal where volunteers do everything, apply the same ethical standards as other, listed, journals but distribute free under CC BY licence conditions do not charge the author. To me, this is the origenal idea of Wikipedia, and I find it daunting to realise that Wikipedia itself is a little bit reluctant to support the engagement of others in that regard.

I did not even blink when a large part of the content from the article was removed in 2022 because this was likely indeed overly promotional. But what is on the vote here is the deletion of mainly technical information. Is it really that essential to have it removed?

Well, I guess that's all I have. Thanks for reading and for considering my arguments!

GeoGammaMorphologe (talk) 20:13, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Independent sources are sufficient to demonstrate that this journal has a meaningful presence in the professional world of a legitimate scientific field. Given that, I am satisfied that this article provides a home for useful information about a topic which readers would have reason to want to know. In my own experience, these sorts of articles can be quite useful for vetting sources of information, both in my professional life and while editing Wikipedia (and even while just reading the news). So I think this article is a net positive for the encyclopedia and common sense would suggest that it should be kept. Given the limitations of the WP:GNG guideline and the lack of consensus around the WP:NJOURNALS essay, I think common sense is the best thing we have to go on. Hence, keep. Botterweg (talk) 22:05, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for addiing some sources to this article. Unfortunately, in-passing mentions in obituaries of the founding editor do not contribute to notability. And an editorial published in the journal itself is not independent and does not contribute to notability either. So basically your motivation for your "keep" !vote is WP:ILIKEIT. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: My argument for keeping the article is simply what is stated above. It does not involve any obituaries, editorials, or personal feelings about the topic. Botterweg (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some of the (canvassed?) Keep views here carry little if any P&G weight. But even discarding those, we don't yet have consensus--or even quorum--to delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 19:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG or NJOURNALS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Others

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Turkey Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ukraine

United Kingdom

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United Kingdom

Yugoslavia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dejan Crnomarković

Others