Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 December 31

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      January 3 (Fri)      January 2 (Thu)      January 1 (Wed)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

Ancient Noronshasht (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Hoax. zero sources. I continue processing nonsense that Numulunj pilgae (talk · contribs) pumped into Wikipedia who was (ab)using the sutuayion that nobody cares about Mordvins/Mokha/Erzya in enwiki. --Altenmann >talk 23:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Archaeology, Geography, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• @Altenmann: Could you do a better job describing why this is a hoax? I'm having difficulty finding most of the sources, but there is at least one article that is web-readable in Russian (Ikonnikov and Baisheva) which might discuss this, there are a few maps, but I don't know Russian and can't figure this out further. SportingFlyer T·C 04:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SportingFlyer: It is a hoax because it is invented. The article of Ikonnikov and Baisheva is about the Goldeh Horde town of Mokhshi in place of the village of Narovchat (Russian: Наровча́т, Moksha: Норзяд). References are fake.For example it says Noronshasht was the capital of the medieval Moksha kingdom Murunza referring to Карамзин Н. М. История государства Российского: - which says nothing of the kind. In Moksha language the village name is mdf:Норзяд and historical names are Нуриджан (Наручать, Наручадь (Nuridzhan ( Naruchat , Naruchad )). The Greek name νορονςαςτ is a fabrication --Altenmann >talk 04:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you. In that case, I'm leaning delete, but again I can't read the sources, so the closer can feel free to discount my !vote if this is somehow incorrect. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a made up in one day with a dash of WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 02:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Federation droid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

MOS:DABMENTION: None of these is called "federation droid". The closest you get is "Trade Federation droid [army]" for the Star Wars battle droid, which is not ambiguous. Paradoctor (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. Paradoctor (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither entry is called a "federation droid". QuicoleJR (talk) 22:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence for the term. --Altenmann >talk 23:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - mishmash of multiple WP:CRUFT entries Waterfelt (talk) 23:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This fictional term is not fit to keep as disamb page. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:OR and WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and as @Shooterwalker said, fails SIGCOV. No reason to think this piece is reliable Taksoh17 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR/CRUFT. This has reached a SNOW Close situation. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 13:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mitch Kern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It appears that this Calgary-based photographer and academic does not meet NARTIST nor GNG for inclusion. It has been almost entirely edited by single purpose accounts that have only edited this article along with a series of WP:SPA IPs from Calgary that added unsourced personal/professional content (now largely cleaned up). The sourcing is almost entirely non-independent primary sources. The article was recently PROD'ed, then de-prodded by one of the IPs. Then IPs from the same range twice removed two maintenance tags (notability, primary sources) without fixing the issues. There is one article on him in the Real Estate section of a local lifestyle paper which is largely an interview (primary). This leaves one good independent source in McCleans on a pinhole camera he uses with his students. I can't find anything to substantiate NACADEMIC, zero hits on Google Scholar. Basically the article shows that he is a photographer with an MFA degree, and a teaching job WP:MILL, but is he notable per WP-criteria? Bringing it here for the community to decide. Netherzone (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Artists, Visual arts, Photography, and Canada. Netherzone (talk) 21:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No notability of any sort. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete fails GNG, NARTIST, NACADEMIC. No acceptable sources are available that would indicate notability for this person. I am not seeing anything that shows this subject qualifies for an independent article on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 23:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any evidence that his work is in the collections of multiple notable museums, has been the subject of significant non-local press, or would otherwise pass WP:ARTIST. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - I see this reliable source, but it falls short of significant coverage in multiple sources. Bearian (talk) 02:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corentin Rahier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and France. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The one secondary source already in the article (source 2) combined with [[1]] and [[2]] appear to contain enough coverage of Rahier to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please note that the 2017 Junior Worlds Field Guide: Ice Dance article is from a blog site run by a single person. As such it is most likely not deemed a reliable source per WP:SPORTBASIC. The other two sources look okay at a glance. Alvaldi (talk) 13:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good catch there. Let'srun (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Last AfD was 17 years ago and no consensus. I'm not seeing any extensive coverage to meet GNG or WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Scotland. LibStar (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. See below. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Google Books link above produces false positives only. Google News link above produces single sentence mentions, or people claiming to have been part of the orchestra. Searched The Wikipedia Library, no results for WSSSO, one result for the full name, which is a single sentence mention in this article. Google Scholar produces three results, of which both the second result (download link) and the third result both only mention the orchestra twice while referencing the research done by the first result. The first result is the only SIGCOV I could find. The researchers administered an online survey to 41 WSSSO youth in 2009 containing many Likert-style questions about their experience, and three open-ended questions: "why did you decide to take part ... why do you continue to take part ... what would stop you taking part? The article is entitled "Advanced youth music ensembles: Experiences of, and reasons for, participation", so it seems to discuss the experiences of being in an ensemble, rather than being a comprehensive history of WSSSO. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - found 32 results on Newspapers.com. First result is SIGCOV, founding of the orchestra. But the rest of the results are more sketchy and WP:ROUTINE - advertisements, concert announcements and single sentence mentions (Person X is joining the orchestra / the orchestra is performing at location Y). I do not think this is enough. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Train-truck accidents are very common in the United States. The only reason this specific incident got so much coverage is because there happened to be some politicians on the train. Cutlass^Ciera 21:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Virginia. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NOTNEWS, WP:SENSATIONAL, LASTING Agree with nom. This is a WP:ROUTINE event that received coverage in some news media outlets because some politicians were involved. Coverage was short lived after the accident, and this event had no significant impact. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This one is pretty well written and sourced. Regardless of the Not news and other linked reminders ... Category:Railway accidents and incidents in the United States by state or territory is evidence that these disaster articles are an accepted part of Wikipedia. — Maile (talk) 01:30, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This did have lasting coverage, including coverage that actually occurred over a year after the event - which is already currently in the article - and as such the two arguments for deletion don't apply. SportingFlyer T·C 01:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While notability is not inherited, it can be conferred, and the fact this was a special chartered train - not there happened to be some politicans on [it] - means this was notable, and received coverage accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being a "special train" isn't grounds for being notable. If one of the Cass Shays hit a car and someone died there wouldn't be nearly this much coverage. Cutlass^Ciera 18:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It may be a common occurrence, but this particular incident was well documented, both by the NTSB and the media. There are numerous public domain images of the incident, and it is covered with extensive detail in both the court and NTSB records. Also it is notable that a heritage train set was involved in the incident, and it was not a regularly scheduled passenger train. Cocoaguy (talk) 18:45, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Being "well documented" doesn't mean it's notable. A bunch of routine coverage of a type of accident that is extremely common and run of the mill just because American news media is known for being keen to report on things that will get eyes, while not necessarily very notable. Basically every accident involving a train and truck is investigated by either the NTSB or the local police. Being a "heritage train" is also not grounds to being notable. Reading and Northern 425 hit a car and there isn't an article on that minor incident. Cutlass^Ciera 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per prev noms. Article name does have grammar error in it and if kept should be moved to 2018 Crozet, Virginia train crash without the the second comma after Virginia. -

Epluribusunumyall (talk) 07:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Epluribusunumyall: The second comma is correct - see MOS:GEOCOMMA. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535 I get what MOS:GEOCOMMA is trying to relay, but my reading of it is more in regards to sentences within an article and not the title of an article. For a title it doesn't really make grammatical sense - in my opinion - to have the second comma create a parenthetical of just "train crash," as it leaves context lacking from the rest of the title sentence. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Comilla bus crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A WP:News article based on a brief burst of news coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Bangladesh. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:LASTING. Cutlass^Ciera 21:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Sighetu Marmației explosions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:LASTING, no sustained coverage Cutlass^Ciera 21:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frog Detective (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No topics with the exact title. GilaMonster536 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 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 December 24. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:27, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:37, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Seems there is more than one way to do a dab. Some like this one. Here's an example: Abu Hanifa (disambiguation). There are enough like this one, that I don't think it's likely to be deleted on style. — Maile (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Maile66: "Abu Hanifa" is a given name in that example, and given names are generally tolerated as partial title matches. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, since Frog Detective is currently a redirect. --Richard Yin (talk) 09:17, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Frog Detective is a primary topic redirect to The Haunted Island, a Frog Detective Game. The disambiguation page is not a valid one, and is not required, because both other entries are WP:Partial title matches and are mentioned in the lead of the primary topic article. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Shhhnotsoloud. Unnecessary dab, violates several guidelines. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - exactly same subject in different media. --Altenmann >talk 00:14, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2005 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

1998 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1999 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2000 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2001 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2002 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2003 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2004 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2006 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2007 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2009 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2010 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2011 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2013 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014 Danish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Danish Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and Denmark. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Danish Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Mirpur district, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Muzaffarabad District, India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

These articles do not satisfy WP:GNG as there is insufficient independent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources to justify their existence. The claim of the districts being part of India de jure primarily relies on sources mentioning the Indian government’s release of maps in 2019 depicting the districts as part of India. Separate articles are unnecessary for this aspect, as the existing Mirpur District, Muzaffarabad District and Kashmir conflict articles can address India’s inclusion of these districts on its maps as part of the broader Kashmir dispute. These articles were previously CSD’d, but the author has repeatedly restored them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Pakistan, and India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Jammu and Kashmir. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unreliable sources. Lacks notability. Previously deleted article was restored without any discussion. Wikibear47 (talk) 16:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: it is common practice in Wikipedia to list the de-jure administrative divisions of countries, even if these are not de-facto the case. Reliable sources support the existence of this administrative division as a de-jure administrative unit within Indian maps. For similar examples, see Mêdog County, Lhünzê County, Taiwan Province, People's Republic of China, and Committee for the Five Northern Korean Provinces. --Rvd4life (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How do these examples apply here? I do not see any duplicate or redundant WP:POVFORKS for Medog County and Lhunze County like the ones you created for Mirpur District and Muzaffarabad District. The example of Taiwan Province is not relevant here as it represents a larger entity, similar to Azad Kashmir. Are there any articles on smaller units of a disputed territory, like the ones you created for these districts, which are smaller parts of a larger disputed region such as Azad Kashmir? Furthermore, the last example you provided pertains to a governing body, not a territory. Why do you believe that creation of the disputed maps by India cannot be addressed within existing articles such as Kashmir conflict, Mirpur District, or Muzaffarabad District? Why is there a need for separate WP:POVFORKS for this? By your reasoning, we should also have articles like Ladakh, Pakistan, Srinagar District, Pakistan, and Baramulla District, Pakistan, etc., as the latter two are smaller units of a larger disputed territory controlled by India. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally agree with Sheriff's nomination and his reasons described above for deletion of this article...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: duplicate articles for the districts of Azad Kashmir administered by Pakistan. As parts of the larger Kashmir region, Wikipedia do not need separate articles for the areas administered by Pakistan but claimed by India and nor for those administered by India but claimed by Pakistan. Through inclusion to maps, these are similar to older claims by both countries over the regions of Kashmir without any administrative control. The dispute and claims are already mentioned in articles: Mirpur District and Muzaffarabad District per Ind-Pak consensus of 2019, plus thoroughly explained at the main articles regarding the Kashmir region; Kashmir (specifically in section:Current status and political divisions) and Kashmir conflict (for instance the content: map legality starts with, "As with other disputed territories, each government issues maps depicting their claims in Kashmir territory, regardless of actual control.") MSLQr (talk) 06:01, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Wikipedia maintains a series of articles about claimed territories of a country, though the article needs to be expanded for further relevance.Xoocit (talk) 10:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Xoocit I have addressed your logic here in my response to Rvd4life. Kindly review it and consider changing your vote to delete. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 17:40, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Sheriff | ☎ 911 and MSLQr (talk Behappyyar (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Kyulev (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Seems like this person is not notable - no sources, no specific achievements. OSvsOS (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bulgaria. OSvsOS (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Article definitely needs improvement, but a cursory search turned up multiple independent news sources chronicling his death and important elements of his life that satisfy WP:GNG, including The Guardian, The New York Times, and The Economist. I just added those references to the article as a start. Waterfelt (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. bg:Емил Кюлев plenty of content and sources. --Altenmann >talk 00:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Majale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the sources Fail WP:GNG and WP: SIGCOV cannot be established. The sources are either primary sources like this and this. The rest were written by the news media she manages and they also lack WP: SIGCOV. Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Kenya. Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom and could not find sources FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a lack of significant coverage independent of the subject. If you find anything deeper in the Internet, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Most sources are primary and are not independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG Megan B.... ^{It’s all coming to me} till the end of time 13:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vox Talent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I can't find any significant coverage of this business. Seems to fail WP:NCORP. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Business. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 18:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Can't find any independent references that would satisfy WP:GNG. Waterfelt (talk) 00:32, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as doesn`t meet GNG --Moarnighar (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack C. Mancino (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article about an Hungarian-born British artist, actor and musician is poorly sourced. Large sections of text are unreferenced. There are seven inline citations, of which five are to IMDb. The one to the Chicago Tribune is geo-locked for me. The other just says "Feszültség és szabadság Lisszabonban", and has been tagged as needing a full citation since 2020. Googling the phrase led me to https://holdkatlan.hu/index.php/szemle/lapszemle/3559-feszultseg-es-szabadsag-lisszabonban which doesn't appear to mention this person, although I do not understand Hungarian. The list of external links doesn't include any reliable sources which could be added as references. I have carried out WP:BEFORE for Jack C. Mancino, Jack Mancino and the alternative name given, Balogh Csaba, and not found references to add. There is an artist called Csaba Balogh who may be notable, but his year and place of birth are different. I don't think this article demonstrates that Mancino meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NARTIST, WP:NACTOR or WP:NMUSICIAN. Tacyarg (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Bands and musicians, Hungary, United Kingdom, and England. Tacyarg (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! 1. please clarify which "Large sections of text are unreferenced". The newly inserted sections are films and music will be sourced soon. IMDb is a good source for referencing filmographies. Can Soundcloud, Amazon, Spotify or Apple Music or any other streaming site for music be used for referencing discographies? Thank you for helping. 2. It is possible that the owner of the referenced link has changed their site that was correct when it was inserted. This page has been on Wikipedia more than 15 years. Karlmayer5000 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The whole of the Biography section is unreferenced, as is the sub-section Early classical stage under Work, and the sub-section Music in the section Acting credits and accolades. IMDb is not a reliable source: see WP:IMDb. The other sites you mention are not reliable sources, but I don't believe discographies need sourcing - as with bibliographies, the existence of the works can be assumed. Tacyarg (talk) 21:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thank you very much. Can you please point me web platforms that qualifies as good source of references to understand the policies. Karlmayer5000 (talk) 06:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the reliable sources link and the guidance on your Talk page. The teahouse may also be helpful. Tacyarg (talk) 07:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack C. Mancino has written several comic books. Can I link them as references in the section I am about to make on this page called: Author?

Source link: https://www.amazon.com/stores/Jack-C-Mancino/author/B0BZJGN477?ref=ap_rdr&isDramIntegrated=true&shoppingPortalEnabled=true NorAnditoth5 (talk) 10:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is not a reliable source. If there are reviews of these books in reliable sources, those would be appropriate references. Tacyarg (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Can't find any significant coverage anywhere. The first citation refers to this site, which does not provide significant coverage. The Tribune piece just contains a trivial mention. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 08:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the Chicago Tribune article he was mentioned by the writer in connection with a Hollywood photographer's art painting collection and in the article Mr. Mancino's works were positively compared to Jean-Michel Basquiat who was one of America's most iconic abstract artists. 37.76.13.207 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please log in and only use a single account when commenting. (Assuming you are User:Karlmayer5000 and/or User:NorAnditoth5) The artist was only mentioned in a single sentence. A brief mention by a photographer is a clear example of trivial coverage, nowhere near the significant coverage requirement for a source to count towards notability as Wikipedia defines it. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have a message from Wiki not to comment with Karl Mayer,,,I dont know the reason. You guys look like just want to delete the article anyway so go ahead! Karlmayer5000 (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedia cant accept bio from the artists own mouth, that really needs an update, this article was created in 2009 used by wikipedia, there are many articles with much fewer sources still on wiki. Wiki must be about info and not about notability. Not every artist pays for mainstream articles to get attention. 2001:4C4E:28C4:3000:5DBE:155A:35DD:2FCE (talk) 08:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to find reliable sourcing for the biographical or artistic claims made in this article. Source assessment of current sources below. --WomenArtistUpdates (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTK2uNBdUZE			self published interview	✘ No
Feszültség és szabadság Lisszabonba			incomplete citation	? Unknown
https://www.chicagotribune.com/2013/05/18/working-art-3/			paywall	? Unknown
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt14840232/			IMDB	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt8503240/			IMDB	✘ No
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt13094566/			IMDB	✘ No
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/148014120-felix-gruber			Goodreads listing	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

• Comment. NorAnditoth5 (talk · contribs), I'm a bit baffled by the reference you have just added to muveszkek.hu. When I put the article through translation, it says, in part, "Born in the heart of the Renaissance era, Mancino was an individual who dared to dream, to ask questions and dared to create". Mancino was not born during the Renaissance - is this a reliable source? Tacyarg (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source is by the Hungarian Ministry of Culture and Innovation. They probably need an update on this detail (they probably will correct this) because, before he turned to abstract art, Mancino started studying the Renaissance era (though he didn't belong to that era, he was born in 1968) He only learned from the artists who belonged to that era and used that experience in his early works, so he was compared to those artistic works in the early stage. They probably wanted to say (or just got lost in translation)," he was like a Renaissance man from the Renaissance era." NorAnditoth5 (talk) 08:37, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I take the point that there may be translation issues, but still doubting the source. It also says (again, subject to translation issues), that "As an influential Renaissance architect, Jack S. Mancino had a significant impact on artists and innovators, including Hungarian artists. Among them, Géza Mészöly and Viktor Madarász stand out as prominent representatives of Hungarian art life, who could draw inspiration from Mancino". Both of those artists died before Mancino was born. Tacyarg (talk) 08:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fateh Muhammad (Captain) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article lacks evidence of notability. It is almost entirely sourced to primary sources. There is one secondary source (Condon) but it merely states that the viceroy complimented Muhammad on the smartness of the battalion and presented him with a walking stick. RegentsPark (comment) 18:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. RegentsPark (comment) 18:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added Newspaper references to the King's Indian Orderly Officers section. There is also a newspaper reference for his appointment as Sir Phillip Chetwode's Aide-de-Camp which I will add by tomorrow. Daniyal Raja (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Daniyal Raja: The Glasgow Herald source doesn't mention him. Could you please provide the exact quote from the Western Daily Press? The citation is behind a paywall of sorts. RegentsPark (comment) 18:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very clear mention of him in both The Glasgow Herald references.

On the May 13, 1931 edition, his name is stated on page 15 under the title "The Court". Paragraph 3 says "The King received Lieutenant-Colonel G.B. Howell, 19th King George's Own Lancers (Officers in Charge) and the King's Indian Orderly Officers as follows, who were presented to His Majesty by Lieutenant-Colonel Stewart Patterson (Political Aide-de-Camp to the secretary state of India):-- Subadar-Major and Honorary Lieutenant Fateh Muhammad; Sardar Bahadur, 3rd-12th Frontier Force Regiment (Sikhs).........".

The other Glasgow Herald mention is April 7, 1931, page 2 under the title "King's Indian Orderly Officers" (just above the solutions of of yesterday's puzzles).

That paragraph says " The King's Indian Orderly Officers for this year will, it is officially announced, be Subadar-Major and Honorary Lieutenant Fateh Muhammad, 3rd-12th Frontier Force Regiment; Subadar-Major Rahimdad Khan, 1st-6th Rajputana Rifles........."

Both the Glasgow Herald references lead you exactly to these 2 pages. I don't know how it's looking on your end but they lead me directly to those 2 pages with his name his name or the section highlighted.

As for the Western Daily Press one, It is unfortunately behind a paywall but it states in full

"NEW INDIAN ORDERLIES ARRIVAL AT PLYMOUTH OF KING'S VETERAN ATTENDANTS

The four new Indian orderlies of the King arrived at Plymouth yesterday in the P. and O. Ranpura. They are Subadar Maj. and Hon. Lieut. Fateh Mohamed Khan, Resaldar Major Malik Khan, Resaldar Painda Khan, and Resalder Rahun-Dad Khan.

They proceeded to London in the Indian mail steamer. Their combined Army services amount to well over a hundred years.

Members of the Royal Commission on Labour in India also arrived in the Ranpura and proceeded to London in the liner." Daniyal Raja (talk) 19:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and apologies for missing the references in the Glasgow Herald. Unfortunately, all these references are merely stating facts relating to Muhammad. It is unclear if any of these are notable. --RegentsPark (comment) 19:33, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no evidence of notability, no good indepth sources about him. Fram (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as nom mentions, there should be more notability in the form of secondary sourcing with significant coverage of the individual.

Someguywhosbored (talk) 11:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Apparao Jadhav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I draftified it once, see [8] and it was moved to mainspace by the creator again see [9]. I haven't found any RS in the article and the subject clearly does not pass WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Engineering, and India. Taabii (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also couldn't find any coverage of this person or their company in reliable sources. And this is clearly promotional - the claim that they wrote a "famous poem" seems to be sourced only to a) the poem itself and b) their appearance on a podcast. The other sources have unclear authorship and clearly don't support the claim that they are a "rising hero" in Indian entrepreneurship. Clearly not notable. MCE89 (talk) 19:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep I have Seen all RS. these all matches with WP guidlines.and its a early stage entreprenure and i hope that will help this entreprenure to his upcoming life.i also cheack his bussiness site this is awsome its a storytelling platform for childrens or teenagers world changing concept to bulid character of upcoming generations.that man deserves it.to be on WP.some times we have to go beyond the past rules or belif to make something great change in society StoryReader1999 (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Struck vote by sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• • Hi User:StoryReader1999, I couldn't help but notice that your comments on this AfD were your very first edit on Wikipedia. How did you find out about this AfD? If you have a connection to the author or subject of this article you should disclose it. MCE89 (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    account is new due to some technical fault my account is vanished. so i'm not new on WP.and i dont have any connection with this article or subject.i found it here view_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Wikipedia:XfD_today i have contributed in verious articles StoryReader1999 (talk) 20:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep this page is keepable. due to WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. this article is not deletable Pune-Writer (talk) 21:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Struck sock vote.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that commenting on this AfD was User:Pune-Writer's very first edit to Wikipedia as well. MCE89 (talk) 21:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And they have been blocked as a sock of the same person as the struck-out comment above. Spike 'em (talk) 01:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete and salt. Created by a sockpuppet. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete and salt per MCE89, sock-created spam. Cutlass^Ciera 22:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable businessman, 3 of the 4 previous sources on page (which I removed) were written by the subject (linking to his instagram page in footer of website). No other significant RS coverage. Spike 'em (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• As a matter of procedure, I restored the sources. Generally, it's not a good idea to remove things from an article while it is at AfD.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ok, I've merged the refs instead as there were multiple links to the same pages. As a review of the sources:

  • AtoZInsta.com the footer says Copyright 2024 : By - AtoZInsta and clicking on AtoZInsta takes you to subject's Insta page
  • GetExtra is the "about" page of website created by subject, so cannot be used to establish notability.
  • fmmarathi, footer links to same insta page as above, the about us link states the Founder and CEO is the subject.
  • kukufm seems to be a podcast platform, so content is likely UGC.

  Spike 'em (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete This article doesn’t have enough reliable sources to prove the person’s notability. Overall, it feels more promotional than informative. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 05:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Reads like WP:PROMO. All the sources on the page are primary, unreliable and paid publicity. The subject has not made a significant impact and did not make any achievement worthy of notice nationally or internationally. The subject is not notable enough to warrant a full fledged article on himself. RangersRus (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyner Rushing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, notability for actors is not automatically passed just because they've had acting roles -- the test doesn't hinge on listing acting roles, it hinges on showing reliable source coverage about them and their performances to establish the significance of those roles. But this is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability -- IMDb, a YouTube clip and a Q&A interview in which she's answering questions in the first person -- with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage about her shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim than just existing and better sourcing for the significance of her career, but working actors are not automatically exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Alabama. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey thanks for bringing attention to page needing more sources. I added about 10 references - credible news coverage showing she is an actress of notability and needs a Wikipedia page. She is a lead on my favorite Apple TV television show. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 18:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks again for helping me make the page more credible. To sum up, I added about 10 references - credible news coverage showing she is an actress of notability and needs a Wikipedia page. She is a lead on my favorite Apple TV television show. I propose we remove Tyner Rushing from the deletion discussion list. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political handicapping (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article is unsourced and largely duplicative of horse race journalism. There might be a small amount of content we can merge into that article. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 16:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Horse race journalism, per nom and WP:NOPAGE. Sal2100 (talk) 16:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or if not, delete. Even from a sourcing perspective, most potential references to improve the article utilize the language of horse race journalism and not "political handicapping." Waterfelt (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Horse race journalism, same metaphor. --Altenmann >talk 00:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested; see WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taker Bazar High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is no evidence that the school is notable. Searches in English and Bengali found no independent, reliable sources. Begumganj Upazila, the sub-district in which the school is located, would be a poor redirect target because we should not simply list there all of the 95 schools in the upazila. Wikipedia is not a directory of all schools that exist or have ever existed. Worldbruce (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Bangladesh. Worldbruce (talk) 16:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities with BDSM clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTCRITERIA - this is a directory of universities with a specific type of club with no encyclopedic merit past that the club exists. We could perhaps merge the lead into the main article (BDSM). ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no merge/redirect. This is simply something that we shouldn't be cataloging here and is certainly not for a general reading audience or anyone actually attending a school. Nate • (chatter) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Plenty of pages here aren't written for a "general reading audience", whatever that might be; the people joining these clubs are attending schools; Wikipedia is not censored. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NLIST due to multiple sources (starting with the first three currently given in the article) discussing the set as a set. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources alluded to immediately above might justify an article for the overarching topic of BDSM clubs at universities, but not a directory (WP:NOTDIR) of universities that happen to have one at the moment (or ever?). WP:IINFO applies here as well -- even in such a hypothetical article, I'd argue against the inclusion of such a listing within it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  What's "indiscriminate" about this list? It's not a list of all student groups of all types. WP:NOTDIR points to WP:LISTCRITERIA, which is an easy standard to meet here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This doesn't do that, nor is there any particular way that could be done here. The fact that random college X has random student club Y isn't noteworthy. Again, notability of an overall topic is not an automatic license to compile a list of every single example that can be found. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree that the sources could justify an article about BDSM at universities. My problem with this list is that student clubs are so temporary and informal that it seems impossible to produce a useful encyclopedic list of universities that "have a BDSM club" in any real sense. The sources in this list range from very credible (e.g. Columbia University) all the way to the many entries that may well have been jokes (universities often make it really, really easy to 'register' a club!), or that appeared in a student media outlet or directory years ago and probably didn't exist for long. One citation is a full twenty years old - surely it's doubtful whether that club still exists? And several entries seem to be for one-off events rather than actual clubs. I think the nature of student clubs just makes it impossible to have a verifiable, objective inclusion criteria for whether a given university "has a BDSM club" in any meaningful sense. Does the club have to have members? Does it have to hold actual events? Does it be more than one person's short term project? At the moment this is really just a list of trivia about universities where something vaguely BDSM-related has ever been reported, not a verifiable list of universities per WP:LISTCRITERIA where you would actually find a BDSM club. MCE89 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NLIST, like List of countries with McDonald's restaurants or List of typefaces included with macOS does. I Agree with MCE89, that the criteria is a bit vague and should be defined better, but I think that is possible. In opposite to List of chemical compounds with unusual names having a BDSM club is objectively check-able by specified criteria. Nico Düsing (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, doesn't mean this one should too. The McDonald's list is...middling, because there's at least some background info along with the list entries, but the primary sourcing to the company itself is troubling. It would be better off in prose about the company's activities around the world generally. The typeface list is terrible and I would strongly argue for its deletion as well. You're merely stating that it passes NLIST without really explaining why, or addressing the concerns about NOTDIR, IINFO, etc. that have been raised. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Sadiq Malkani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:PROF. This guy is mostly known for naming dubious species of dinosaurs and other prehistoric animals in predatory journals like SCIRP. Looking at his scholar citations shows extensive self-citation and very few citations from independent researchers for the vast majority of his paleontology research papers (with the notable exception of "Origin of Whales from Early Artiodactyls: Hands and Feet of Eocene Protocetidae from Pakistan" published in Science in 2001, but he is only 1 of 5 authors and is not the corresponding author). His research is in general widely ignored by paleontologists and has had little impact on the field. His geology-related citations look very run of the mill and not enough to pass PROF either. Also fails WP:GNG as no significant independent coverage. This story in the Pakistan Express Tribune [10] seems like passing coverage to me and not enough for notability. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science and Pakistan. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 16:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no independent coverage. --Altenmann >talk 00:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination. -SlvrHwk (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PROF. Further evidence of the Enshittification of academic research. Bearian (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yubo Ruan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Limited coverage in mostly poor-quality sources. The Business Insider piece is probably the strongest source in terms of significant coverage and reliability, but even that is questionable. The rest are either trivial mentions or unreliable sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and China. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I would like to point out one of the major contributors of this article appears to be a paid editor finding excuses to remove negative information about Yubo Ruan and OneFootball while expanding their Wikipedia content with questionable sources. 128.100.1.18 (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a perpetually up and coming but actually run of the mill business person. Previously deleted, recreated, and edited by sock puppets. Bearian (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Master (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged years ago in both languages, and the cite is not enough to show notability. Hard to search for English name as is common word. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I added some sources, one of which is a detailed review by Turkish film critic Atilla Dorsay. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 00:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: sources added seem to show the film is notable enough. Thanks! A redirect to a list is warranted; opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 13:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as per the detailed review added to the article and identified above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JOJO (Turkish children's channel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged five years ago as uncited. The cites on the Turkish article are not enough to show that it is notable Chidgk1 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Çukurova Media Group#Defunct properties Nothing here outside of marking its existence and the usual uncited and vandal-vulnerable programming list. Nate • (chatter) 17:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Water Project (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article about a non-profit is currently only sourced to the organisation's own website and to a BBC article that provides a WP:PASSING mention that a group of hackers donated money to the organisation. The only other sources I was able to find were a WP:HUFFPOCON op-ed by the organisation's CEO [11], a WP:MEDIUM interview with the CEO [12], and a few press releases like these [13] [14], none of which would be considered independent. It was also featured in the 'nonprofit spotlight' section of Philanthropy News Digest in 2018 [15], but this seems more like a repackaging of information from their website rather than anything that could be considered SIGCOV. Overall it seems like an charity that's doing great work, but I don't see anything that suggests it meets WP:NONPROFIT. MCE89 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Africa. MCE89 (talk) 13:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Unicef and various giving websites mention this project, but nothing for RS we can use. Sourcing in the article is primary, so not helping notability. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Did a big search and couldn't find anything independent to satisfy WP:GNG Waterfelt (talk) 23:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phoebe Kemi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources are PR pieces thus not meeting the general notability requirement Joseph4real1995 (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Subject clearly meets WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV, with a feature in Harper's Bazaar. Melmann 12:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, Nigeria, and North Carolina. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Melmann. I've gone ahead and stubbified it to remove promotional content, but I agree that the subject meets WP:GNG. Note that there's an ongoing discussion about the reliability of Nigerian news media, which could be relevant. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article in Grazia is sigcov. pburka (talk) 17:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The feature is in Harper's Bazaar Vietnam (published by a marketing company) and Grazia is actually the Philippines version. Are they considered equally reliable to the international editions? 🄻🄰 21:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक, are there specific reasons why they shouldn’t be considered reliable? I’m hoping that the reason is that they’re not published in the West. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I only raise the question. WP:RS requires a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. While Harper' Bazaar has that, I am not sure whether that applies to a different edition published by a separate entity (a marketing company). Do you have any reason to believe that it is reliable? 🄻🄰 07:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is reliable until you have shown evidence that it is not reliable. The burden of proof is on you. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 09:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BURDEN says the opposite. Burden of proof is on you. I cannot prove a negative, you have to show that a source is reliable. 🄻🄰 16:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. You’re wrong. If you say that a source is not reliable because it’s published in Vietnam and Philippines, you need to show why you think so. You can’t just come and slap unreliability on a source because of the nation where it is published. If you don’t have a prove, then, I think we’re just running round. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 17:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Harpers and Grazia are both "respected mainstream publications" (see WP:SOURCES), so it's up to LIA to show us that these editions are exceptional in some way. Neither publication is listed at WP:DEPS or WP:RSPSS. pburka (talk) 17:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete even if the local Vietnam edition of Harper, published by a marketing company, and the Philippine edition of Grazia are reliable sources, two PR articles is not enough 🄻🄰 18:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक’s discarding reliable sources due to the nationality from what I’m seeing. Sources in the article and in a WP:BEFORE are significant enough to meet the general notability guidelines. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hyde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article subject is notable only for a single event, and does not meet the criteria set out in WP:NCRIMINAL. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Alabama, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Killing three people during a robbery isn't notable, being on death row neither. Coverage is strictly news items of his various incidents. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom and the reason NCRIMINAL exists; this man simply is not notable and should not have the glory of their own page. Nate • (chatter) 17:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't define it as glory, especially here. I would say having a page is a negative in most cases. Sure there are some crimes that may be a consideration with, but this is clearly not one of them. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now: I created this article thinking it would be notable for a few reasons, 1. His crimes occurred in 2 states, one of which was an attempted murder, had that victim died, he could have had 4 victims killed in separate incidents, some might say that's a serial killer or in this case an "attempted serial killer" 2. case was covered by various news outlets, the Associated Press being the big one as that a national one, also news agencies outside Alabama covered it (Edwardsville Intelligencer: Illinois and Cape Cod Times: Massachusetts) 3. The random location of the crime, I don't recall there being many multiple slayings at Funereal Homes, that stood out to me and I thought that was unique for a triple homicide case. The circumstances of the case overall seemed very unusual. While it may be a stub, a stub can still be notable. YatesTucker00090 (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since crime fails WP:NEVENT. Coverage is not in depth enough or over a long enough period of time. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:59, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per @YatesTucker00090

Taksoh17 (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Rutter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Disputed PROD. Fails to meet significant coverage criteria. Sources cited are just result lists and basic profile things. As the editor who added the "needs additional citations" notice said they are "garbage". I cannot find anything that would class as significant coverage to add. Shrug02 (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Australia. Shrug02 (talk) 11:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No news coverage found of this person, other than confirmation of existence [16]. Sourcing in the article now is primary or directory listings. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. As per Oaktree b.Canary757 (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, WP:SIGCOV is met by new coverage including by The Age: [17] Rutter led the World Championships 20 km at more than half-way through the race and might have been the world champion had he not been controversially disqualified. He's (at least) mentioned in 28 other articles for The Age here but I haven't gone through them all: [18]. He was also interviewed by Dave Culbert for Fox Sports News here: [19] and covered for a TV programme at 3:18 here and 2:24 here. --Habst (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well done Habst, I agree that achieves WP:SIGCOV. Just need someone to fix up the article now. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of health insurance executives in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The previous AFD of this article was reviewed at DRV with a closure of no consensus. I exercised my discretion to relist the article here at AFD. This is a procedural nomination with no opinion. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Lists of people, and United States of America. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with the 'Delete' from the earlier nomination and can't say it better than the closure notice: "the underlying claim that the list fails both WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT was not adequately refuted by those voting Keep." JeffUK 12:35, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As I said in the previous discussion, this does not meet WP:NLIST because this list, as envisaged here, cannot be demonstrated to be significant as a discrete topic, discussed as a group or set. An editor attempted to answer that with lists of top 10 best paid CEOs, but that is not this set. This list is a list of all health insurance executives, regardless of pay. Not just CEOs, not grouped by anything but that they are heallth insurance executives. The list was created 8 December after one of its members was murdered, and after it was reported that companies were removing information from websites on safety grounds. That is, this list was created - not because of any NLIST criteria that guided it - but because someone thought Wikipedia should have a list of all health insurance executives now, at this time. It is an NLIST fail.
  It is WP:INDISCRIMINATE, and a violation of WP:CROSSCAT. List articles can be frustrating because our policies are vague on them, and we often retain list articles that fall in the grey area, but in this case there are very clear reasons why this article should not be retained. This is very clearly a WP:COATRACK, and an absolutely astonishing example of unwise drafting based on current events. Whatever the intentions of the drafter, it could be used as a hit list, but also it is highly likely that it will be used to attack Wikipedia itself. The existence of a page such as this fails on neutrality and public safety. It risks bringing the encyclopaedia into disrepute, and it does not serve any true encyclopaedic function. WP:IAR is Wikipedia policy too, and this is the time to use it.
  So it should be deleted for multiple policy reasons, including, but not limited to, IAR. The information about the notable executives remains on their pages, so there is no censorship (defined as an attempt to hide material we think is objectional). But this should be deleted because it is a dangerous synthesis of our source material. That is what a list such as this is. It is WP:SYNTH based on Wikipedia sources, and should not be countenanced because it is bad for people for whom we are painting targets on their back, and bad for the encyclopaedia. The collation of this list adds no encyclopaedic value. It can be safely deleted. It cannot be safely kept. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

  The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "health insurance executives in the United States" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".
  
  Sources

  1. There are sources that discuss President Obama meeting with health insurance executives in 2013. This Washington Post article notes, "The White House hosted a group of health insurance executives this afternoon to discuss - you guessed it! - HealthCare.Gov." This Modern Healthcare article notes:

     Fourteen insurance industry heavyweights were called to the White House Wednesday to advise the Obama administration on how to fix the dysfunctional federal health insurance exchange. ... Kaiser Permanente CEO Bernard Tyson, WellPoint CEO Joseph Swedish, Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini and Humana CEO Bruce Broussard were part of the delegation that met with HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, CMS Administrator Marilyn Tavenner, senior White House adviser Valerie Jarrett, White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough and Deputy Assistant to the President for Health Policy Chris Jennings. ... Other healthcare industry leaders participating in Wednesday's meeting were: Patrick Geraghty, CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Florida; Jay Gellert, president and CEO of Health Net; Patricia Hemingway Hall, president and CEO of Health Care Services Corp.; Daniel Hilferty, president and CEO of Independence Blue Cross; Karen Ignagni, president and CEO of the trade group America's Health Insurance Plans; John Molina, chief financial officer of Molina Healthcare; Michael Neidorff, chairman and CEO of Centene Corp.; James Roosevelt Jr., president and CEO of Tufts Health Plan Foundation; and Scott Serota, president and CEO of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association."

     This article also lists the "health insurance executives" who participated in the meeting.
  2. Hellander, Ida (2002). "A Review of Data on the Health Sector of the United States January 2002". International Journal of Health Services. 32 (3): 587–588. JSTOR 45131234.

     The study notes: "Twenty-three top HMO executives at 15 publicly traded companies received a 60 percent raise to a total of $63.3 million in pay in 2000, excluding stock options. They received stock options valued at another $109.2 million." It discusses Aetna's William Donaldson, Aetna's John Rowe, Aetna's Richard Huber, edHealth Group's William McGuire ($7.7 million); Cigna's Edward Hanway ($5.4 million) and Wilson Taylor ($5 million); Wellpoint's Leonard Schaeffer ($4.8 million); Humana's Michael McCallister ($2.7 million) and David Jones ($1.9 million); Trigon's Thomas Snead ($1.8 million); First Health's James Smith ($1.7 million); MAMSI's Thomas Barbera ($1.2 million) and Mark Groban ($1.2 million); and Pacificare's Alan Hoops ($1.1 million). It also discusses Pacificare's Howard Phanstiel.

  3. Livingston, Shelby (2017-05-29). "Silence from healthcare CEOs on AHCA politics is deafening". Modern Healthcare. Archived from the original on 2024-12-31. Retrieved 2024-12-31.

     In the context of healthcare CEOs largely avoiding discussion of the Affordable Care Act, the article lists Paul Markovich, CEO of Blue Shield of California; Northwell Health's CEO, Michael Dowling; and J. Mario Molina, CEO of Medicaid insurer Molina Healthcare.

  4. Adeel, Noor Ul Ain; Hammel, Tyler (2024-08-27). "UnitedHealth's Witty was highest-paid US health insurer CEO in 2023". S&P Global. Archived from the original on 2024-12-05. Retrieved 2024-12-22.

     The article lists UnitedHealth Group Inc.'s Andrew Witty; Elevance Health Inc.'s Gail Boudreaux; Molina Healthcare Inc.'s Joseph Zubretsky; Cigna Group's David Cordani; Centene Corp. CEO Sarah London; and Humana Inc.'s Bruce Broussard.

  5. Stannard, Ed (2024-03-11). "Health insurance CEOs rake in millions, including in CT. Here's the top 10 list". Hartford Courant. Archived from the original on 2024-03-11. Retrieved 2024-12-22.

     The article lists UnitedHealth Group CEO Andrew Witty, Elevant Health (formerly Anthem) CEO Gail Boudreaux, Centene Corporation CEO Sarah London, Humana CEO Bruce Broussard, CVS CEO Karen Lynch, HCSC CEO Maurice Smith, Cigna Health Group CEO David Cordani, GuideWell Mutual Holding CEO Patrick Geraghty, Molina Healthcare CEO Joseph Zubretsky, and Independence Health Group CEO George Deavens.

  6. Formisano, Ronald P. (2015). Plutocracy in America: How Increasing Inequality Destroys the Middle Class and Exploits the Poor. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-4214-1740-0. Retrieved 2024-12-22 – via Google Books.

     The book notes: "Since the passage of the Affordable Care Act, health-insurance executives are being paid millions, reaching Wall Street levels, mirroring the disproportionate compensation that prevails in the United States more than in any other advanced economy. Though they opposed the ACA's new regulations, the CEOs of the 11 largest for-profit companies hauled in packages in 2013 worth $125 million. The biggest winners were Mark Bertolini, CEO of Aetna, whose compensation totaled $30.7 million—a 131 percent increase from the year before—and Centene's CEO Michael Neirdorff, whose earnings climbed from $8.5 million to $14.5 million. Meanwhile, though they are turning large profits, these companies warned patients and businesses that premiums would probably rise in 2015. In 2009, insurance executive Wendell Potter became a whistleblower and began to expose profiteering in the health-insurance industry. He has collected data showing that the more health insurers deny claims, the higher their executives' pay."

  7. Sanders, Bernie (2024). It's OK to Be Angry About Capitalism. New York: Crown Publishing Group. p. 126. ISBN 978-0-593-23873-8. Retrieved 2024-12-22.

     The book notes: "Meanwhile, the six largest health insurance companies in America made over $60 billion in profits in 2021, led by the UnitedHealth Group, which made $24 billion. And, not surprisingly, the CEOs in the industry receive huge compensation packages. In 2021, the CEO of Centene, Michael Neidorff, made $20.6 million; the CEO of CVS Health, Karen Lynch, made $20.3 million; the CEO of Cigna, David Cordani, took home just under $20 million; and the CEO of Anthem, Gail Boudreaux, received more than $19 million in total compensation."

  8. Livingston, Shelby (2018-03-12). "Health insurer CEOs see some significant pay bumps in 2017". Modern Healthcare. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.

     The article lists Anthem President and CEO Gail Boudreaux; Molina Healthcare's CEO Joseph Zubretsky; Molina Healthcare's previous CEO J. Mario Molina; Cigna CEO David Cordani; Humana CEO Bruce Broussard; and Centene CEO Michael Neidorff.

  9. Livingston, Shelby (2019-03-18). "Some insurer CEOs see bigger paychecks in 2018". Modern Healthcare. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.

     The article lists Centene CEO Michael Neidorff; Cigna CEO David Cordani; Anthem CEO Gail Boudreaux; Anthem's previous CEO Joseph Swedish; Humana CEO Bruce Broussard; and Molina Healthcare CEO Joseph Zubretsky.

  10. Livingston, Shelby (2017-04-29). "Health insurer CEOs awarded raises in 2016 despite a year of tumult". Modern Healthcare. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.

      The article lists Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini, Humana CEO Bruce Broussard, Anthem CEO Joseph Swedish, Cigna CEO David Cordani, UnitedHealth CEO Stephen Hemsley, Centene CEO Michael Neidorff, WellCare Health Plans CEO Kenneth Burdick, and Molina CEO J. Mario Molina.

  11. Mattera, Marianne Dekker (2006-06-02). "How about cutting insurance execs' pay?". Medical Economics. Vol. 83, no. 11. p. 8. ISSN 0025-7206. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22 – via Gale.

      The article lists UnitedHealth Chairman and CEO William W. McGuire, Humana's President/CEO Michael B. McCallister, Chairman/CEO of Cigna H. Edward Hanway, WellPoint's Larry C. Glasscock, and Aetna's John W. Rowe.

  12. Herman, Bob (2022-05-12). "Seven health insurance CEOs raked in a record $283 million last year". Stat. Archived from the original on 2023-08-31. Retrieved 2024-12-22.

      The article notes: "The CEOs of America’s seven largest publicly traded health insurance and services companies cumulatively earned more than $283 million in 2021 — by far the most of any year in the past decade." The article lists Cigna CEO David Cordani and UnitedHealth CEO Dave Wichmann.

  13. Herman, Bob (2023-04-27). "Health insurance CEOs set another record for pay in 2022". Stat. Archived from the original on 2023-08-31. Retrieved 2024-12-22.

      The article notes: "In 2022, the CEOs of the seven major publicly traded health insurance and services conglomerates — CVS Health, UnitedHealth Group, Cigna, Elevance Health, Centene, Humana, and Molina Healthcare — combined to make more than $335 million, according to a STAT analysis of annual financial disclosures." The article lists Joseph Zubretsky, the CEO of Molina; David Cordani, the head of Cigna; Bruce Broussard of Humana; and CVS CEO Karen Lynch.

  14. Crystal, Graef (2004-10-06). "Well Paid Insurance CEOs vs. 45 Million Uninsured Americans". Bloomberg News. Archived from the original on 2024-12-31. Retrieved 2024-12-31 – via Physicians for a National Health Program.

      The article lists Anthem's Larry Glasscock, Coventry Health's Allen Wise, Wellpoint Health's Leonard Schaeffer, Sierra Health's Anthony Marlon, UnitedHealth Group's William McGuire, Amerigroup Corp.'s Jeffrey McWaters, Wellchoice's Michael Stocker, Aetna's John Rowe, Pacificare Health's Howard Phanstiel, Oxford Health's Charles Berg, Health Net's Jay Gellert, Humana's Michael McCallister.

  15. Healthcare executives:
      1. Behm, Carly (2024-05-21). "Kevin Lobo 10th highest-paid healthcare CEO: WSJ". Becker's Spine Review. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.

         The article lists 10 healthcare CEOs.

      2. Gooch, Kelly (2024-05-21). "10 highest-paid healthcare CEOs". Becker's Hospital Review. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.

         The article notes: "Here are the 10 top-paid healthcare CEOs, according to the analysis:". The article lists Joseph Hogan, Align Technology; Peter Arduini, GE Healthcare Technologies; Andrew Witty, UnitedHealth; Robert Ford, Abbott Laboratories; Gail Boudreaux, Elevance Health; Karen Lynch, CVS Health; Joseph Zubretsky, Molina Healthcare; Samuel Hazen, HCA Healthcare; David Cordani, Cigna; and Kevin Lobo, Stryker.

      3. Galloro, Vince; Vesely, Rebecca; Zigmond, Jessica (2007-07-30). "Trying to compensate: Latest ranking of CEO compensation finds stock options still key to pay as experts monitor for effects of SEC rule changes". Modern Healthcare. Archived from the original on 2024-12-22. Retrieved 2024-12-22.

         The article lists Tenet Healthcare's president and CEO, Trevor Fetter; chairman and CEO of HCA, Jack Bovender Jr.; DaVita's CEO, Kent Thiry; Cigna's H. Edward Hanway; Humana's president and CEO, Michael McCallister; UnitedHealth Group former CEO William McGuire; UnitedHealth's new CEO, Stephen Hemsley; Aetna CEO Jack Rowe; and the chairman, president, and CEO of Universal Health Services, Alan Miller.

  
  
  WP:CROSSCAT

  WP:CROSSCAT says:

  Wikipedia articles are not:

  • Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories such as these are not considered a sufficient basis for creating an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon. See also Wikipedia:Overcategorization for this issue in categories.

  This article does not violate WP:CROSSCAT because the grouping of "health insurance executives in the United States" has been discussed in reliable sources for many years. A "non-encyclopedic cross-categorization" would not have so much coverage.

  WP:INDISCRIMINATE

  Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says that "Wikipedia articles should not be":
  1. "Summary-only descriptions of works."
  2. "Lyrics databases."
  3. "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics."
  4. "Exhaustive logs of software updates."
  Since this article is none of those, it does not violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

  The list's scope and its perceived flaws

  As defined in the lead, the list's scope is "notable executives of companies in the United States health insurance industry". I consider this to be a clear scope that matches what the sources say.

  Some editors above think that the list's scope should be changed. This can be discussed on the talk page. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome.

  Advantages of a list

  From Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates#Advantages of a list:

  1. Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia.
  2. Can be embellished with annotations (further details).

  The benefit of this list is that it includes "further details" through having the executive's title and company. A category does not have that functionality. As the sources largely focus on the executives' compensation, the list could be further enhanced by adding this information.

  Addressing some comments directly

  Given the range of executive titles encompassed and the unlimited time period, we could have any number of chief financial officers, chief risk officers, chief marketing officers, chief technology officers, chief investment officers, chief administrative officers, chief legal officers, chief operating officers, and so forth. – it is likely that nearly all of the people in these roles are non-notable, so they would be excluded from the list. Any executive who is notable should be included in the list.

  the list potentially puts people in danger and the conspicuous timing of the list appears to at least celebrate this type of violence – these are not policy-based reasons for deletion. This information is widely publicly available and well-sourced to high quality reliable sources, so the list does not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The list passed Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists before the killing happened. Deletion under this basis violates the policy WP:NOTCENSORED and the guideline Wikipedia:Offensive material. As one AfD participant wrote:

  Finally, I think it's dangerous territory to limit the creation of controversial articles based on timing. Was this page made in response to a terrible event? Yes. But at what arbitrary point would we then be allowed to create controversial articles? Who gets to decide what's controversial? Slippery slope. I think the timing of this needs to be taken out of the equation.

  This is very clearly a WP:COATRACK – WP:COATRACK defines a coatrack article as "a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects". This is a list of health insurance executives in the United States. It does not "ge[t] away from its nominal subject".

  But this should be deleted because it is a dangerous synthesis of our source material. That is what a list such as this is. It is WP:SYNTH based on Wikipedia sources – every entry on this list is sourced to a non-Wikipedia source. This list is not based on Wikipedia sources. This list is not WP:SYNTH as it does not "combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources".

  Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline

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

  Cunard (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment on source list As with all sources, those that demonstrate notability are WP:SECONDARY sources. Per WP:PRIMARYNEWS, sources that report news are primary sources. This ought to be obvious in this case. A report that healthcare insurance executives were asked to advise on how to fix healthcare is a discursive primary source. Put another way, the calling of experts together to advise on policy does not show that the list of all who work in the expert industry is a notable list. If the experts are called together as a panel, and if that panel meets repeatedly, and especially if its membership changes over time, then what is notable is the list of members of the expert panel. What such sources do not show is that the list of all people who work in the industry, whether they are considered suitable for the expert panel or not, and whether called to it or not, is a notable list
    I have already described above why the list of top paid executives is not a reason to have a list of all executives. None of these sources meet NLIST, and just reposting this huge table merely buries this AfD with stuff without demonstrating that NLIST is met. It is not. None of these sources meet NLIST, and what we have here is an attempt to work backwards to justify a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list by scraping together any grouping possible. None of them show that this list is notable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • AS well as being indiscriminate (in general terms) I also think WP:NOTDIRECTORY is also relevant here; there's no context, just a list of people who have at some point, held a certain role. There are many hundreds of people who fit the definition, so a category would be much more useful. JeffUK 14:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of health insurance executives in the United States participants: Mbdfar (talk · contribs), TheTechnician27 (talk · contribs), Sirfurboy (talk · contribs), ZimZalaBim (talk · contribs), Kopf1988 (talk · contribs), The Anome (talk · contribs), Dclemens1971 (talk · contribs), GeorgiaHuman (talk · contribs), Jcmcc450 (talk · contribs), Cakelot1 (talk · contribs), Fish and karate (talk · contribs), SchallundRauch (talk · contribs), Ze0n983 (talk · contribs), Prototyperspective (talk · contribs), WikiUser70176 (talk · contribs), DharmaDrummer (talk · contribs), Aaronw1109 (talk · contribs), Rager7 (talk · contribs), BootsED (talk · contribs), SilviaASH (talk · contribs), Snokalok (talk · contribs), LuciusRex5 (talk · contribs), Bluerasberry (talk · contribs), RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk · contribs), Visviva (talk · contribs), Zanahary (talk · contribs), Pedrogmartins (talk · contribs), Acebulf (talk · contribs), HAL333 (talk · contribs), Chessrat (talk · contribs), L1A1 FAL (talk · contribs), TheLoyalOrder (talk · contribs), Babysharkboss2 (talk · contribs), Amber388 (talk · contribs), MildLoser (talk · contribs), Chefmikesf (talk · contribs), Dympies (talk · contribs), MandRaiden (talk · contribs), Astaire (talk · contribs), Conyo14 (talk · contribs), Esolo5002 (talk · contribs), RWall514 (talk · contribs), and Jellyfish (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 14:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep As I stated before there is no good reason to delete the page as it contains information that is relevant to the healthcare industry. Rager7 (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 December 23#List of health insurance executives in the United States participants who were not pinged in my previous comment: Alalch E. (talk · contribs), Frank Anchor (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), JoelleJay (talk · contribs), OwenX (talk · contribs), SportingFlyer (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Robert McClenon (talk · contribs), Spartaz (talk · contribs), and Enos733 (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 14:11, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep no valid reason for deletion as before: It would be good to convert this list into a table with more details about each like relevant qualifications and maybe also to make this broader and/or create similar lists for other countries and industrial branches. The timing for this list may be bad but one has to admit that currently there is a lot of discussion and news reports about the article's subject (btw due to that it's now a "culturally significant phenomenon" per WP:CROSSCAT). More articles like it would be useful to e.g. compare politicians' qualifications or CEO salaries among other things within and across countries. It does not fail WP:CROSSCAT, e.g. it's not a "cross-categorization" and is encyclopedic. I agree with the strong argumentation by Cunard above. --Prototyperspective (talk) 14:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  One has to admit that currently there is a lot of discussion and news reports about the article's subject - No, there is a lot of talk about the potential for harm to the individual subjects and their families. And that is not the same thing at all. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated by the former closure notice: “the underlying claim that the list fails both WP:NLIST and WP:CROSSCAT was not adequately refuted by those voting Keep.” BootsED (talk) 14:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify or else Keep. My opinion is much the same as before.^[a] There is, as far as I can tell, no valid reason to argue that this list is inherently inappropriate for Wikipedia. This is public information about public individuals, and protecting their safety or obfuscating their identities is not our concern as editors; we are WP:NOTCENSORED, and they are already WP:FAMOUS.
  If there are concerns as to the editorial quality of the content, or that this list may be redundant to previously existing pages or categories, and no consensus among editors as to whether or not the current state of the list is acceptable, then the appropriate place to resolve those concerns is in draftspace. If the article is not draftified, however, then it should be allowed to remain, provided that the information is presented neutrally and there are no other valid concerns. silviaASH (inquire within) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on grounds of WP:NOT, WP:NLIST, WP:CROSSCAT, WP:IAR. I will be repeating myself from the previous AfD and also addressing Cunard and other "keep" !voters' takes above:
  • This list fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTDATABASE. In the last discussion Mbdfar identified the scope of the article to executives of companies that manage health insurance. Basically, any person who has ever been a c-suite executive or in an executive senior management position (presidents, chairmen). Given the range of executive titles encompassed and the unlimited time period, we could have any number of chief financial officers, chief risk officers, chief marketing officers, chief technology officers, chief investment officers, chief administrative officers, chief legal officers, chief operating officers, and so forth. Cunard's argument above is that these roles are not in scope if the people holding them are not notable, but that's based on a lead sentence that is easy to change. If we were to decided that the topic is notable (it's not), then the scope could very easily be expanded to include non-notable members of this group. The scope of the article based on its title is truly indiscriminate, and this article seems like a WP:COATRACK to build a database of people in these roles, which again Wikipedia is WP:NOT. (Not to mention this list is going to require immense levels of maintenance to be kept up to date as people switch between different jobs.)
  • It fails NLIST because no one has supplied any sources that provide WP:SIGCOV of all of these individuals as a discrete topic. Note that the title is health insurance executives. Every single one of Cunard's sources covers a narrower range (and as discussed in the previous AfD and at DRV, they aren't really SIGCOV of the group). Virtually all of the sources cover healthcare CEOs (a bigger category than health insurance) or health insurance CEOs (a narrower category than health insurance executives). One source covers HMO executives, a narrower category than health insurance. As a result, the list fails WP:CROSSCAT because this list has not been proven to be discussed in reliable sources.
  • Finally, I argued before and will argue again for a mildly WP:IAR reason for deletion: that such a list created in the immediate aftermath of the murder of Brian Thompson will be viewed as (although hopefully not used as) a hit list. The fact that the original discussion was heavily canvassed outside Wikipedia suggests there's an inappropriate desire (outside of our community; I am not making any aspersions about the established editors offering good-faith policy-based arguments here) by a segment of non-Wikipedians who want to use this site to make some kind of WP:SOAPBOX statement that Wikipedia should not be used for. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I've been going back and forth on this; this one's complicated. It was plainly created as a means of slacktivist soapboxing, and its previous deletion discussion was brigaded to hell and back. I think Sirfurboy's argument about "painting targets on their backs" is understandable and needs to be taken seriously. It needs to be acknowledged that it's unequivocally what this article was created for, and it was completely transparent and shameless. That said, I call it "slacktivism" for a reason: it's performative, not meaningfully advancing a cause as much as it is a cheap way for the creator to seek validation instead of taking to the streets and organizing. Absolutely all of this information is easily accessible elsewhere (including the insurance companies' own websites, our articles for these high-profile companies, and our articles on these executives). So I have serious doubts this has the potential to harm anyone in a way that an ocean of information on and off Wikipedia doesn't just as easily facilitate. In the same way that I think deleting this is not action against a cause like some brigaders suggest, I think keeping this (if argued properly) is not action for a cause. I think a lot of what Cunard does above is WP:WIKILAWYERing, engaging way too heavily with the precise wording of guidelines like WP:INDISCRIMINATE instead of their underlying principles. For example, their list of articles feels like literally anything they could find instead of simply picking a handful of very strong examples (e.g. they link to Modern Healthcare, a health insurance trade publication, six times). Moreover, I think a lot of lists suffer from WP:RECENTISM, treatment with kid gloves when it comes to inclusion, and much lower overall quality and oversight, and this is one of them. I came into this sharing Prototyperspective's view that this has potential to be at least vaguely useful as long as it's made into a table format to give more information and keep the types of information consistent across entries (e.g. "name, title, company, years active, education, notes, refs", etc.). However, given how provably vulnerable this topic is to brigading, I have serious doubts that we can maintain its integrity via only allowing bluelinks, because if you create an article about a non-notable exec under the constant threat of off-site 'Keep' brigading at a potential AfD, you can cobble together a dinky little stub to include anything there anyway. Thus, you can manufacture notability. I think it's widely agreed at this point that just moving it to 'List of health insurance companies' to make it more inclusive doesn't work because the US is so unique in how corporatized its healthcare system is. I'm not sure either that draftifying like silviaASH mentions would be useful here; it feels like the two outcomes are 1) it gets immediately moved back into articlespace without meaningful changes or 2) there aren't any changes that can make it inclusion-worthy and draftifying functions as backdoor deletion. Reading DClemens1971's arguments, however, hit the nail on the head for me both as to why Cunard's arguments feel so much like wikilawyering and to why this should be deleted; I 100% agree with what they wrote. This list was extremely poorly thought-out – made impulsively to soapbox without any regard to quality by a new editor who's obviously never read a single one of these guidelines – and now we're getting ad hoc justifications for why it meets inclusion criteria. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 15:58, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as lacking in added value over a simple category; WP:NOT and WP:INDISCRIMINATE with a side order of WP:COATRACK. I think this whole list could be replaced with a category Category:American health insurance chief executives, itself a subcategory of Category:American health care chief executives and the to-be-created Category:American insurance company chief executives (itself a child category of Category:Insurance companies of the United States). -- — The Anome (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this clearly passes WP:GNG/WP:NLIST as it's been covered in secondary sources per Cunard. It's very discriminate, so we can't knock it out on that - WP:INDISCRIMINATE is often incorrectly applied at AfD, and it has been here, this list will never be more than n- people large. It's not a cross-category since it's not non-encyclopedic and has been covered by secondary sources. WP:IAR means we should censor the encyclopedia. Lists of CEOs are specifically allowed by the part of WP:NOT which includes WP:NOTDIRECTORY. I don't actually care what the end result is here and will be un-watching the AfD, but it is important to me our guidelines are followed correctly. SportingFlyer T·C 16:50, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed. Keep. ♦ WikiUser70176 ♦^{(My talk page)} 17:06, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it discriminate? It's defined incredibly loosely as any notable executive at companies in the United States health insurance industry. That's not much definition; it could encompass HMOs, managed care organizations, pharmacy benefit managers, health savings account providers (including banks), long-term care insurers, reinsurers, consultants and service providers to the health insurance industry, technology providers/insurtech. It's insufficiently defined to provide useful guidance to readers and editors, and thus WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And to repeat what I've said above, it isn't a list of CEOs allowed under WP:NOT, it's a list of all "executives," a term that is likewise undefined. 20:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC) Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  As well as 'Top or Senior Manager', it's also defined as 'someone who makes decisions or takes actions, it's used as a generic term to mean '-person', "Sales Executive", "Account Executive", "Support Executive", etc. etc. It's not just 'undefined' it's entirely open to interpretation by definition. (Hilton hotels are currently hiring for a 'Hygiene Executive'! would they be included?). Even the linked Business executive has a short description of '|Person responsible for running a business, or an aspect of it' which is basically anyone with any sort of managerial responsibility. JeffUK 08:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per SportingFlyer. WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply, since the inclusion criteria are as clear-cut as we could ever ask for. The list provides value beyond a mere category, since it shows who is CEO of what, which a category isn't set up to do. XOR'easter (talk) 18:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Really wonder how you think the generic "executive" label is "as clear-cut as we could ever ask for". Anyone could be labeled an "executive" (see general manager). "CEO" is a specific role, but "executive" is extremely nebulous. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 05:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm confused by the process here. Seems I have to read up on the AFD rules. None of the "Reasons for deletion" apply. Neither does WP:INDISCRIMINATE or WP:CROSSCAT. Article has improved considerably and discussion on the possible scope of the article was fruitful. If the list's scope is the problem that can be easily fixed by an introductory note that limits the scope as is common for many lists. --SchallundRauch (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per my arguments at the DRV and the reasoning from Dclemens and TheTechnician. The inclusion criteria are "health insurance executives in the US", which covers a broad range of people and isn't actually limited to just those who are notable, even if that's what the lead currently claims. The blurb format also strongly lends itself toward BLPVIOs (and indeed these are already present!). JoelleJay (talk) 21:01, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems more like an argument for cleanup (and for more precisely articulating inclusion criteria, on the list or on the Talk page). XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The sources by Cunard show that this is a commonly discussed grouping in secondary sources and meets the WP:LISTN accordingly. In addition a simple google search came up with additional sources such as [[20]] and [[21]]. Let'srun (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The first article you linked to (from an insurance trade website) is specifically insurance CEOs, not executives in general and not specifically in the health insurance industry (making it irrelevant to this discussion). The second article you link to (from a very niche publication in the form of CEOworld) is the only one I've seen so far that actually talks about other executives (but just by grouping them by salary without any discussion of them as a coherent group). Even then, it ironically illustrates the point shared by Dclemens1971 that 'executive' is too broad and nebulously defined because it ventures outside of the 'main three' executive types (CEO, COO, and CFO) into things like vice executives, CLOs/General Counsel, CAOs, CPOs (Chief Pharmacy Officers), former presidents, co-presidents, "Chief Data, Digital and Technology Officer"s (for when CTO is too pedestrian), etc. And even that is only a small sample of what an "executive" can actually be, because while what you're thinking of is presumably a "chief executive officer" or potentially the C-suite, an "executive" can functionally be anybody. A branch manager is an executive. It's (pardon my French) a total clusterfuck of a term that was chosen impulsively by this list's creator with no regard to maintainability or guidelines because they had an axe to grind and validation to seek. If you create this list caring only about stochastically terrorizing the parasites who run health insurance companies in the US, this is fine, because the more the merrier. But we're here to build a sustainable encyclopedia, and Spartaz is entirely correct about the fate that awaits this list. Not only is this list's fate being a useless, poorly defined piece of crap, but choosing to 'Keep' now after two discussions will set a precedent that we shouldn't delete it when it inevitably hits the exact moribund, dead-end state they're describing. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:31, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the threshold for inclusion needs to potentially be evaluated, but that is for another place and as it stands WP:GNG and WP:LISTN have been shown to be met. Let'srun (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete this is a ridiculous list concept and would far much better managed though a category. If kept we will be left with a monstrous long list of indiscriminate names and roles that has next to no useful information that will quickly become historical and moribund as interest moves on. It's also a safety risk and adds no meaningful benefit over adding cats to the articles of the actually notable executives. Best to be rid. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A list of all "executives" is meaningless, as the term "executive" isn't being defined, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or a directory of various people who happen to work in a field that is receiving a lot of attention at the moment. Cutlass^Ciera 22:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't want to beat a dead horse with what I have said on previous discussions, but my opinions align with those of Cunard. As a group, I believe the subject meets notability as demonstrated above, and this list is a useful navigational aid that helps build the web. I do understand the WP:CROSSCAT argument, however, this occupation is almost uniquely American, or at the very least most notable in an American context. I will reassert my opinion that the idea that a list such as this is dangerous is just silly. Plenty of groups with bad PR have lists that you would not question. Is List of Islamic State members inappropriate? Would those arguing that this is a "hit list" not consider FBI Ten Most Wanted Fugitives so? The timing of this article's creation cannot be considered. There is no precedent and no basis for delaying or deleting an article because it is controversial. As it stands, the article in question is appropriate and encyclopedic. Mbdfar (talk) 00:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  MOS:BUILD, which you've linked, is about how and when to link to other existing articles on a technical, stylistic level, not about what should and shouldn't be included as a standalone article or list on the English Wikipedia. Using a link to the Manual of Style to justify inclusion is exactly as much of a non sequitur as if I were to link to a behavioral guideline like WP:AGF to justify inclusion. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 00:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is linked as a reminder of one of the core tenants of Wikipedia. This list serves to help readers access relevant information on other Wikipedia pages easily. Purposefully obscuring the connection of the subjects of this list goes against this tenant. Mbdfar (talk) 01:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  did chatGPT write that as it sounds good but has absolutely no meaning. And it's not policy either. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:21, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Tenancies aside, Mbdfar does not actually state which of the five tenets of Wikipedia this supposedly hits. But it is certainly excluded under the first, which is:

  1. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia.

  In unpacking what an encyclopaedia is, we have WP:NOT. No page is encyclopaedic if it is excluded under WP:NOT. Thus WP:NOTDIRECTORY pertains, because their argument is This list serves to help readers access relevant information on other Wikipedia pages easily. That is its purpose, and that is the very definition of a directory, thus the first tenet (or pillar) of Wikipedia excludes it as such. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 12:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand your argument. It sounds like you are saying that if a "list serves to help readers access relevant information on other Wikipedia pages easily", that is actually the definition of a directory, and is therefore not encyclopedic. Is this correct? Mbdfar (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm honored but no. I never stated it was policy. Perhaps tenant was too strong of a word, but my response was to those who argued in previous threads to purposely "hide" this list as matter of safety. To me, it goes against the principle of what we do here. Mbdfar (talk) 13:23, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps tenant was too strong of a word. Trying not to sound like the grammar police here, but my attempt at subtle direction has failed. Tenant is not too strong, it is the wrong word. A tenant is someone who occupies a leasehold estate or similar tenancy. A tenet is a principle or belief. You mean tenet. And regarding the tenets or principles of Wikipedia, as above, no. You are incorrect. The principle is that we host encyclopaedic articles, and this directory is not one. That it is also harmful is relevant but not the only reason for exclusion. That it was created by an editor with an axe to grind also smashes through another of the principles of Wikipedia (neutrality). Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Damn, ChatGPT would have gotten that word right 🤦 Mbdfar (talk) 13:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as it is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE and undefined list of "executives" whatever that means (every company on the planet defines this level of employee differently). It there are numerous notable CEOs of a particular industry, a category takes care of that. We don't need a WP:DIRECTORY of every single industry's leadership. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my comment on the previous AFD: Timing is very suspect and does make it much harder to search for sources under WP:NLIST, but I couldn't find anything independent of the recent shooting that mentions the CEO's as a group. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Have you viewed the sources Cunard has brought to the discussion? Many of them predate the shooting. Let'srun (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Other people have their own reasons and perspectives for voting keep. Those are valid perspectives. Here is my own perspective of the sources:

1. Sources talk about the salary of people in this profession
2. Sources seek to report health policy positions of people in this profession
3. Since the murder, there is a new body of commentary on society and people in this profession
4. Sources routinely list people by name in this profession, often in the context of these others, but still naming these people is a media pattern

Wikipedia's bar for inclusion is low per WP:GNG. We just need two sources with two perspectives, and this topic more than meets that minimal standard. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mention "This profession" a couple of times, what profession exactly are you referring to? I don't think "Health Insurance Executive" is a well-defined profession. JeffUK 23:05, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: Perhaps "role" is a better term? Regardless, it is a concept described in sources. As you say, it may not be well-defined, but being well-defined is not a criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia. Bluerasberry (talk) 15:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we don't have a good criteria for what a list includes ( or excludes) we don't have a list, we have a random collection. Seems to me that before we even can start applying the guidelines around what is ,or is not, an appropriate topic for a Wikipedia list we need to be able to articulate what it is actually a list of. JeffUK 15:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JeffUK: The Wikipedia editorial process checks to see if multiple reliable sources give different perspectives on a single concept. We have those sources, and the concept is "health insurance company CEO". I agree with you that the sources do not provide a definition of that role, but I disagree with you that Wikipedia needs a definition to make an article. You are right to check whether all the sources are discussing the same concept, but in this case, there is no ambiguity as the sources are definitely all talking about top executives at billion-dollar-revenue, American health insurance companies. If you think this is a random list, then can you point the odd ones out, and say why they are different from the others? Bluerasberry (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the concept is "health insurance company CEO" - which is not what this page is, nor what it was conceived as. If post hoc sources found some other list (best paid CEOs being what was found) then what they provide evidence for is some other list, but not this one. And we can't just say "oh well, that is what this page is about from now on, we'll repurpose it". If We did that, we would delete nothing and keep everything by simply changing what the page is about. But this list was never conceived as that. It was conceived as a list of all health care executives (whatever that term means), and the purpose of the creation was certainly not just to list the top 10 best paid CEOs. And as such it fails NLIST. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You've hit the nail on the head there; the concept supported by the sources is "Current Serving Health insurance company CEOs"; that could be a list, but I think it would be better to turn List_of_United_States_insurance_companies#Health_insurance_(major_medical_insurance) into a table, including 'President/CEO' as a column. JeffUK 18:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel that this article could be titled either "Health insurance executives" or "List of health insurance executives", and in either case, could include a list of people and also contextual text summarizing what sources say about people in this role. It would be WP:UNDUE to merge this into "list of companies" because we have no reason to believe that readers who want to see a list of companies are also interested in seeing a list of executives from those companies. Biographies and company profiles have a different readership and scope of editorial curation. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as per my comment at the previous AFD. Fish+Karate 17:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep I get both sides and I'd rather we have a narrower (and thus more clearly defined) set of lists. CEOs, board chairs, etc. "Health insurance executive" is too vague. But that's a matter of improvement, not deletion (the list currently covers what I think it should cover, just not fond of the title). But the narrower topics are clearly notable based on sources found and isn't indiscriminate at all. Right now, in effect, we have all those lists in one article. Which is fine and can be addressed if and when it gets big enough that we should split. I'd also like to see improvements with a table (name, company, title, timeframe, highest salary, etc.). But lots of articles need improvement and that is never a reason for deletion. Hobit (talk) 03:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If we have all of those supposed notable narrow topics in one article, then yes, it definitely is indiscriminate. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment' Scattered throughout this discussion is some concern over the impresicion of "executive" which I think needs to be highlghted. While CEOs is a specifical function, "executive" includes all kinds of roles that differs across companies. Do we really think program managers should be itemized in an encylcopedia? And why do health insurance executives need this kind of page all of a sudden, and just in the US? All of this is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ZimZalaBim: The concept of "executive" here (and usually) refers to c-level staff, so it includes for example the "Chief operating officer" who does not have the word "executive" in their title. Also, the concept "executive" in this context excludes all junior executives, so as you say, no program managers go here. This page is for c-level staff.

To your last question "why just in the US", the United States is the only wealthy country where non-governmental health insurance is a topic of discussion, so the normal and expected scope of this article will always just be the United States. As to why suddenly now, this article is being developed as part of the social discussion around the killing of Brian Thompson. Bluerasberry (talk) 18:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as List of Health Insurance CEOs in the United States As written, the list is indiscriminate as "executive" is not defined. However, a list of notable CEOs would not have the same problem. --Enos733 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and ZimZalaBim. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 23:28, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cunard. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 04:54, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hyper (2018 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As it is, films without 2 reviews don't get articles. This film only has 1 The Times of India review. The other News18 source pertains only to the release of the film's trailer. If deleted, move Hyper (2016 film) to Hyper (film).

Needs more production sources, to save this. DareshMohan (talk) 10:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Reliable?	Significant?	Notes
News18 [22]			This is the first movie in Kannada for Ganesh, who has previously worked in Tamil cinema. It is a story that tells the importance of relationships, and the songs have been shot in many places including Jammu and Kashmir and Madikeri.
The Times of India [23]			reliable for reviews only — See WP:TOI. Note that WP:RSN considers Times of India to have a reliability between no consensus and generally unreliable (2024 RfC). Uncontroversial content such as film reviews are usable
Indiaglitz [24]			Removed from the film article, see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force#Guidelines_on_sources. Nonetheless, it has crucial production information such as "The shooting for this film was held in Jammu and Kashmir, Madikeri, Bengaluru and other surroundings. The talkie portion was held in hilly region of Karnataka Madikeri. This ‘Hyper’ is not just a love story but also explain father and daughter emotional relationship".
Indiaglitz [25]
Kannada Prabha [26]			Removed from the film article. While Kannada Prabha is reliable, this is just a video source of the trailer with the text: Hyper movie trailer The trailer of Hyper movie starring Arjun Arya and Sheela has been released. The movie is directed by Ganesh Vinayak.

• Redirect to List of Kannada films of 2018: but not opposed to Keep if others think it’s OK (notable cast, one review) -Mushy Yank. 13:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List_of_Kannada_films_of_2018#January–June. Not opposed to Delete per nom. RangersRus (talk) 10:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Stannard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This page appears to be adequately covered by

https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Facebook&lang=en&q=Stannard Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Disambiguations. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:10, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Existence of a surname page is no reason to delete a valid dab page. PamD 12:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep standard WP:DAB, it has 3 entries Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not a valid reason to delete. We have dabs of dabs. Bearian (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mallzee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Mallzee shut down in 2021. The article was flagged for neutrality and promotional content in August 2017, it is written mostly like a self-interested ad, and with the lack of any changes to rectify those issues or any edits to indicate the business shut down evidences minimal interest in article. At present, I feel the article doesn't provide encyclopaedic value and given the years of opportunity since the closure of the business without as much as an update indicating such, I doubt the quality of this article will improve. ~ Chip🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Chip🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it passes WP:NORG, even considering some articles, the coverage was incidental. ~ Chip🐺 08:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Software, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 24 December 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!} 09:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arcadia Global School Dubai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are no independent reliable sources with significant coverage that are not reviews, guides or PR pieces using the same images. The sources do not pass the WP:SIRS check and fails NCORP. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Schools, and United Arab Emirates. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:08, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject have enough media coverage such as from The National, Which School Advisor, Which School Advisor, Which School Advisor etc. However, other sources are just passing mentions. Mysecretgarden (talk) 12:08, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mysecretgarden, if you were familiar with WP:SIRS and had evaluated the sources properly, you would know that the first source you linked is a passing mention and the other three are PR articles. None of these are independent sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is a private school in Dubai, so the nom. is correct to apply WP:NORG as the appropriate guideline and sources must meet WP:SIRS. In particular, coverage should be at WP:ORGDEPTH. The article in the national has a photograph from the school but does not even mention it in the article (which is about the rise in the general private school population). All the Which School Advisor articles count as one (multiple articles from a single source) and are also not independent. Likewise there is nothing in the article that meets SIRS and my searches have drawn a blank too. Not quite sure why this was not suitable for soft deletion. I don't see a former PROD. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:05, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maoist Communist Party (France) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:ORG. Every source given is from the organisation itself or a Maoist blog site, except one by the conservative tabloid Diario Correo, which mentions the French organisation in passing. Online searches in English, French, and Spanish return zero reliable sources, and I doubt such sources will be found in print offline. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Yue🌙 06:35, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:37, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I found multiple sources in French which discuss the party, especially in relation to the Gilets jaunes: "Morts aux porcs": de violents tags anti-police en plein Paris, "De Rugy Escroc on te fera payer": qui est le Parti Communiste Maoïste qui revendique ce tag?, Nantes. Tags sur son mur de résidence : qui menace François de Rugy?, Vice interview with a PCM member, Montpellier: le préfet accuse des groupes révolutionnaires communistes d'infiltrer les manifestations des gilets jaunes, Droite identitaire, gauche radicale : quand les extrêmes gonflent les rangs des Gilets jaunes. Need to look at this further, but "zero" reliable sources appears incorrect. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The coverage is not in-depth; the focus is on the gilets jaunes, not the Maoist Communist Party in particular. Yue🌙 01:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The party is underground now but still actively exists, but it clearly needs updates and translations. DuCouscous (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. So, sources do exist. User:Goldsztajn are you arguing for a Keep here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:18, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake, the party doesn't exist anymore, this article should be deleted. There has been no action claimed by the PCm the past 2 years and according to witness it ceased any operations. DuCouscous (talk) 19:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an invalid reason for deletion per WP:NTEMP; something does not just lose notability because it no longer exists. If the party has received sufficient previous SIGCOV, preferably WP:Three sources that pass SIGCOV, and are reliable and independent of the subject, then it would be notable. I would note that I don't see that in the article as of now; a lot of the article is sourced to what seems to be a Wordpress blog of dubious reliability and independence, and the party's own Web site, which is obviously not usable in determining notability. Similarly, a search for the party's French name returned foreign Maoist parties, though perhaps that's due to the name being a fairly generic term. A search for the party in English was also mostly unsuccessful for similar reasons. Feel free to ping me if additional sources are found, but presently I feel that deletion is most appropriate. Nowhereman1994 (talk) 10:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire Beach (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cites no sources, couldn't find any, doesn't look notable at all. I was mildly surprised to find that the book exists at all, although it does seem to! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and United States of America. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I very vaguely remember these being released back in the day, when I was working at a bookstore. If I remember correctly, this series was intended to capitalize on the popularity of series like Twilight, Gossip Girl, and Pretty Little Liars. Quite a few publishers were trying to capture that lightning in a bottle that those series obtained. In any case, it didn't really get much mainstream attention - I can't find anything out there to suggest otherwise either. This released, sold well enough to warrant a few books in the series, but just never received any coverage in places that Wikipedia would see as a reliable, notability-giving source. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 14:22, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

  A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

  Sources
  1. Housden, Ellie (2006-08-19). "books kids". The Courier-Mail. ProQuest 354009468. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

     The review provides 243 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Initiation isn't as wholesome as some teenage fiction; there's some drinking and suggestions of lust that have nothing to do with blood. But the moral of the story is that modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery."

  2. Jacob, John (Fall 2006). "Vampire Beach: Bloodlust" (PDF). The Alan Review. Vol. 34, no. 1. p. 41. EBSCOhost 507925514. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

     The review provides 171 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "This is a well-written tale of school life in Malibu, and this book is only one in a series of books about Jason and his sister, Dani, and their “friends” in the high school where they have come to live. ... Only rogue vampires kill and, of course, Jason must confront both the rogue and his competition at school, in a tale that is meant to flow into other stories."

  3. McGarvey, Paul (2006-08-12). "Bookshelf: Vampire Beach: Bloodlust, by Alex Duval". South Wales Argus. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Newspapers.com.

     The review provides 146 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Bloodlust. The review notes: "For the large part, Duval makes no such attempt to do anything original with this Lost Boys-meets-the-OC tale of beautiful immortals in sunny Malibu. ... Towards the end of the novel, Duval takes a great many liberties with the vampire mythology, none of which I can reveal here without spoiling the plot. However, this is an enjoyable enough and breezy read for fans of trashy teen fiction."

  4. Squires, Lorraine (August 2006). "Paperback Series Roundup". Voice of Youth Advocates. Vol. 29, no. 3. p. 236. EBSCOhost 502888926.

     The article provides 97 words of coverage. The article notes: "Another twist on the lives of the young and fabulous comes from Vampire Beach, a series that owes a debt to both Beverly Hills 90210 and R. L. Stine. Jason Freeman moves with his parents and younger sister from Michigan to exclusive Malibu Beach, where he falls in with the super-rich, super-hot, popular crowd. But partying has a truly dark side--a girl turns up dead with suspicious bite marks, and Jason discovers that beautiful people can be deadly. This take on vampire myth will drive purists crazy, but might sell well to A-List and The OC fans."

     The article lists the books in the series:

     Vampire Beach by Alex Duval. Simon Pulse/S & S. 3Q 4P J S

     Bloodlust, Book One. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1166-9.

     Initiation, Book Two. 2006. $5.99. 1-4169-1167-7.

  5. Atkinson, Frances (2006-12-17). "Big Books - Small Readers - Book Review". The Age. ProQuest 367472866. Archived from the original on 2024-12-27. Retrieved 2024-12-27.

     The review provides 81 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "This second book in the Vampire Beach series is unashamedly cheesy but who can resist the winning combination of Malibu, wealthy teens, seduction and vampires? Jason, the new kid in town, falls for sultry Sienna Devereux as his friend Tyler becomes involved with the "wrong crowd" (the sort that have fangs). Brimming with teen-speak and popular culture references, Initiation is the book you can't wait to read on the beach, although you may have to leave it buried in the sand."

  6. "Vampire Beach: Initiation". The Bookseller. No. 5234. 2006-06-16. p. 36. EBSCOhost 21394113.

     The review provides 48 words of coverage about Vampire Beach: Initiation. The review notes: "Return to the glamour and intrigue of DeVere High, where the cool crowd are in fact the undead and bloodsucking has never been so cool. I can't help loving these books, they are out-rageously addictive, super cool, and as sharp as a wooden stake right to the heart."

  7. Fonseca, Tony (2011). "Young Adult Vampire Fiction". In Joshi, S. T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of the Vampire: The Living Dead in Myth, Legend, and Popular Culture. Santa Barbara, California: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 415–416. ISBN 978-0-313-37833-1. ProQuest 2134512314. Retrieved 2024-12-27 – via Google Books.

     The book provides one sentence of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "In the last five years, the number of YA vampire series has skyrocketed. Popular series include ... the Vampire Beach series by Alex Duval (Bloodlust [2006], Initiation [2006], Ritual [2007], and Legacy [2007]); ..."

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

  Cunard (talk) 12:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think this isn't significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of this looks like plot recap, with a few quotable quotes that maybe express some kind of feeling/opinion.

• Sure, Housden 2006 provides 235 words of coverage in theory, but all but 46 of those words are straight plot recap and are pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes. And as far as analysis goes, I don't exactly find modern vampires, like ordinary teenagers, have to exercise restraint in their drinking habits to avoid discovery. to be inspiring. (That's half of what i'm calling 'analysis'.)
• Jacob 2006 is actually pretty good, although them putting the town after the name makes me feel like it's reader submitted.
• McGarvey 2006 is also mostly plot recap, not SIGCOV.
• Can't access Squires 2006.
• Atkinson 2006 is a small paragraph in large font with barely anything useful in it.
• Can't access The Bookseller.
• C'mon, Fonseca 2011 clearly isn't SIGCOV.

Taken together, I think calling these the basis for an article would ultimately yield an article that ignores a lot of best practices – like citing sources that make an effort, instead of the routine 75-word book review mill. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:04, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The American newspaper The Courier-Mail, the American journal The Alan Review, the Welsh newspaper South Wales Argus, the American magazine Voice of Youth Advocates, the Australian newspaper The Age, and the British magazine The Bookseller are not "book review mill[s]". These are all respected publications. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says a book is notable when it "has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself". The notability guideline for books does not say that "straight plot recap" are "pretty much useless for notability/citation purposes". In fact, there was a strong consensus in the August 2023 RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 186#RfC on requiring non-plot coverage to demonstrate book notability against amending the notability guideline to add this text:

When assessing whether a book is notable the content of the source must be considered. Plot descriptions and quotes from the book should be omitted when determining whether a source contains significant coverage.

Until and unless the notability guideline is changed to exclude the plot summary parts of sources from contributing to significant coverage, they do contribute to significant coverage. These sources contain sufficient independent analysis and commentary that decent-sized sections that go beyond plot summary can be written at Vampire Beach#Background and Vampire Beach#Reception. Jacob 2006 is not reader submitted. According to the Winter 1994 issue of the journal, John Jacob was an Associate Professor of English at North Central College in Naperville, Illinois. Cunard (talk) 01:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: The excerpts Cunard posted are the entirety of the coverage Squires 2006 and The Bookseller (accessible via TWL here) provides of this series. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:47, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is one of those situations where it would be helpful to have a notability criteria for book series. Out of all the reviews Cunard posted, I'd only consider the first three (and maybe 4/5, but its a bit shaky) to provide sufficient coverage to count towards NBOOK. The problem is most (not 4) of them are reviewing the individual books, not the series. If this were an AfD for an individual book, then two would be enough, but since this is for the series, do we still need only 2 for notability, and if so, do they have to be coverage of the overall series? Or is reviews for a decent portion of the series enough to justify a series article. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 22:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as I don't see a consensus here yet on whether the sources cited provide SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Verlag Anton Saurwein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage of this company, failing WP:NCORP. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Senco Gold Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article fails WP:NORG , the sources listed here do not provide the coverage required by stringent WP:CORPDEPTH and most sources I found in WP:BEFORE search were unusable for establishing notability as they fell under the purview of WP:NEWSORGINDIA, the history of socking and undisclosed paid editing can't be overlooked either, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Soumya511569- Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:07, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to solicit more participation. By the way, the correct SPI is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BNJ Nilam.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep Delete @Ratnahastin, you are right that WP:NEWSORGINDIA is a big problem when it comes to checking notability in India. However, in this case, since the page is about a listed company, I have found three sources that are independent analyst reports with disclaimers. - HDFC Securities, SBI securities, and SMIFS. But I am not sure how many such reports are needed to establish the notability of these types of companies or how relevant they are. Charlie (talk) 14:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The SMIFS analyst report I shared earlier has been struck through. On page 13, it mentions that SMIFS or its associates may have received payments for products or services not related to investment banking or brokerage from the company mentioned in the report over the past year. Because of this, I am pulling back my earlier weak keep vote. As of now, just two analyst reports alone aren’t enough to prove notability. I should have read the disclaimer carefully. Sorry for the mistake. Charlie (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bananana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Neither List of programmes broadcast by ntv7 nor List of programmes broadcast by 8TV (Malaysian TV network) mentions anything named Bananana. Also, Banananas Music is a partial title match. So, a disambiguation page like this is not needed. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This appears more as if it were created from search engine results rather than from content found on Wikipedia, therefore making it functionally useless. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/redirect to Banana (disambiguation) Plausible misspelling; the 8TV block is actually mentioned on List of programmes broadcast by TV3 (Malaysia) so that was in error, and it seems like it moved to NTV7 during a time 8TV carried Nickelodeon programming instead, so it's a duplicate mention. Whatever the case, mention on the dab page as a secondary spelling is proper. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are two legitimate entries on the page now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The disambiguation has limited utility, with only two entries, one being a partial title match and both topics can be addressed within their respective articles.

Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beavis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am having a hard time finding any WP:SIGCOV about Beavis and Butt-head. Most of the sources talked about the film Beavis and Butt-Head, mostly instead of the characters. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 07:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Comics and animation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect to either Beavis and Butt-Head or List of Beavis and Butt-Head characters. This is a reasonable search term, so some way to find information about the character should remain, but I agree that there is minimal coverage of just Beavis. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or redirect per RunningTiger123. Even as one of the main characters, they aren't really defined separately from their companion or even the overall TV series itself. There isn't WP:SIGCOV for its own article, but there is definitely a valid WP:ATD for this somewhere. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Owiredu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

All the sources fail WP: GNG and the subject of the article does not have the WP:SIGCOV to have a Wikipedia page. The article is ref bombed with press releases with two sentences getting up to 7 references. Ibjaja055 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Engineering, and Ghana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: @Ibjaja055, I disagree with the assertion that the subject does not pass WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. The subject has indeed received significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Below are some examples:

  1. https://www.myjoyonline.com/executive-vice-president-of-golden-star-resources-daniel-owiredu-re-assigned/
  2. https://www.modernghana.com/news/719911/gcb-board-chairman-accused.html
  3. https://businessghana.com/site/news/business/204438/Accra-Mining-Network-honours-Daniel-Owiredu
  4. https://dailyguidenetwork.com/gcb-board-chairman-hot/ # https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Daniel-Owiredu-is-the-mining-personality-of-the-Year-2017-604726 --

  Robertjamal12 ~🔔 10:49, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robertjamal12 Thank you for providing all these sources. Prior to nomination of this article, I have gone through all the sources used in the article and additional ones available online. Almost all the sources cannot count toward WP: GNG. Since you have brought these sources up, that should have been the best of them all. Let's do a brief analysis of them.

  • 1st source is a press release about his stepping down as executive officer of Golden star resources and the ascension of a new person. The article is all about the new Chairman, Mr Crew rather than him.
  • 2nd source A press release dismissing allegation against him and lack a significant coverage of him.
  • 3rd source: A source about a non notable award presented to him and also lacked significant coverage.
  • 4th source: Another news report about his allegations without significant coverage.
  • 5th source: This looks like a WP:GNG source but can we use one WP:GNG to establish notability?Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:33, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: One GNG worthy source cannot establish notability. All other sources are press releases and they lack significant coverage. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:57, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ibjaja055. I’m still trying to understand what you mean by lack significant coverage . All the sources you provided have significant coverage about the subject. I suggest you review WP:SIGCOV Robertjamal12 ~🔔 22:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Robertjamal12 perhaps, you will understand with this. I have broken down each of the sources and you can study my comments alongside the reason why they cannot be used toward WP:GNG. Thank you.

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.myjoyonline.com/executive-vice-president-of-golden-star-resources-daniel-owiredu-re-assigned/	It is a press release about the removal and ascension of the new head.	It is a national daily	It does not discuss the subject directly. It focused on the new head rather than him	✘ No
https://www.modernghana.com/news/719911/gcb-board-chairman-accused.html	A press release dismissing the allegations against him. A statement from the bank...	I Though, it was clarified as unclear here yet I am passing it for this.	It is on the allegations rather than him	✘ No
https://businessghana.com/site/news/business/204438/Accra-Mining-Network-honours-Daniel-Owiredu	A press release about a non notable award	It looked like a National daily though couldn't find it here	It does address the subject directly	✘ No
https://dailyguidenetwork.com/gcb-board-chairman-hot/	Press release about his allegations	It is a national daily	It only focuses on his allegations with little or nothing known about him	✘ No
https://mobile.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Daniel-Owiredu-is-the-mining-personality-of-the-Year-2017-604726	Though, it looked like a press release but written from news media perspective	It is a national daily	It discussed the subject directly and no original research is needed	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

@Ibjaja055, I disagree with your assessment of the sources provided regarding the subject's notability. Your review appears to misinterpret the criteria for WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG.

1. https://www.myjoyonline.com/executive-vice-president-of-golden-star-resources-daniel-owiredu-re-assigned/ - It does not discuss the subject directly. It focused on the new head rather than him. This source explicitly discusses the subject's tenure and contributions before transitioning from his role. It’s a news article, not a press release
2. https://www.modernghana.com/news/719911/gcb-board-chairman-accused.html - It is on the allegations rather than him. The allegations themselves are significant coverage directly involving the subject
3. https://dailyguidenetwork.com/gcb-board-chairman-hot/ - It only focuses on his allegations with little or nothing known about him. This source delves into the subject's standing as GCB Board Chairman and his role in addressing the issues.
4. https://businessghana.com/site/news/business/204438/Accra-Mining-Network-honours-Daniel-Owiredu - It does address the subject directly. - As you stated it does address the subject directly which you are right

In addition to the sources provided, here are a few as well

• https://www.classfmonline.com/business/Golden-Star-s-Daniel-Owiredu-steps-down-as-EVP-5014
• https://www.modernghana.com/news/23708/owiredu-appointed-md-of-agc.html
• https://ghanaiantimes.com.gh/golden-star-announces-changes-to-management-team/
• https://www.myjoyonline.com/daniel-owiredu-promoted-to-evpcoo-of-golden-star/

The subject pass both WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. None of the sources you assessed as press releases are WP:PRSOURCE and all provide significant coverage of the subject. - Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:20, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robertjamal12 After this, I am going to literally drop the stick. Your first additional source and the third source are exactly the same as the first source that I called a press release, word for word. A three independent and reliable news media with the same contents word for word and yet you claimed that the source is not a press release. Indeed we are not dealing with press releases here probably a source farming.

The second and fourth are still about his appointment as the head of an organisation that can't make him notable. At this point, I am dropping the stick. Happy editing!Ibjaja055 (talk) 18:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ibjaja055 Thank you for taking the time to review my comments regarding the assessment table above. I believe the subject meets the requirements of GNG. I also respect your decision to drop the stick. Wishing you all the best, and happy editing! — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 18:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Here's my analysis of each source so far. The verb tense I used is inconsistent, but irrelevant to notability.

https://www.myjoyonline.com/executive-vice-president-of-golden-star-resources-daniel-owiredu-re-assigned/, https://www.classfmonline.com/business/Golden-Star-s-Daniel-Owiredu-steps-down-as-EVP-5014, and https://ghanaiantimes.com.gh/golden-star-announces-changes-to-management-team/, which count as a single source, are definitely not significant. They have the following information:

On 1 January 2020, Owiredu stepped down as EVP and COO of Golden Star and became chairman of the board of directors of two of the company's subsidiaries.

https://www.modernghana.com/news/719911/gcb-board-chairman-accused.html (reliability: unclear), which I has some criticisms so I don't think it's a press release, has the following:

Owiredu is board chairman of the GCB Bank

He is also chairman of the credit sub-committee

He was blamed for a controversy

He was previously president of the Ghana Chamber of Mines and EVP and COO of Golden Star

https://dailyguidenetwork.com/gcb-board-chairman-hot/ is a different news agency writing about the same event with the same information, so I believe it counts as the same source as the above for WP:GNG purposes:

Owiredu is board chairman of the GCB Bank

He is also chairman of the credit sub-committee

He was blamed for a controversy

He was previously president of the Ghana Chamber of Mines and EVP and COO of Golden Star

https://businessghana.com/site/news/business/204438/Accra-Mining-Network-honours-Daniel-Owiredu has the following information and lists "GNA" as a source (which is unclear as a reliable source):

Owiredu is president and chairman of the local board of directors of Golden Star Resources as of 2020

He is a patron of the Accra Mining Network

He has been in the mining business for more than 30 years as of 2020

He is the former president of the Ghana Chamber of Mines

He is committed to helping communities in mining areas

https://mobile.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/business/Daniel-Owiredu-is-the-mining-personality-of-the-Year-2017-604726 is significant. I won't try to mine that source for information because there's plenty. Its reliability is unclear, but usually high enough for notability purposes.

https://www.modernghana.com/news/23708/owiredu-appointed-md-of-agc.html seems significant. It seems quite promotional, but I'm not sure if it's a press release. Again, reliability is unclear.

Owiredu is the managing director of SAG

He became managing director of ASC's Obuasi Mine

He attended Adisadel College, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, University of Strathclyde

He is a mechanical engineer

He joined ASC as an engineer in 1984

He became chief engineer underground after almost 17 years

He helped with the AMEP, which helped turn ASC into a multinational company

He became manager of ASC's Bibiani Gold Project in 1996

"Experts" think his appointment is a good idea

https://www.myjoyonline.com/daniel-owiredu-promoted-to-evpcoo-of-golden-star/ is insignificant and almost certainly a press release, just copy/paste the first paragraph into a google search

Owiredu became EVP and COO of Golden Star on 1 January 2014

He was president of the Ghana Chamber of Mines

I'll hold off on !voting for now.

Regards, PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 10:37, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My threshold for significant coverage will be "Can I write 50 words about Owiredu using this source?" Per the WP:SIZERULE, we should try to get stubs over 150 words. And I look for three reliable sources as a minimum unless there are two extraordinary sources. So 50 words per source.

Source assessment table prepared by [[User:PrinceTortoise]]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Three stepping down as EVP sources	These seem like press releases. Several different publications have very similar wording but conflicting or absent indications of the original source.	Myjoyonline is the second-most trusted new website in Ghana, and there is no reason a press release would be wrong in this case.	The source does not discuss the subject in detail.	✘ No
Modern Ghana "GCB Board Chairman Accused"	Expresses criticisms, so probably not a press release.	Claims editorial oversight, cites the Daily Guide as its source.	Can't contribute as a unique source because it is based on the Daily Guide article.	✘ No
Daily Guide "GCB Board Chairman Hot"	Expresses criticisms, so probably not a press release.	Major newspaper, so hopefully reliable.	The article discusses the subject directly, especially towards the end, and with sufficient detail.	✔ Yes
Business Ghana "Accra Mining Network honours Daniel Owiredu" but see [34] for more information on source	Probably not if Accra Mining also published it.	If it's not independent, then it would be strange if it were unreliable.	Not enough encyclopedic information.	✘ No
Ghana Web "Daniel Owiredu is the mining personality of the Year 2017"	Claims that a journalist wrote this, no evidence of being a press release.	reliable enough on uncontroversial topics	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
Modern Ghana "Owiredu appointed MD of AGC"	Cites Graphic, though I can't find the original source.	Claims editorial oversight, and assuming "Graphic" refers to the Daily Graphic, reliable	The article discusses the subject directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
My Joy Online "Daniel Owiredu promoted to EVP/COO of Golden Star"	Identical promotional articles are found all over the internet.	second-most trusted news website in Ghana	Not enough encyclopedic information.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I think that's three sources contributing to meeting the general notability guideline. Keep. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke • inspect) 22:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kanal D (International) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Tagged 7 years ago as completely unsourced. I only found one reasonable source https://www.milliyet.com.tr/magazin/cannesa-kanal-d-damgasi-7219054 Chidgk1 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 06:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found some sources from a turkish newspaper Hürriyet Daily News, Varity, issue and BBC. Mysecretgarden (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Passing mentions. For a company such as this we need sources that meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Click the link and you'll see the kind of thing required. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 13:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Fairly obvious merge into Kanal D, though that article requires substantial attention. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Sammi Brie. There is certainly not sourcing to support a standalone article. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julian R. Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find any news articles or publications about Julian R. Day (though it was hard to filter out results for the Julian day). This is a similar situation to User:Allykmac's other article, Graeme Brosnan (AfD here).

Almost all the citations are primary sources, ie. company/conference bios written by Day himself; the sole secondary source, "How $115 led to over 200 court appearances", is a review of his book on someone's personal blog. I don't believe Julian Day meets notability requirements. Iiii I I I (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, Computing, England, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:16, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found a bit of local news-y coverage of his charitable initiatives, but it's pretty weak and I don't think any of it could be considered SIGCOV [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. I don't think he comes close to meeting WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. MCE89 (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

American Equestrian Trade Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Currently defunct.Seems to have been created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Horse racing, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Trade organization with little to no reliable secondary coverage. All the coverage about it that I could find appears to be promotional in nature. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NORG. Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Petrovski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable businessman. Cited sources do not mention the subject at all, not even in passing. Article was speedy deleted under A7, and was immediately recreated by author. Could also qualify under WP:G11 though the article isn't blatantly promotional. Possible COI as well. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CycloneYoris ^talk! 05:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Petrovski is the founder of PCFS Logistics Pty Ltd and is also the major sponsor of Rockdale Ilinden FC. He has also had a amateur football career hence the addition of his football stats. 58.105.162.94 (talk) 05:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Petrovski is the founder of PCFS Logistics Pty Ltd and is also the major sponsor of Rockdale Ilinden FC. He has also had a amateur football career hence the addition of his football stats. Tp767 (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I've already deleted this once under A7, which clearly still applies—there's nothing to indicate any notability in Wikipedia terms. Playing non-league football and being the director of a company that's itself so obscure it doesn't even have a Wikipedia page clearly doesn't qualify. ‑ Iridescent 06:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails NBIO and SIGCOV. No indoependent coverage in reliable sources. Also, since this is a resurrected speedy delete, then this should be deleted and salted. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 10:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - did a big dive into football-specific sources and couldn't find a single mention Waterfelt (talk) 00:28, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - clearly no evidence of notability. Bduke (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - couldn't find anything outside of social media posts Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Drescher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I have found a couple of things for her on the same website Westfalische Rundschau [57] and [58]. One of these is about her when she is very young and the other one is one long paragraph so still some way short of establishing notability but it gets the discussion started.Canary757 (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Gülke (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A brief google search turns up [[59]], which while paywalled appears to have WP:SIGCOV from what I can read. A couple of sentences here but not what I'd call SIGCOV [[60]]. The corresponding German article has no non-database sources, so that doesn't help the case for this subject. Still undecided here. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCoffee Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Can't find anything for notability. There are a lot of trivial mentions to local clubs. The best sources with significant coverage I could find include: Local news source where the reporter has a conflict of interest (went to a meeting about a startup funded by her organization). Masters thesis, not reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. readwrite.com article, a website that appears to have little to no editorial oversight. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propeller Venture Accelerator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 03:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and Ireland. Imcdc Contact 03:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing significant found other than passing mentions. ww2censor (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• It's a close one. I found a book from 2017 that appears to have more than a passing mention, and the SiliconRepublic article is also definitely not trivial. That makes two seemingly independent and significant sources, which would be an WP:NCORP pass by the definition, but I don't actually have the book and I'm not sure of SiliconRepublic's reliability so I can't verify that this sticks the landing. This is a comment, not a vote. Tessaract2^Hi! 14:32, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The website is down but we do have the archive here. Keep in mind this is from 2014 while SiliconRepublic is from 2011 so details will differ.

  Looking at the SiliconRepublic lets see. The first two parts are what Terence Bowden, Venture manager at DCU Ryan Academy says so not independent. The seventh place ranking we can see is from the website. The overall package details seems to be copied or reworded from the website itself such as €30k package, office space, mentoring etc. Details might be different since website date is different but it feels like its just copied from there. There's details about mostly non-notable startups it has funded which can be traced to the portfolio that you can see here Its just a copy of website since even the order is the same. Then some interview from a related party. And finally the last part seems to be a generic boilerplate description.

  Basically as you can see a large chunk of info from that SiliconRepublic article is either copied from the website or just quoting a related staff. It sort of telling the website itself is about the DCU Ryan Academy and the Propeller Venture Accelerator is just a section of it.

  I guess we need to have a look at the book. Imcdc Contact 15:00, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for checking that in-depth! Since you need multiple sources that meet all guidelines to meet WP:NCORP, and I didn't find anything else from a WP:BEFORE, I'm now voting delete. Tessaract2^Hi! 15:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of notability. Nothing material found in a WP:BEFORE search. The COI/SPA overtones (and clearly promotional intent of the article's creation) are also difficult to overlook. Guliolopez (talk) 16:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Food insurance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This company seems to be defunct, and was probably non-notable from the get-go. The website fails DNS, as do most of the cited sources. Being mentioned in a comedian's bit doesn't count to establish notability. Google search for "food insurance" produces no relevant results, and more focused searches just find this article. Cast it into the fire! -- LWG ^talk 03:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, Websites, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Don't see any sources that contribute towards notability. foodstoragereviewer.com was a self-published blog. The best I could find is a brief story from Talking Points Memo and an opinion piece from NYT. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's the Business Inside piece cited in the article and this piece from The Week: [61], but both of those are more about Glenn Beck than the company itself. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete heavily relies on self published or non reliable sources.

Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 00:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1927 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

1926 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1924 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1938 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1939 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1996 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1998 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1999 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2000 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2001 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2002 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2003 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2004 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2005 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2006 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2007 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2008 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2009 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2010 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2011 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2012 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2013 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2014 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2015 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2016 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 Finnish Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Finnish Figure Skating Championships. I will attach all subsequent competitions in this series shortly. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Skating, and Finland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Finnish Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 02:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect all to Finnish Figure Skating Championships. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alexender Melen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable businessperson without sufficient coverage to meet WP:NBIO. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SmartSites, which was also created by the creator of this page. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, Internet, and New Jersey. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 02:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non-notable business person; sourced only to PR items. My search turns up no RS. The company is not notable either, as discussed there, so the person in charge there would not be notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Promotional page; sources are Q&A interviews, ORGTRIV of his business, other non-qualifying material. Nothing to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as the article provides none of the in-depth coverage in reliable and verifiable sources that would be needed to establish notability, nor was anything meaningful found in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 13:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Glokk40Spaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Launchballer 01:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Charitably it is too soon. In his first AfD about a year ago, he got one "weak keep" vote because he is signed to Columbia Records, but that is not enough. He is listed at the company website: [62], but with no supporting info ("Read More" leads nowhere). I can find no information from the label about any promotion of his releases or if they even released anything by him yet, despite what this article says. Meanwhile, he has no coverage in reliable music media and his stuff remains self-released on the usual platforms. Good luck to him if that big label puts in some effort, but nothing has yet happened to generate material for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Detroit shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable WP:ROUTINE shooting in an area prone to this type of thing - fails WP:LASTING Cutlass^Ciera 01:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:22, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom, badly fails sustained. Not even routine trial update stuff. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Among the worst WP:NOTNEWS failures I've seen. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? Maybe I've been here too long. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another WP:MILL shooting article from one of the worst purveyors of this here, Cyanidethistles (talk · contribs), who is thankfully blocked; article is uncomfortably detailed (a link to pedicide is beyond the pale) and likely still contains some kind of COPYVIO (which they were blocked for). Nate • (chatter) 17:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly fails WP:NOTNEWS. Esolo5002 (talk) 04:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This person doesn't seem notable enough to me. I cannot find any news coverage about her. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]