Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

13 November 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< November 12	November 14 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Jeff Radwell

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

Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources are about his company, Canouflet, with few pass mentioned in some journals. Ibjaja055 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Technology, China, Hong Kong, England, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:39, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi lbjaja055,

Thank you for your careful review and dedication to Wikipedia’s standards. I do want to acknowledge this is my first attempt at creating a biography for a living person, so I may not be fully versed in all nuances of the guidelines. However, I’m committed to refining the page to meet the standards set by WP and would welcome any guidance on improvements. I do respectfully disagree with the proposed deletion and would like to clarify the sources used and their relevance.

The assertion that “most of the sources are about his company” is not entirely accurate. While there are a few references to his company, Camouflet, they represent a minority of the sources and were included primarily because they are recent publications. The majority of references come from reputable scientific journals and independent media outlets that focus on his personal contributions to the field, particularly his pioneering research during the COVID-19 pandemic.

These sources highlight his impactful discoveries and advancements, which have had a verifiable influence on public health and scientific understanding during a critical time. His work meets the notability criteria outlined in WP

through these reliable, independent publications, which underscore his standing in the scientific community and the lasting significance of his contributions.

I hope this clarification provides a fuller picture of the subject’s notability, independent of his company, and trust it will support reconsideration of the deletion proposal. Thank you again for your commitment to maintaining Wikipedia's high standards. Stichodactyla (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: 3 of the sources cited (3, 6, and 10) are basically press releases. Some of the others are either primary sources or more directly about the company, with only a passing mention of him. Bearian (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bearian,

Thank you for your review and for bringing up these concerns. I've removed the majority of sources that seemed like press releases. There are, however, additional independent, reliable sources. I'm committed to editing, including re-evaluating cited sources and removing or reworking content that may appear overly promotional. Stichodactyla (talk) 02:06, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:18, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hewa S. Khalid

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

As far as I can see, there isn't a single secondary reliable source independent from the subject to count towards the subject's wikinotability (actually, most if not all of the sources were created by the subject). Can't find a passing criteria from WP:NACADEMIC nor any significant independent coverage for WP:GNG. Aintabli (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iraq. Aintabli (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is also an apparent WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY, and it was previously tagged as such before its prompt removal by the article creator. Aintabli (talk) 02:12, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ryu Song-gun

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

Article fails WP:GNG. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Korea-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 01:17, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a prominent member of the national team with 27 games and seven goals. A search brings up a number of mentions of him in South Korean media from the time. I think one could certainly write at least a decent start-class article on him... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:32, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DesignTech Systems

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

Fails WP:CORP. Only 1 article links to this. A search for sources found company's involvement in a skill development scam but no WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, Technology, and Maharashtra. LibStar (talk) 00:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marshall James

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

unnotable darts player, fails GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:14, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: as a former WDF World Championship runner-up and World Masters semi-finalist, there appears to be a great deal of significant coverage of the subject in Welsh (Llanelli Star, South Wales Echo) and other (Liverpool Echo, Aberdeen Evening Express) papers, but a lot of it is hidden behind a paywall. If I can get access to these papers later in the week I'll assess the coverage and update my vote; if anyone else has access to them it may be worth a look. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 18:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Registering a keep vote in light of the below comment, but will update further if I get granted access to the newspaper archive for the aforementioned articles. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 21:53, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage here and although my BNA access has expired, here's a story titled "Top of the World: Marshall James", which is almost certainly sigcov. He was second-best at the world championships! BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a six paragraph article that summarises a six year career really "significant coverage"? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is a 300+ word article on the then-second-best darts player in the world, as well as what appears to be a feature on 'Top of the World: Marshall James', count for notability? Of course it does. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. Are you seriously suggesting he was better than Phil Taylor? Two articles do not make significant coverage, especially when one of which you have admitted you have no idea what it even is. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 23:02, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You keep describing him as being the "second-best darts player in the world" and this is just categorically not true. – I'll admit I'm not super familiar with darts, but didn't James finish as the runner-up at the World Championships? Wouldn't being runner-up at the World Championships be second best in the world? And two articles can absolutely be significant coverage; the general notability guideline says that's all that's required for notability (two pieces of coverage). What do you think the odds are that a story titled, "Top of the World: Marshall James", is not significant coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He finished runner-up at a (not the) World Championship and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing of note ever again. Does a darts player from Llanelli having potentially one article in a Llanelli newspaper, and a six paragraph article on a darts website, really count for notability? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does having significant coverage from two independent outlets for a runner-up at a World Darts Championship count for notability? Absolutely if you go by GNG, which only requires two significant sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:27, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So, to keep up-to-date. That's one "significant" source. And one source you freely admit you haven't read. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We're allowed to use common sense. The odds that both the 'Top of the World' source is insignificant and that there's no further coverage of him anywhere is incredibly small, especially given that Ser! has found paywalled articles in four additional newspapers. That you're unable to answer whether you've done any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all for over one hundred darts articles you've rapidly nominated or proposed for deletion is concerning as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice personal attack there. Not content with doing it on my own talk page you now choose to do it here too! All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pointing out that you've refused on three occasions to answer the basic question of whether or not you've done a BEFORE search is not a personal attack... BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:20, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You assuming that I haven't, and constantly repeating the claim, is a personal attack. What on earth makes you think I haven't? Because you found that the British library has an article in the Llanelli Post about him from 27 years ago? 🤣 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ItsKesha: What on earth makes you think I haven't? – because I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that the articles are old, and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you responded that I need to AGF – and then I asked "Are you doing any sort of WP:BEFORE search at all?" – and you told me to get off your talk page – and then here you called it a personal attack, and when asked ... you responded that "What on earth makes you think I haven't? 🤣" – this absolute refusal to answer the question while nominating / proposing hundreds of articles for deletion is disruptive. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK 👍 All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 01:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the entirety of the BNA article, content on James bolded:
[D]arts ace Marshall James added another trophy to his impressive collection recently - after winning a world championship. Marshall was a member of the Wales short man squad that won the world championship in Perth, Sydney, recently. Another player from the area Eric Burden was also in the side with the others being Sean Palfrey of Newport and Martin Phillips from North Wales. With 35 countries taking part Wales beat a star studded England side in final by nine legs to six. Wales came away with three gold medals and one bronze. Marshall lost in the semi-final of the Embassy Gold Cup singles on Saturday to world number 1 Mervin King 2-1. Another Welsh player Shaun [sic] Palfrey went on to take the title beating King 2-0 in the final. Marshall was recognized for his achievement this week when he was chosen as winner of the Walter Hughes Cup, one of the Brin Isaac Memorial Fund awards.

I'm not convinced ~4 sentences in an un-bylined hyper-local blurb announcing his darts competition results for that week counts toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - My main concern here is that DartsNews is not obviously a reliable source and some work needs to be done to establish whether it is or isn't. My real sticking point on any bio article is "can we write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject", and if Dartsnews is reliable then probably we can. BeanieFan11 - any views on this? FOARP (talk) 10:56, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I really need to figure out how to get re-subscribed to the BNA; there appeared to be a decent bit of coverage there (highly likely enough to write a reliably-sourced encyclopaedia article, and not simply a database-entry, about the subject, I'd say)... As for Dartsnews, they appear to have an editing staff. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:59, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Mostly just on AGF, give-keep-a-chance grounds. DartsNews gives sigcov but feels like a peripheral source even if it is a WP:NEWSORG. There is no BIO equivalent of WP:AUD and local coverage shouldn't be excluded entirely, so I see no reason to dismiss coverage just because it was in a Llanelli newspaper, but it is also borderline for WP:SIGCOV. The real question for me is "can we have an article that isn't just sports-stats", and we just about can. Since the internet archive is now working again (albeit slow) I did a little search there and I see that, except for mentioning him a couple of times when discussing other players, he isn't listed in this book about the top 50 darts players, so I think that safely answers the question of how great this guy was. FOARP (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: How's that search for Welsh sources going? Anything further?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There's a Welsh rugby player with the same name... I don't see anything about a darts player. The few sources given in the comments above aren't extensive coverage. I don't think we have enough to use for an article. Oaktree b (talk) 02:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4 Cut Hero

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

Failed WP:GNG and WP:NBOOK criteria showing no significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that is independent of the subject other than passing mentions — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and South Korea. – The Grid (talk) 14:03, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Support nomination rational. There are no sources or reviews of the book by reliable sources. Searched and all I found are book selling websites and unreliable review websites. Mekomo (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found various sources, including https://www.asiae.co.kr/article/2019050311144057058 https://isplus.com/article/view/isp202304030015 for example; if it is judged insufficient I would suggest a redirect and merge to Lezhin Comics (an article that needs expansion and sourcing) Mushy Yank (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is this not a passing mentions? Both are writing about their publisher entry to foreign markets in which 4 Cut Hero is basically written/promoted as part of like "here is some of their products". — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 04:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A) my !vote indicates an alternative in case the majority of other users disagree B) "Is a passing mention"? Are passing mentions, you mean? Let's see (rough horrible translation, hope you don't mind)

#Godzilla-kun (pen name), the author of '4-Cut Hero' serialized in Lezhin Comics, is busy these days. This is because the long-running webtoon that has been serialized for six years since 2014 has recently succeeded in advancing into the US market, which means he has more work to do. On the Lezhin Comics application (app) that services Lezhin Comics comics, 4-Cut Hero is ranked in the top 10 in terms of US sales. Considering that the Lezhin Comics app is highly popular with American readers, 4-Cut Hero is also said to be well-received in the US market.

(Asiae. I consider this not a passing mention, but maybe I'm wrong)

'4-Cut Warrior' is a webtoon that began serialization in 2014, with approximately 78 million cumulative views and is currently serviced on 12 platforms in 5 countries. The diverse characters, dense plot, high-quality drawings, and gag codes at the right places, as well as the various elements that have been loved by readers for a long time, have become sufficient cornerstones for the production of an animation. The production was handled by the Chinese platform Bilibili.

(Isplus, I consider this not a passing mention and it's not, in my opinion, equivalent to basically writ[ing about]/promot[ing] [the subject] as part of like "here is some of their products"

But again, maybe I'm wrong; still, I am suggesting an ATD. Mushy Yank (talk) 11:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok noted, thanks for sharing your thoughts. However, even though I don't needed translation, IMO it's still passing mentions as 4 Cut Hero isn't the main topic for either reportings and my BEFORE before AfDing this article doesn't really shows otherwise. Regardless, I'm open to the alternative of just partial merging certain content if sourced rather than a full "cut-paste" as IMO it would be out-of-place for Lezhin Comics article. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 13:21, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:03, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of exoplanets detected by radial velocity

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

With the number of planets detected by radial velocity growing more and more every month, it will be very difficult to maintain this list. It barely get updates and views and has little utility, anyone searching for radial velocity planets could search the NASA Exoplanet Archive instead, which is far more complete than this list. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:24, 5 November 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 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listing only notable entries (that is, with an article). I see no policy-driven deletion reason here. The maintainence argument, which is not a reason to delete, does not hold: if we have articles about these planets, we can include them on a list; the argument would maybe make sense if we needed to include every object discovered by radial velocity, but we don't. The existence of an external website listing such planets has no bearing at all on being the list appropriate for Wikipedia.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:31, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is this: we have a list that is forgotten and incomplete to the point of being unreliable. To resolve this, we either fill the list or delete it. I'll do what's easiest as the losses will be minimal. Lack of completeness can still be an argument for exclusion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stars in the Hipparcos Catalogue. Even if we are going to include notable discoveries only, at least 637 notable planets exist, this list has 354, so 284 planets to add, quite a lot. The effort to fix this list should be instead be directed to other activities, such as writing a new article or updating popular, widely-viewed ones. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:56, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Again: all concerns you bring up are valid, but they are to be met by editing, and in this case policy explicitly says we should not delete. We indeed have a huge amount of incomplete lists, which is only normal. It's not like we have a deadline. cyclopia ^speak! 10:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: from a practical standpoint, Wikipedia shouldn't try to replicate massive lists of objects that are better kept elsewhere (e.g. the Exoplanet archive). If we have a page, someone has to maintain it. Better to focus on things where wikipedia is a value add, instead of just trying to be a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(copied from the reply to the same comment in the the other analogous AfD) Of course it shouldn't try to replicate the Exoplanet archive. But "the same information is elsewhere" is not a cogent argument: all information on Wikipedia is elsewhere almost by definition, since we collect information based on sources. We have different selection criteria to make the list relevant for Wikipedia as, for example, listing only notable entries. We are indeed not a directory, but that is why we have the selection criteria above. cyclopia ^speak! 10:03, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Since this list is potentially unbounded, we may want to consider segmenting the list by discovery date range. This will make it more manageable, since each date range can become a completed list. A precedent for this is the list of minor planets, since the numbering is approximately chronological by discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with User:Praemonitus. We could then edit this by segmenting the exoplanets' discovery dates, and it would not be misleading even if it were to be slightly not up to date, and thus buying us time to edit(of course, we would still have to update this list). As for the argument that the same information is found elsewhere, the fact is that you cannot just get to Wikipedia articles on exoplanets simply by clicking links on the Exoplanet Archive. Pygos (talk) 03:03, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of transiting exoplanets

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

Was a useful list in the past, but it became outdated and is hardly updated. The number of transiting exoplanets has grown massively, so it is nearly impossible to maintain this list. Just to fill up the missing entries it would take a huge effort of many people and months, and given that only 200 people see this list every month this effort would not be rewarded. The Exoplanet Archive already do the job to catalog these planets, making this list useless. 21 Andromedae (talk) 18:17, 5 November 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 November 5. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Normally the incompleteness of a list isn't a reason to get rid of it. We have some absurdly long lists in astronomy, and they will never be fully complete. That being said, sites like the Exoplanet Archive are going to be better at processing and maintaining this information. Why do we need to reproduce them? Praemonitus (talk) 07:09, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, listing only notable entries (that is, with an article). I see no policy-driven deletion reason here. The maintainence argument, which is not a reason to delete, does not hold: if we have articles about these planets, we can include them on a list; the argument would maybe make sense if we needed to include every object discovered by transit, but we don't. The existence of an external website listing such planets has no bearing at all on being the list appropriate for Wikipedia.--cyclopia ^speak! 09:32, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: (copying my comment from the RV deletion discussion) from a practical standpoint, Wikipedia shouldn't try to replicate massive lists of objects that are better kept elsewhere (e.g. the Exoplanet archive). If we have a page, someone has to maintain it. Better to focus on things where wikipedia is a value add, instead of just trying to be a catalog. - Parejkoj (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it shouldn't try to replicate the Exoplanet archive. But "the same information is elsewhere" is not a cogent argument: all information on Wikipedia is elsewhere almost by definition, since we collect information based on sources. We have different selection criteria to make the list relevant for Wikipedia as, for example, listing only notable entries. We are indeed not a directory, but that is why we have the selection criteria above. cyclopia ^speak! 09:58, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since this list is potentially unbounded, we may want to consider segmenting the list by discovery date. This will make it more manageable, since each date range can become a completed list. A precedent for this is the list of minor planets, since the numbering is approximately chronological by discovery. Praemonitus (talk) 16:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with User:Praemonitus. We could then edit this by segmenting the exoplanets' discovery dates, and it would not be misleading even if it were to be slightly not up to date, and thus buying us time to edit(of course, we would still have to update this list). As for the argument that the same information is found elsewhere, the fact is that you cannot just get to Wikipedia articles on exoplanets simply by clicking links on the Exoplanet Archive. Pygos (talk) 03:11, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John C. Catlin

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

WP:ROTM lawyer, and no-one knows what a "Blacksmith Mayor" is. This seems to be a soubriquet bestowed upon him by the creating editor, who created one or more walled gardens in and around Carmel-by-the-Sea, with distinctly useless hyperlocal referencing. WP:NOTINHERITED applies - look at the list of people he knew! Fails WP:V, fails WP:BIO, fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, fails WP:GNG. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:54, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article on this former mayor and lawyer that is one of a series of articles written with a promotional tone of boosterism. The boosterism resulted in what some have called a "walled garden" surrounding the town and its inhabitants that connect the editor's articles with one another, usually through a hub like Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or Timeline of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California, or the The Carmel Pine Cone. Carmel had a population of around 2,000 when he was in office for two years. He was a run-of-the-mill politician who does not meet WP notability criteria for politicians. As to his title, "Blacksmith Mayor", it's a mystery as mentioned in the nom, and may be a neologism fabricated by the creator. Hyper-local sourcing. Fails WP:NPOLITICIAN, WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Editor Bearian has developed useful standards (not guideline or policy) for determining of attorneys HERE and mayors for HERE. (No ping because I do not want this to be perceived as canvassing.) Netherzone (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a case to be made for GNG, with a three-column feature in the Sacramento Bee and a full-column long story in the Oakland Tribune. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone removed a lot of the content and sources before the article was nominated for AfD. I don't know if they were right or wrong to do so, but it is impossible to evaluate the article without this material, and so I think it should be kept in until someone explains why they though the deleted sources were not acceptable even for non-controversial material. I have restored some of it pending the result of this AfD. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:44, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Carmel-by-the-Sea,_California: especially the part about the Forge (limit merge to a reasonable amount of content) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:04, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I cannot access the new sources but I am sure they are good and therefore remove my !vote. For the sake of transparency, note that I’received a message inviting me to evaluate the new sources.Mushy Yank (talk) 19:44, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources listed above in addition to this, this and this appear to be enough for GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 16:04, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:50, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis W. Wynkoop

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

An entirely blanked article because it fails WP:NBIO and has WP:COI issues. Somehow, nobody thought about making a deletion discussion throughout all of this process. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing there: delete. Athel cb (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something now@Athel cb:. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:16, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Architecture, California, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ keep: ~~and restore immediately the content!~~ This is not how things should be done. On top of this, Wynkoop is a notable architect. I understand the nominator has good intentions but this is a procedural keep. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC) I have restored the content. While BLARing and redirecting the page could have been acceptable (maybe not the best solution, but procedurally acceptable at least), the mere blanking of the page was disruptive, especially as the one !voter here does not seem to have looked at the history of the page.-My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 21:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well ping @Left guide and @Arch2all to see what arguments they have. TeapotsOfDoom (talk) 06:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the redirect, because it linked to a page which is not directly related to Francis Wynkop. I haven't deleted the previous content. It is not an acceptable solution to create misleading redirects in this case. Keep the old content or delete the whole page, if no one can create acceptable content here. Arch2all (talk) 09:29, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wynkoop is with 2 Os; and the redirect (although I think the page should be kept) was not misleading. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 09:53, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect per the edit summary argument which is still fully valid:
fails WP:NBIO, virtually all of the coverage available for this person is paid sources, passing mentions, and questionable sources that don't count towards notability
Also possibly the product of COI/UPE based on the banned article creator's history. Left guide (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure your general assessment of the sources as a whole is correct but WP:NPEOPLE indicates that persons meeting the following criterion may be considered notable: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here. Your redirect was not misleading (see above) but I consider it is not necessary.

Also, @TeapotsOfDoom pinging the 2 contributors who redirected/blanked the page respectively might be seen as inappropriate, although it was limited, open and neutral in its wording, as the audience might fall under the category "partisan". I am certain you did it in good faith and both users were not selected for their opinion on the subject but their opinion on the subject was obviously clear to you before you pinged them. Thank you all the same.

Anyway, despite strong indications of notability, I stand by my procedural SK !vote. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 10:12, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Admin comment, I see no grounds for a speedy keep as BLAR is normal part of editing. Please focus on notability and not procedural issues. Star Mississippi 11:39, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But I will focus on procedural issues, though. Please look at the history of the page and of this AfD. And please read my comment with more attention. "Blaring" is not an issue. Blanking a page, however, is not, I must insist, normal part of editing. At all. And nominating a blank page, even in good faith, is sufficient ground for SK in my view, at least for procedural keep. See first !vote and see nominator's rationale. So, as your comment is apparently made in quality of administrator and my input seems to be the only thing you notice here, please kindly read: Wikipedia:Page blanking. It's a guideline. As for the rest, I mentioned notabilty too, myself (twice), but AfDs are not always about notability only and when a procedural flaw is patent, it is relevant to mention it and it is permitted if not recommended, to !vote accordingly. Thank you for your time and concern. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 12:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The history is accessible and anyone participating in an AfD should look at the current and past state of an article when evaluating an AfD (Prod, MfD, etc.) for necessary information. There are no procedural grounds that invalidate the nomination. If Wynkoop is found to be notable, it will be retained. If not, it won't be. Neither instance requires a procedural restart to the discussion, which might be the case if there were Rev Del or other factors that impacted non admins from seeing the history. My comment is that of one admin, you're welcome to continue asking for others to weigh in. I think your (collectively) time would be best spent assessing notability. Drive by comments (not yours, the one you refer to) are regularly disregarded by closers. Star Mississippi 21:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if blanking is OK with you and nominating a blank page as such too, perfect, but you might want to change the guideline then. As I've already told you, I've already replied in regard to the notability issue with 2 comments, that you apparently haven't seen. But I'll do it one more time, although I think I am wasting my time with a completely irregular debate. Frank Wynkoop is a notable architect, creator of various very notable works, some listed on the page, with solid references, and he thus clearly, fairly and easily meets Wikipedia:Notability (people) and in particular the criterion I quoted above, but let's go, I'll quote it again (if anyone mentions bludgeoning, I'll direct them to you, hope we agree on that): "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews;" That is obviously the case here: https://www.atomic-ranch.com/interior-design/designers-craftsmen/frank-wynkoop-the-butterfly-house/; Dramov, Alissandra, and Momboisse, Lynn A.. Historic Homes and Inns of Carmel-by-the-Sea. Arcadia Publishing Incorporated, p. 8 (quoted on the page and perfectly acceptable); https://www.architecturaldigest.com/story/ad-goes-inside-carmels-iconic-butterfly-house; Papp, James. San Luis Obispo County Architecture. Arcadia Publishing, 2023.p.121 ; Engineering News-record. (1962). McGraw-Hill, p. 50; Landscape Architecture: Home landscape, Publication Board of the American Society of Landscape Architects, 1980, p. 164.; etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 22:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No concern with bludgeoning. You're making the case that he's notable - great. That's what the closer will need. It's not an irregular debate. Thanks! Star Mississippi 03:00, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there any reliable indept sourcing for any works apart from the Butterfly House? On a cursory look I've not seen any. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I remember correctly, the Seaburst House did, but the source was on the Internet Archive so I don't have access to it at the moment. It does have at least one piece of SIGCOV here. The Centralia Fox Theatre has SIGCOV here, here, here, here, here and here. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, I've paged through newspaper hits for variations on his name & architect and found virtually nothing beyond he was the named architect on a number of schools. Best school coverage I noticed was Lakeside School was inspected by county groups (Modesto Bee And News Herald Newspaper Archives February 6, 1948 Page 17) which appears to have a few paras (can't read properly the scan quality is so poor). There's also a couple of Proquest hits mentioning his work renovating Bakersfield Hall of Records (Repository of county records celebrates 100 years of history. Shearer, Jenny. McClatchy - Tribune Business News; Washington. 24 Jan 2009. & Best buildings of downtown: Take the tour. Self, Jennifer. TCA Regional News; Chicago. 18 May 2016). I'd suggest the possibility of a merge with Butterfly House (Carmel-by-the-Sea, California), including a para or so about his life and other projects. With architects very predominantly known for one building that usually seems the best approach. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A merge makes sense to me. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All the sourcing points to the fact he was just a local, run of the mill architect, without any significant coverage of him that would go beyond routine local coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 06:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I've looked through the sourcing here and in the article - the best sources basically say he designed a house in Carmel, but don't really elaborate on him at all. The article uses a lot of short, routine newspaper clippings such as paid obituaries and marriage licenses to pad it out, which don't count. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This architect designed a number of notable structures. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which apart from Butterfly House? Espresso Addict (talk) 00:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To remind you, we are discussing the notability of the subject. Whether the current contents of the page are blank or not matters not a whit, as Star Mississippi pointed out. And once a valid view to delete has been entered, an improper nomination is no longer reason for a procedural keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK... I changed my vote to a normal notability Keep; but I am not convinced by the validity of nominating a blank page because (see nom’s rationale) it is blank...AND, precisely, the 1st D !vote before my SK procedural !vote did not seem valid to me BECAUSE the page was blank. (See vote’s content).. ,,so that, according to your very comment, a procedural K vote seemed.... perfectly valid. ........ Anyway, I changed my vote to avoid long debates about now side issues...Mushy Yank (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

’’’Weak delete’’’ - he was clearly an accomplished and successful architect who designed at least two beautiful houses - the photos are lovely. The majority of the text is antiquarian chuff, but that could be pruned if there is a core of notability here. But none of the sources shows real notability. Llajwa (talk) 19:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would endorse merging some of this content into the Butterfly House article, as another editor suggested. Llajwa (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know this is part of the Greg Henderson cleanup, but I think Wynkoop clearly passes WP:ARCHITECT criterion 3 as someone who created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work (i.e., the Butterfly House, which must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews and passes that criterion with WP:SIGCOV in Architectural Digest, the Arizona Republic, the Wall Street Journal and other outlets. No prejudice against cleaning up or trimming the text. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dclemens1971 Is there a need for two articles, though? We have one on Butterfly House. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:40, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, because a biography of the architect isn't appropriate to include in an article on the building. This is not really an edge case; this is an unambiguous pass of criterion 3 of ARCHITECT/CREATIVE. This criterion doesn't provide only a presumption of notability; instead, such a person is notable (emphasis added). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not generally known for my deletionist tendencies, but WP:AUTHOR, which is the same guideline as WP:ARCHITECT, is almost universally held to require two books each with reviews, otherwise it defaults to an article on the book that briefly covers the biography. If an architect were known for a single, extremely major building that took decades to complete, perhaps... but Butterfly House is the architecture equivalent of a single novel. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement is for multiple reviews, not for multiple works. (Wikipedia has lots of articles about authors who wrote a single book; see Kathryn Stockett for example.) NCREATIVE literally says a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. That's the literal reading of the text. Clearly we disagree about whether it applies, but I stand by the plain reading of the policy. Thanks! Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is even if WP:ARCHITECT is met, WP:GNG isn't. SportingFlyer T·C 01:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the architecture guidelines met?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:58, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Miss You (film)

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

This is about an unreleased film which does not satisfy film notability. Unreleased films are only notable if production itself has received significant coverage by reliable sources. A review of the sources shows that they are all announcements or press releases about the film or its songs. The first five references, in four different media, are essentially identical, which is best explained that they are the same press releases to different media.

Reference Number	Reference	Comments	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	The Hindu	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
2	cinemaexpress.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
3	thesouthfirst.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
4	www.business-standard.com	States that movie will be filmed.	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
5	The Hindu	Same as 1	No. 1 through 5 are the same, and so are a press release.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
6	timesnownews.com	States that movie will be filmed.	Probably.	Not for this purpose	Yes	Yes
7	Times of India	Passing mention of a song.	Maybe	No. Passing mention.	No	Yes
8	cinemaexpress.com	Press release about a song.	No.	No	Yes	Yes
9	cinemaexpress.com	Another press release about a song.	No.	No	Yes	Yes
10	news18.com	An announcement about the film.	Probably.	Not for this purpose.	Yes	Yes

There is also a draft; the draft and the article are by different authors. The information in this article and in the draft can be merged in the draft, and the draft can be submitted, with reviews and other quality sources, when the film has been released and reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because release is announced for late November, I would normally have suggested to keep this and I would have merged the draft into it .....but there are TWO drafts Draft:Miss You Movie (created yesterday, just before the article, same creator) and Draft:Miss You (film) by User:Gowthamaprabu (created 21. 10); the latter was declined by the nom. Read the following comment: "Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Miss You (film) instead.", said the nom of the present AfD when declining the page.....which, if I was the page creator, would make me think, the page discussed here is not concerned by deletion! Still as Gowthamaprabu's Draft was the first page to be created, I consider it should be the starting point so I suggest a merge of all three pages into Draft:Miss You (film). Premise is known, actors are notable, coverage for verification exists, so even if it's the other way around, I won't be shocked but declining the Draft and inviting its creator to expand a page and, an hour later or so, taking the said page to AfD is a bit confusing.Mushy Yank (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. Mushy Yank (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Robert McClenon and @Mushy Yank! Hope you're both doing well! I wanted to provide some context regarding the article Miss You (2024), which covers the upcoming film set for release at the end of November 2024. As mentioned transparently, I have been commissioned by the producers to edit and create content for this article, ensuring accurate representation of the movie. I’ve Confirmed that the official release date is November 29, 2024, though due to a lack of publicly available citations, I haven't specified the date in the article itself. I’ve included all available information with relevant citations, and I believe the content is accurate and complete as presented. If possible, I'd suggest we retain the article and continue to improve it together. We could even consider merging it with Draft: Miss You (Film) by User:Gowthamaprabu to consolidate information. Meena1998 (talk) 07:10, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Draft:Miss You (film) since the film's release is near, let's wait. Once it hits theaters, it is expected to get more coverage and critical reviews. You can then update the page and publish it through the AFC route. For now, let's merge its content into the declined draft:).Chanel Dsouza (talk) 13:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Attractions

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

No evidence of notability separate from Elvis Costello. Most information of importance already covered in Costello's page DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and United Kingdom. DeputyBeagle (talk) 15:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Costello. The key thing here is the album they released on their own, which despite the nominator's statement, isn't even mentioned in the Costello article. --Michig (talk) 21:09, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an album of any particular note. I'm not opposed to a merge but I don't think the Attractions doing an album without Costello is noteworthy for his page DeputyBeagle (talk) 22:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Elvis Costello. Note that not all of the article has to be merged, and most of the text in this article is merely a wordier version of history already discussed at Costello's article. A few band-specific events can be squeezed in over there. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:37, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did contribute some a bit to the article a few years ago, including adding the NF image and some sources. The only basis I'd argue the inclusion of notability would be the fact that the Attractions have been called one of the best backing bands in music history, but as the others have said, about 90% of their career is tied to EC. With that being said I think it would be fine to merge. – zmbro _{(talk) (cont)} 14:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep . This band were the backing group to a leading New Wave singer, which surely makes them notable. YTKJ (talk) 10:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure if I understand the logic there. Nobody's denying Costello is notable, but they haven't done enough notable on their own to justify their own article. They need to have independent notability.

In the same way as how WP:BANDMEMBER doesn't give every member of a notable band its own, a backing band needs to be able to stand on their WP:BAND criteria seperately from Costello if they have their own article DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The E Street Band has a separate article even tho never being credited as such on any albums nor having released any album on their own. Attractions members sustained careers as session musicians, as did E Street Band members, and live backing musicians, which E Street Band members did to a lesser extent. 2600:E001:1AD:6400:79E4:6995:B836:A675 (talk) 21:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The E Street band have been inducted into the rock and roll hall of fame, and have lots of coverage and articles specifically about them.

The Attractions just don't have that level of notability in the same way DeputyBeagle (talk) 10:15, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point, User: DeputyBeagle. Having looked at WP: BANDMEMBER and read the first item on the list of notability criteria under WP:BAND, I can say that I would not be opposed to a merge with or redirect to Elvis Costello. Just so long as the outcome of this discussion is not deletion - the band were too closely linked with Costello for that. YTKJ (talk) 22:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources show this is clearly notable!!! -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 14:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

D- Aside:@Liz, hello, if the undue bold mentioned in a recent message concerned this page, I am afraid it was not my deed but an unvolontary consequence of an edit by@YTKJ (fixed) -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 20:44, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Notable, and also a very reasonable way of organizing content surrounding Costello. yes, there are other ways it could be done, but this way makes sense.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 13:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: as per Milowent. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 21:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This band's music separate from Costello may not be notable, but they can still demonstrate notability through the GNG. They have been called one of the best backing bands in rock history, backed up by three citations, alongside other sources like this, clearly show that the GNG has been met. Toadspike [Talk] 09:18, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of their significant coverage is about their relationship with Costello. We can add a section to Costello's page related to the band where there are points worthy of inclusion.

There's no point relying on WP:GNG when we have subject-specific guidelines in WP:BAND that show more specifically what the requirements are for a band to have their own article. They'd have to demonstrate that notability separate from their work with Costello DeputyBeagle (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It is not important whether or not participants consider this subject notable or not. It depends on whether or not reliable sources can help establish notability. But I see only a little discussion here of the quality of the sourcing. Can we get a source analysis to see if there is enough SIGCOV to warrant a separate article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peruri 88

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

The article generally does not meet the WP:NBUILDING or WP:GNG guidelines. Had the building been constructed or been under construction, it might have qualified under these guidelines, as it would be the tallest building in Jakarta and likely attract substantial coverage. Unfortunately, it remains only a design proposal from 2012, and 12 years later, there have been no further updates or developments on this plan. Ckfasdf (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that we had a look for sources at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Indonesia#Peruri 88. Also note that, at least for the coordinates of the purported site, very recent Google StreetView imagery shows no evidence of the site being cleared (there's still commercial and residential structures, apparently occupied), never mind construction. Ckfasdf has informed user:M R Karim Reza, the article's creator (who remains active on en.wikipedia), of the deletion.-- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 13:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Finlay McWalter: This is the latest Google Street View image, dated August 2024, showing no signs of construction or site clearing. The proposed location is still in use by Peruri as their office and facility Ckfasdf (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a potential compilation of planned but either on-hold.., or otherwise never constructed projects in Jakarta, or something similar, rather than delete, there are probably a lot more there, waiting to join the list, and in a collection it would be adequately notable as a phenomenon, rather than in single sites as never started projects or stalled proposals.JarrahTree 11:18, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's no evidence that this is anything more than an unfunded paper project. As such, there are no real independent sources and no substantial coverage. -- Finlay McWalter··–·Talk 09:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: If proposing a Merge or Redirect, please spell out the proposed target.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 20:55, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Without a proposed target article, this article can not be Merged. Please identify one if this is your desired outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lost in Time (Doctor Who)

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

A box set that released various Doctor Who serials that had episodes missing. The article is predominantly uncited and contains almost entirely primary citations, and a brief BEFORE turns up very little outside of watch guides for missing episodes. I can see a redirect to Doctor Who missing episodes as an AtD, but overall this is a largely non-notable DVD box set release not separately notable from the concept of missing episodes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]