Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

1 November 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< October 31 November 02 >

Purge server cache

Elizabeth Freeman (disambiguation)

[edit]
Elizabeth Freeman (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)

There is only one Elizabeth Freeman, as well as an Elisabeth Freeman. Betty, Beth and Elise are not named either Elizabeth or Elisabeth. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sant Baba Bhag Singh University

[edit]
Sant Baba Bhag Singh University (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 does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for educational institutions. Sant Baba Bhag Singh University lacks significant academic achievements, industry recognition, or research contributions to justify a dedicated article. The content is overly promotional, with honorific language suggesting it may have been authored by an individual affiliated with the university. Furthermore, the cited sources are either critical of the university’s legitimacy or do not contribute to establishing its notability. Previous attempts to address these issues through WP:PROD were removed without resolution. VeritasVanguard (talk) 03:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, need to improve UzbukUdash (talk) 04:58, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Liz Neeley

[edit]
Liz Neeley (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)

Neeley is an accomplished woman but is not encyclopedically notable. There isn't much secondary coverage of her nor she does not pass WP:NACADEMIC. Mooonswimmer 01:25, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, Entertainment, Science, Maryland, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I see little sign of NPROF, with only one highly cited paper that is also very highly coauthored. I am skeptical of GNG -- the NPR piece is somewhat substantial, but the other pieces are either primary (usually authored by the subject) or else do not mention her. The book has gotten some reviews, but these do not list her as an author [1][2]. I considered a redirect to the Story Collider, but as she has moved on from that organization, that doesn't seem to make so much sense. I think this is probably a bit WP:TOOSOON. Watchlisting in case I have missed something. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:50, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is this the same person: [3]. a citation factor of 10 or 11 doesn't seem that high, but I'm unsure. Oaktree b (talk) 15:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep: Might pass AUTHOR, with some book reviews for "Escape from the Ivory Tower", [4], [5], [6]. Oaktree b (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But all three of those say that the book is by Nancy Baron, and do not mention Neeley. Baron does thank Neeley in the acknowledgements (alongside a lot of other folks). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:06, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just came to the same conclusion that she did not write the book (and reverted myself when I added one review to Neeley's article) DaffodilOcean (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Neeley did not write that book. Mooonswimmer 01:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep There are at least four sources I found in the article for WP:GNG. I'm listing them up here for ease of access. The first one has the most coverage of the subject; the other three are more than just passing mention but less than significant coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 20:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    1. Maddie Sofia (January 14, 2020). "Your Brain On Storytelling : Short Wave" (Podcast). NPR. Retrieved 2021-06-02.
    2. Wilcox, Christie; Brookshire, Bethany; Goldman, Jason G (2016). Science blogging: the essential guide. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0300197556. OCLC 920017519.
    3. Achenbach, Joel (2023-04-09). "Opinion | Why science is so hard to believe". Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. ProQuest 1655455709.
    4. Renken, Elena (11 April 2020). "How Stories Connect And Persuade Us: Unleashing The Brain Power Of Narrative". NPR.org.
    5. Sirois, Cheri (April 25, 2024). "Creating connections when we talk about science". Cell (Interview). 187 (9). Cell Press: 2120–2123. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.043. (added to list Oct 21)
  • Delete. Coverage by the subject themselves, as in the NPR interviews, is not independent or secondary, so does not count towards GNG. She is one of the authors of the science blogging guide so that is not an independent reference either. The WP article has no encyclopedic coverage of her, just quotes and an anecdote about her dad that would be UNDUE. These are not substantial enough for NPROF C7 and definitely not for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep I agree with @Nnev66 that she has just enough NPR articles/podcasts for WP:GNG. I think the Short Wave podcast would be enough. Bpuddin (talk) 06:54, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bpuddin, what is the secondary independent coverage that is in that interview? GNG requires multiple SIGCOV IRS sources, so even a single SIGCOV source (the NPR interviews count as one source) would not be sufficient. JoelleJay (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disagree that the sources @Nnev66 highlighted don't contribute to GNG; she's being included in them as an expert on science communication, not just a general interview about her or her work. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:15, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GNG typically requires significant coverage. The sources mentioned above do not meet that standard. While being a leading expert in certain fields can make an individual encyclopedically notable, we would need evidence such as frequent citations by peers, a decent number of highly cited scholarly publications, teaching positions, contributions to significant research, or at least explicit statements from reliable sources recognizing them as a top expert in their field. I'd say most people holding a PhD in their fields are experts, but that doesn't make them all notable per Wikipedia's standards, even if they're cited/interviewed in one or two mainstream news outlets as experts. Mooonswimmer 01:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/update: I've struck the Science blogging book ref in my list for notability above as it is a primary source. I was reading sentences in a Google link to the book that mislead me into thinking there was a section about Neeley - once I got ahold of the book I realized there was no secondary coverage. Regarding the other three references, the NPR ones could be considered one source as they both refer to the Short Wave podcast. By my reading of WP:INTERVIEWS#Notability, I believe they provide significant coverage as the host does synthesis of Neeley's background and credentials and presents it in her own words, thereby making it secondary coverage. As noted above, there is some coverage of Neeley in the WaPo reference - more than passing mention but it could argued not significant coverage. Also added another reference to article I found in the journal Cell which is also an interview but has a mix of primary/secondary coverage. Nnev66 (talk) 17:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cell interview definitely does not have "a mix of primary/secondary coverage" -- the only secondary coverage is less than a sentence in the intro: science communicator Liz Neeley, founding partner of Liminal and cofounder of Solving for Science. That's nowhere near SIGCOV...
I also just noticed that the WaPo article is an opinion piece, which is explicitly disallowed from counting towards notability as it's a primary source.
So even if either of the NPR interviews contained IRS SIGCOV (which they do not), we would still need multiple sources to meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:56, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the WaPo piece is not an opinion piece by Neeley (which would be primary), but she and her work are cited and discussed within it to support the Auchenbach's commentary. (In full, it's an excerpt from a National Geographic feature story "The Age of Disbelief" (March 2015), though most of the Neeley quote and commentary there is as it is in the Post piece.) —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 20:25, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, opinion pieces are considered primary regardless of what they're covering or who they're by. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Except based on the content, the Auchenbach piece isn't an opinion piece. It's from 2015 when the current "Opinions" section was called "Outlook" and ran book reviews, along with opinion pieces, commentary, and analysis. This piece, despite the current "Opinion" label from the Post's website, is clearly secondary in nature, providing analysis, evaluation, and interpretation of research into the ways people process (and deny) scientific evidence. Neeley is quoted and her work referenced as part of that. If the Post's opinion label on an excerpt makes it primary in your mind, then look to the original article: Achenbach, Joel (March 2015) "The Age of Disbelief", National Geographic, 277(3):30–47... —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 11:53, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I said the source was to too far from SIGCOV to count towards GNG even before seeing it was labeled an opinion piece, so this doesn't change anything for me. JoelleJay (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Cell interview is in a reliable source and shows a depth of preparation by the interviewer. In the opening the interviewer notes: You trained in marine biology and conservation, but you also have wide experience in communicating a range of ideas, from neuroscience to the COVID-19 pandemic. From there the interviewer notes the subject's “theory and practice of sensemaking" and asks her to expand on it in the context of telling complicated science-themed stories. The proceeding questions ask the subject to unpack how to write for a general audience and differences between technical writing versus scientific storytelling. The interviewer is synthesizing what the subject says, which I consider secondary, before proceeding on to the next question. Nnev66 (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The interviewer just says You’ve said in the past that you’re focused on the “theory and practice of sensemaking.” That has zero secondary content, it's just repeating what the subject has said about themselves. None of the subsequent questions have anything more than that.
Interviewer questions that suggest a "depth of preparation" are still not coverage unless they actually contain secondary analysis of the subject. Otherwise every interview with a couple pointed questions would be considered SIGCOV. And someone's live reactions to another person's statements are exactly what our policy on primary encompasses: "Primary sources were either created during the time period being studied [...] They reflect the individual viewpoint of a participant or observer." The interviewer is a participant in the interview. This is consistent with longstanding practical consensus on interviews at AfD. JoelleJay (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sources are perhaps reliable enough to support the claims in the article, but none of them contributes to WP:GNG; they are not simultaneously in-depth, independent, and reliably published. Among Nnev's selection, the first NPR link and Cell are interviews (most content non-independent). The crossed-off book source is a chapter by the subject about self-promotion (a bit of a red flag). The second NPR link and the WaPo piece name-drop her for some quotes but have no depth of coverage about her. And I didn't see much else. That leaves WP:PROF#C1, and her citation record [7], where she was a minor coauthor in a middle position on one well-cited publication on a subject totally unrelated to her science communication work. I don't think we can base an article, especially this article, on that. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I had closed this as a no consensus, which is still my read, but following a request I have decided to relist it because consensus is preferable to kicking this down the road.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 17:16, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Not looked into rest of evidence but I agree with David Eppstein that there is not a pass of PROF by citation profile here. Looking at the alphabetisation of the list of Nature paper authors Neeley does not seem to be more than a very minor contributor, and the other moderately cited papers do not meet my expectations. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject does not meet the criteria of WP:NPROF, and there is no significant of her or her work that would satisfy WP:GNG. The accumulation of several quotes as an expert in good outlets is a start, but I don't see it as being enough to overcome the lack of other significant sources. Malinaccier (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Third time's a charm?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete UzbukUdash (talk) 04:59, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Francis Durning

[edit]
Francis Durning (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:BIO1E the only reason this article exists is because of the allegations of sexual abuse: [8] no notability otherwise and coverage is more about the Catholic Church's role than Durning himself Traumnovelle (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ethan Hunt

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Ethan Hunt (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)

He is a notable character, but that doesn't stop him from being notable. Of all the sources, none are reliable, they are either passing mentions, film reviews, or interviews and don't really talk about the character itself. Luther Stickell suffers the same thing, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Luther Stickell. The first nomination was closed a keep, and years later, it isn't fixed. If it's still like this, i would recommend a redirect to either List of Mission: Impossible characters or Tom Cruise. Toby2023 (talk) 03:34, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP or DRAFT, Need more relevant sourcing im sure its there UzbukUdash (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Medford, Indiana

[edit]
Medford, Indiana (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 county history cited calls it a rail station with a post office, which is what the maps show as well. There was no town here. Mangoe (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with these zoning maps and plats is that what's on the ground bears no particular resemblance to the streets and lots they paint. The plat in particular is so wrong that I cannot determine whether it represents land north or south of the road. likewise, while the zoning ruling at least contains some photography, what has actually happened in the intervening years is that of the area north of the road, the wedge adjacent to the RR RoW has been consolidated into a single property, everything east of that has lapsed back into farmland.I gather the point of the zoning was the consolidation of that land into residential land.
The point here is that there's no doubt in all of this that someone wanted a town here, apparently to the point of setting it up as far as land use was concerned. The substantial discrepancies between the legal definitions and the reality on the ground, however, indicate that the town is a legal fiction that was never realized. The plat in particular is pretty damning, as there is no evidence that any of the streets shown was ever constructed. A few houses along the main road were built, and some sort of business (which presumably was where this Barth was in later years) was built next to the tracks, but that appears to be it. Mangoe (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP UzbukUdash (talk) 05:02, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Africa Customs Union and Mozambique

[edit]
Southern Africa Customs Union and Mozambique (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 predicated on misunderstanding a single gov.uk webpage. The claimed customs union does not exist and thus has no sources. Much of the page is false, and what is true is in no way notable. It would be equivalent to having a page titled "Canada and Mexico" because they are both parties to NAFTA. Peetel (talk) 03:08, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Luther Stickell

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

I don't think that this character is notable. This article has 10 sources, of all are not reliable and passing mentions. It was recently tagged for notability and there is no help at all. My WP:BEFORE failed to show anything about him. If he isn't fixed, i recommend a redirect to List of Mission: Impossible characters or at worse, Ving Rhames.

CEWC Northern Ireland

[edit]
CEWC Northern Ireland (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 could not find significant coverage when searching under short name or full name. The 2nd source is a 1 line mention in a book.

Also nominating CEWC-Cymru for similar reasons. Both articles fail WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Norton, Indiana

[edit]
Norton, Indiana (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)

Appears to have been a rail point/station/PO. There's nothing there now and the 1910 county history doesn't mention it under either name. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of controversial elections

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

There is never going to be an objective criteria of "controversial election" defined by multiple independent, reliable, and secondary sources. Even if we move to the more narrow "contested election" criteria, where only the outcome is in dispute, we still run into the problem of what counts as a dispute. Does a recount and a small protest mean an election counts as "contested" automatically? What is the scope of this page? I do not see how it would help to group national and subnational elections together. This page should be deleted and possibly converted into a category if we can agree on certain criteria. Bremps... 02:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Do not think controversial elections should be categorized as like this UzbukUdash (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TECO Electric and Machinery

[edit]
TECO Electric and Machinery (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 believe fits the criteria to be deleted for multiple issues - primarily notability based on WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:NOTADVERT. I made an effort to find references and could only find primary sources. Se7enNationArmy2024 (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am against deleting this article. I have just updated the "External links" section. This is a Taiwan company doing business worldwide, so as the descriptions are detailed in its Chinese page, its Enlish page is brief. It must, however, is needed in English for people in other countries. In Wikipedia, don't be a "deletioniist", but be an "encourager" to let other people to participate in update, in order to make a "weak" article a better article. --- By Yoshi Canopus (talk) 01:09, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoshi Canopus, there are no sources for this article; the company's website cannot show notability. Do you have links to any sources that demonstrate this company is notable by Wikipedia standards? StartGrammarTime (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Sun, Yun-suan (2006). 臺灣奇蹟推手: 孫運璿先生管理講座紀念文集 [Promoter of Taiwan's Miracle: A Collection of Commemorative Essays of Mr. Sun Yun-Chuang's Management Lectures] (in Chinese). Taipei: National Taiwan University Press [zh]. pp. 188–193. ISBN 978-986-00-7834-3. Retrieved 2024-10-21 – via Google Books.

      The book covers the company on six pages. The book notes: "在集團轉投資方面,東元近年來更展現了旺盛的企圖心,除了電 子、電機、通訊之外,東元投資領域已經橫跨半導體、光電以及其他相 關的關鍵零組件、通訊固網、網路軟件、流通餐飲等行業。在多年經營 下,東元電機已由原來的重電、家電領域邁向全球化的高科技企業,從 製造、行銷等多面向發展,建立起縱橫世界的國際品牌——TECO。"

      From Google Translate: "In terms of group reinvestment, TECO has shown strong ambition in recent years. In addition to electronics, motors, and communications, TECO’s investment areas have spanned semiconductors, optoelectronics, and other related key components, communications fixed lines, and networks. Road software, distribution catering and other industries. After years of operation, TECO has moved from its original heavy electrical and home appliance fields to a global high-tech enterprise, developing from manufacturing, marketing and other aspects, and established TECO, an international brand that spans the world."

    2. Shelton, Paul (2024-05-07). "Taiwan's TECO Electric and Machinery faces proxy battle. Shareholder group demands change of management and core business focus". Taiwan News. Archived from the original on 2024-05-07. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "Taiwanese electronics conglomerate TECO Electric and Machinery Co. (TECO) is in the middle of a proxy battle ahead of its upcoming annual general meeting on May 24. Eugene Huang (黃育仁), the grandson of TECO founder Lin Ho-yin (林和引), has released his vision for the company’s future with the launch of the FutureTECO campaign. Huang, whose father Theodore Huang was chair for many years but resigned from his board seat in 2021, has asked shareholders to support his eight nominees for TECO’s board at the upcoming general meeting. ... Founded in 1956 as an industrial motor manufacturer, TECO has evolved into a major business group, spanning heavy electric equipment, home appliances, information technology, communications, electronic components and parts, infrastructural engineering, financial investment, dining, and services."

    3. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2021-07-23). Wu, Ting-yun 吳廷勻; Wang, Li-hua 王儷華 (eds.). "東元之爭》父子惡鬥、家事變公事 　15萬股民權益在哪裡？" [TECO Battle》Father and son fight fiercely, family affairs turn into business affairs. Where are the rights of 150,000 shareholders?]. CommonWealth Magazine (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-09-12. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "東元集團黃茂雄、黃育仁父子經營權之爭，因為疫情進入2個月的延長賽，終於畫下暫時的逗點。"

      From Google Translate: "The dispute between the father and son of TECO Group Huang Maoxiong and Huang Yuren for management rights has finally come to a temporary end after entering a two-month extension due to the epidemic."

      The article notes: "這是一門代價不小的家族傳承及公司治理課。東元股東會投票結果，只是另一個開始。兩方公開收購戰還在進行，未來，東元電機必須更努力證明，自己仍是連續7年公司治理評鑑前5％的模範生。"

      From Google Translate: "This is a costly lesson in family inheritance and corporate governance. The voting result of TECO's shareholders' meeting is just another beginning. The public takeover battle between the two parties is still ongoing. In the future, TECO Electric must work harder to prove that it is still a model student in the top 5% of corporate governance evaluations for seven consecutive years."

    4. Wu, Jing-fang 吳靜芳 (2024-09-11). Hong, Jia-ning 洪家寧 (ed.). "銀行教父如何改造傳產老店？專訪東元新董事長利明献「我來危機管理」". CommonWealth Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-10-21. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "去年是東元業績最好的一年，去年毛利率創下七年新高，營收和EPS也刷新史上紀錄，財務健全、負債比率低，無庸置疑是一家營運穩健的公司。但過去這幾年，也是東元經營權紛爭最多的時期，父子反目的戲碼比八點檔還好看，吸住全民的注意力。現在經營權之爭已休戰，東元由華新麗華焦家、寶佳兩大股東共治的局勢落定，利明献認為，中長期來看，過去紛擾必定對品牌以及軍心有所影響，東元現在急需一個能扭轉態勢的掌舵者。"

      From Google Translate: "Last year was TECO's best performance year. Last year's gross profit margin hit a seven-year high, and revenue and EPS also set new historical records. With sound finances and a low debt ratio, there is no doubt that it is a company with stable operations. But the past few years have also been the period of most disputes over TECO's management rights. The drama about father and son's rebellion is even better than the 8 o'clock show, attracting the attention of the whole people. Now that the dispute over management rights has come to an end, TECO is now governed by the two major shareholders, Walsin Lihua Jiao Family and Baojia. Lee Ming-hsien believes that in the medium to long term, the past turmoil will definitely have an impact on the brand and military morale. TECO There is an urgent need for a leader who can turn the situation around."

    5. Zhang, Rui-yi 張瑞益 (2023-05-03). "東元永續績效 國際肯定 榮獲MSCI AA評級 列全球同業前15% 生產據點全都通過ISO 14000環保認證" [TECO's sustainable performance is recognised internationally Won the MSCI AA rating and ranked among the top 15% of global peers. All production sites have passed ISO 14000 environmental certification.]. United Daily News (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2023-06-22. Retrieved 2024-10-21.

      The article notes: "東元電機是國內推動ESG相當積極且有成的企業，根據國際知名評比MSCI（Morgan Stanley Capital International）ESG Rating最新發布的2023年4月評比報告，東元再進一級，由A級升等為AA級，永續發展績效評比成績為全球同業中的前15%。MSCI在報告中指出，東元董事會運作良善，董事獨立性符合投資人期待；而東元全球的生產據點皆通過ISO 14000環保認證，為業界翹楚。"

      From Google Translate: "TECO Electric is a very active and successful company in promoting ESG in China. According to the latest April 2023 rating report released by the internationally renowned MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) ESG Rating, TECO has moved up a level and been upgraded from Grade A. It is rated AA and ranks in the top 15% of its global peers in terms of sustainable development performance. MSCI pointed out in the report that TECO's board of directors operates well and the director's independence meets investors' expectations; TECO's global production sites have all passed ISO 14000 environmental certification and are among the best in the industry."

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow TECO Electric and Machinery (traditional Chinese: 東元電機; simplified Chinese: 东元电机) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken a closer look at the articles you provided. Thanks for compiling them, I did not find a single one myself. However, I do not believe that these articles merit sufficient coverage. The (first two) articles by Taiwan News and CommonWealth Magazine aren't primarily about the company TECO itself. They portray the recent leadership battle around TECO. According to the notability guidelines sources must provide "Significant coverage of the company itself". Furthermore, there are other problems with the articles concerning the notability guidelines:
Multiple articles by one organization listed as one source:
1.Taiwan News: The article has been written by Contributing Writer Paul Shelton and is therefore not clearly independent or reliable. Furthermore, as the article mainly repeats the statements of parties involved in the leadership battle and only gives little, already publicly available information (Members of the board, short history, vague description of present TECO), it is probably churnalism.(see WP:ORIGIND)
2.CommonWealth Magazine: The "TECO's Father-Son Struggle, Family Matters Turned Into Public Matters..." article probably meets the criteria for a usable source. The other article, however, is about an entirely different person switching to TECO. The article itself briefly mentions TECO, but does not discuss it in depth.
3.United Daily News: The article is very short and probably only trivial coverage. Furthermore, it only lists awards that TECO got, does not go into any depth and reads like promotion.
Conclusion: I beleive that your third suggestion (first long article by CommonWealth) is the only article that can be used to asses the notability of TECO. However, a single source is not enough and the article is not entirely on topic as well. I have, however, not looked at your first suggestion (the book excerpt) yet. Rajix4 (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider all of these sources to contribute to notability. Regarding the Taiwan News article, that Paul Shelton is a contributing writer does not detract from the article's reliability. The source covers a leadership struggle in the company and includes secondary analysis ("However, the FutureTECO campaign has an uphill battle ahead of it.") Coverage of a leadership struggle in a company is coverage of the company. The article is functionally independent of the company. Both articles in CommonWealth Magazine provide significant of TECO. The second article does not briefly mention TECO; it mentions the company's name "東元" 41 times. Regarding the United Daily News article, I cited it because it verifies that TECO was covered in an April 2023 report by MSCI (Morgan Stanley Capital International) which strongly contributes to notability. The book excerpt strongly establishes notability because TECO is covered on six pages. Cunard (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: to assess Cunard's sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 03:10, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Heat Melts Cube

[edit]
Heat Melts Cube (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)

Unreleased track. No reliable sources provided, only citations from "Lost Media Wiki" which is an unreliable user generated site; and there's no concrete evidence of the song's existence. CycloneYoris talk! 00:40, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. I also found nothing additional. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 01:49, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom, agreed with @Left guide UzbukUdash (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I say, DJ Speed (Eazy-E Afilliate) confirms as well as DJ Yella (Producer) Which proved existence. If people did research as much as I did, they would know, I also know… in interview, Eazy-E Refers to the diss. Lost Wiki page had the most info which is reliable despite being User Friendly. Also includes sources, just alike Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.20.155.153 (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@216.20.155.153:
--Drm310 🍁 (talk) 04:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arguni (district)

[edit]
Arguni (district) (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)

Subject does not meet GNG for not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria. Cassiopeia talk 00:39, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes WP:NPLACE. Noah 💬 00:59, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • but the subject not having significant coverage from independent, reliable source where by the sources talk about the subject in lenght and in depth and not passing mentioned. All social media, org, edu and gov sites are considered not reliable or independent and can NOT be used to contribute to meet GNG criteria or NPLACE and in addition NPLACE does not supersede GNG. Cassiopeia talk 01:12, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. This seems like an incredibly arbitrary AfD, there are hundreds of thousands of places that fail GNG but are included on Wikipedia because they pass NPLACE. Noah 💬 02:07, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again NPLACE does not supersede GNG and to pass either one they sources of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources (IRS) need to be provided for verification.. Articles about places that fails GNG and is in the main space is because no one/editor yet to AfD the articles and it is NOT because they are in main space means they pass GNG. Thousand of article that fail GNG or SNG are in Wikipedia and they always CAN be AfD if anyone nominate them in regardless how long the articles in main space Wikipedia. There might be other languages have IRS about the place which I dont know know those languages, but if anyone can find them then add them in the article and let me know.05:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep passes WP:NPLACE. Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable. Quick google search can easily found multiple independent coverage of this district. Ckfasdf (talk) 21:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It seems that, according to WP:NPLACE, GNG only matters in this evaluation if the article subject is not a legally recognized place. While gov sites might not establish notability, if they verify that this subject is legally recognized, then I think the editors arguing Keep have the stronger argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dušica Bijelić

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:04, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we need more participants here. I'm not sure what WP:AFT has to do with this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Mass

[edit]
Isaac Mass (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 individual fails WP:ANYBIO and has done so since perhaps 2010. No apparent (nor significant) coverage by any unrelated party. JFHJr (㊟) 00:00, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom UzbukUdash (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"