Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

18 October 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

< October 17	October 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

SenzMate

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

At the moment, it seems like it may be WP:TOOSOON to have an article about this company. The only other coverage I found was this interview I found in Lanka Business Online, which is an interview with little to no independent or secondary content. The Daily FT articles read like press releases, so I am inclined to exclude them based on the precautionary principle expressed in WP:ORGIND. May be a few more years before the requisite coverage exists for us to be able to write a proper article on it. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Sri Lanka. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moribund Oblivion

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

Tagged for years as possibly not notable. Turkish article also has no cites Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 12:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of Carmel-by-the-Sea, California

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

This is a list of mayors of a tiny town. The mayors have some hyperlocal significance, but is is part of the walled garden by the same Carmelopaedia editor. Fails WP:NLIST. Some of the people may have inherent notability, but that is as individuals. The intersection with Carmel-by-the-Sea is not encyclopaedic. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, and California. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 11:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Chamoda

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

I searched and it does not seem to be notable in itself. Tagged uncited for years but I have no objection if anyone prefers to merge Chidgk1 (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, Sports, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Şifa University

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

I can see from the sources on the Turkish article that it existed. Are universities automatically notable? I guess not as it has been tagged as possibly not notable for years. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Medicine, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uşşaki

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

Tagged uncited for years but hard to find sources as apparently not the same as https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/U%C5%9F%C5%9Faki_Tarikat%C4%B1 The source on the Turkish article seems like it might be a wiki or somesuch so perhaps not reliable? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Islam, Iraq, and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:23, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadettin Dilbilgen

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

Hard to tell if he is notable as there is a writer of the same name, but I suspect not. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 11:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Morrison (real estate broker)

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

This is basically an A7 outside of his company Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RETSY, and whatever coverage there is of the company, there is even less of Morrison. Essentially only occasionally namechecked when local news or self promotional coverage mentions RETSY, and apparently nowhere else. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Arizona. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:10, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RETSY

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

No coverage in IRS outside of local news, the Forbes is self promotion since all of them are from "Forbes Global Properties" and RETSY is a member of, you've guessed it, Forbes Global Properties. Misses the bar so hard it's probably dug through to the other side of the planet by now. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Arizona. Alpha3031 (t • c) 10:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Khaled Al-Saif

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

I don’t think being the father in law of the Crown Prince of Jordan makes a subject notable. Understandably he got some official recognition and publicity around his recent death, but there isn’t enough here for a stand alone bio. Anything we need to know about him is already included in the article about his daughter. Mccapra (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia. Mccapra (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Kothari

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

Promotional article with no importance. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and India. Thilsebatti (talk) 08:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welspun USA

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

This article does not meet the notability standards set by Wikipedia's guidelines for companies WP:NCORP and lacks the necessary in-depth coverage WP:CORPDEPTH to be considered notable. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United States of America. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

World Defense Show

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article because it has been restored to its original state (after minimal participation in the previous AfD) and has not been modified since the date of its refund (22 September 2024). This circumstance provides ample reason to initiate the deletion of the article once again, using the same argument from the first deletion discussion - "The exhibition fails to meet WP:EVENT. Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. Arguably WP:TOOSOON." TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Saudi Arabia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:45, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Technology. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:47, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Arsen Safaryan

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

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

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

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

Andrew Muldoon

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

Non-notable figure skater; fails WP:NSKATE. None of the rest of the hoohah in this bloated résumé demonstrates any notability either. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Delaware. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:41, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5th Projekt

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

The more I look into this group, I find that they are local to the Toronto area, self-release their material and only play live in the surrounding area. Can't find any notable charts or awards. Karst (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Karst (talk) 10:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Lawyers' Congress

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

lacks sufficient coverage in reliable, independent sources to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. Additionally, much of the content is either promotional or lacks verifiable third-party references Moarnighar (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Moarnighar (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Montserrat at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics

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

Article about a territory which sent a single competitor who did not advance to the semi-finals. Duplicates information at 2015 World Championships in Athletics. A single primary source. Created as part of Lugnuts walled-garden of sporting cruft. Not notable. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sport of athletics, and Caribbean. AusLondonder (talk) 07:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are substantially identical:

Strong delete, preferably alongside 2013 and 2017. Utter cruft failing [[WP:INDISCRIMINATE] created by a user who chased quantity in creating every possible topic under the sun. We need to get rid of many of them. No merge target at Montserrat at the World Athletics Championships, and frankly, that would hardly be encyclopedic either. Lastly, an AFD about Guam from 2018 is in no way, shape or form a valid precedent for a discussion in 2024, given the development of Wikipedia since then. Geschichte (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte, the referenced Guam AfD is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guam at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics. It was closed as keep.

I'm inclined to keep these articles as well if a similar amount of sourcing could be found. Should they be deleted, what policy/development changes between 2018 and 2024 could account for that difference?

Also, in cases where only one athlete competed in one event, a clear WP:ATD redirect target would be the event page of the competitor, i.e. this page for 2013, this page for 2015, and this one for 2017. --Habst (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No sourcing has been found, so there's no credible argument to keep

A redirect is completely unnecessary. Who is going to be searching "Montserrat at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics" to try and locate a biography? AusLondonder (talk) 10:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NLIST, "list articles" like this can be kept without meeting the notability guideline, "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability". The IAAF entry lists serve as sourcing.

I don't understand the second paragraph. The proposed redirect targets are not biographies, and pageview stats show that these articles do get some traffic. --Habst (talk) 12:13, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An AFD from 2018 unfortunately doesn't mean anything post-NSPORTS2022. I don't see any value in redirecting. What we do need is to rid ourselves of the perceived need to create every conceiveable combination of XX at the 20XX Y, from a quantity standpoint, without minding quality in the slightest. Geschichte (talk) 19:59, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I agree with you about creating. I'm just curious about what specifically in NSPORTS2022 or any other consensus/policy would affect a list article like this. It seems like these sorts of articles are allowed per policy and AfD precedent. --Habst (talk) 20:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As someone who deals with a LOT of sports articles and redirects... I would in the relevant situation. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. Unsourceable cruft. These are not "lists" so NLIST is inapplicable, though even if it was it'd be quite a stretch to claim a list that can only ever contain a single entry serves any informational or navigational purpose whatsoever. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What makes these cruft @JoelleJay? It's fine if you don't believe they should be a standalone article, but I believe referring to them as cruft is inaccurate. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:24, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the conceit of making a standalone for every single country's performance at every single year of a competition, regardless of sourcing or redundancy or real-world importance, is crufty. JoelleJay (talk) 16:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay: Crufty isn't how I would describe it, but I do agree that an individual article for each instance of a country at an event is not desirable. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on above discussion. I really tried to find a policy-based reason for deletion for these, but I just don't think there is one. They serve as navigational aids and according to guideline, don't need to demonstrate any particular notability. --Habst (talk) 12:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The idea they're "navigational aids" is absolutely ridiculous. You already "voted" keep above, also. AusLondonder (talk) 12:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montserrat at the World Athletics Championships: Deleting these is not the appropriate approach in my opinion. Country at [year] World Championships in Athletics is not an unexpected search term, and I don't believe deleting these entirely would benefit Wikipedia. If you look at Category:Nations at the World Athletics Championships, I believe it'd be expected that if someone searched for these pages something would show up, so why do a disservice to our readers and delete them entirely? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, if they were deleted, they would be the only red links within the relevant templates (Template:Nations at the 2013 World Championships in Athletics, Template:Nations at the 2015 World Championships in Athletics, and Template:Nations at the 2017 World Championships in Athletics). See Algeria at the World Athletics Championships and Aruba at the World Athletics Championships as examples of what this could/should be if merged. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be ok with merging, but this article doesn't exist yet...? JoelleJay (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Montserrat at the World Athletics Championships per Hey man im josh. This information should be somewhere on Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here. Please do not suggest a Merge or Redirect unless there is an existing target article or you plan on creating one. A Merge can not be carried out by the closer if the article doesn't exist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:01, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi

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

Being the director general of NITDA isn't enough to demonstrate notability. I've removed some fluff, but I've checked a few more misleading cites, and just concluded this is probably some paid article full of soft mentions, and doesn't pass the strict test for a WP:BLP article. Instead it is a resume. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Per nom, you are right. I have gone through all the source and they never talked about him. They were only mentioning what he announced.--Gabriel (……?) 16:01, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge At a critical look at the article, Subject can not stand alone from NITDA. Aside NITDA, what else was their impact and is their any source to confirm the notability?Tesleemah (talk) 08:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From your reason given then that calls for a delete and not a merge. Even Olusegun Obasanjo who commissioned the NITDA, biography was not mentioned there neither anyone who has been appointed as the chairman. Kashifu Inuwa Abdullahi can be mentioned in the NITDA article but not this full statement which contains his biography. Gabriel (……?) 10:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Being the "Director General" of the National Information Technology Development Agency of the Nigerian government is enough to meet notability per WP:NPOL. Apart from being a position appointed by the President, he has taken the office twice by different Nigerian presidents. Since NPOL justifies appearance in multiple reliable sources, I can see some coverage in newspapers including bagging a honorary award. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that NPOL specifically says he should not be as it isn't a top level position. Not every appointee (or elected position) automatically passes the bar of WP:BLP/WP:N. I would also note the language in NPOL: "are presumed to be notable" but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation in WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If the position was that important, it would be trivial to find sigcov in WP:RS, but that isn't the case. "Presumption" isn't a guarantee, it just means that it is likely you will find sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:11, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NPOL, not only is the subject the current Director-General of the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), this is a role he has assumed twice under two Presidents. I can also see significant press coverage. B.Korlah (talk) 09:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to claim "significant press coverage" in a deletion discussion, you need to actually provide the links so that other editors (and closer) can determine if the claim is valid, or hyperbole. As for being appointed under two presidents, that has zero to do with notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again as there is disagreement on whether the subject meets WP:NPOL. It would greatly help the case of editors arguing to Keep if they could bring in sources that would help establish GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Rock Township, Divide County, North Dakota

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

Fails WP:NTOWN. All references I found were either trivial, census/directory information, or referring to the historical site. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 22:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 22:14, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I don't necessarily disagree that WP:NTOWN is failed here, but I do want to mention that there are a plethora of city-related articles that fail this test. Should we delete them all, too? I believe that simply having the historical site there makes it much more notable and worthy of an article than thousands of other places covered on Wikipedia. I should note that I also made this article within the scope of WP Cities, and adhered to their guidelines for US places, where applicable. SouthernDude297 (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, we should be deleting and merging more places like this. The township is not notable because there's a historic site within it; that fact is also at Divide County, North Dakota. Reywas92^Talk 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How is NTOWN violated? It is a populated, officially recognized place. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of its sources (or any that I could find) confer notability. As for its current sources, census data and GNIS info does not provide notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 23:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NTOWN is a notability guideline which specifically addresses this class of article. While the first reference is not useful, the census most definitely is a reliable source and all that's needed to satisfy NTOWN. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It establishes reliability, but not notability; which NTOWN explicitly excludes census data from determining. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NTOWN excludes census tracts from presumed notability for "populated, legally recognized places," not census data. The question would be if North Dakota townships, which are considered a form of local government, meet the definition of a "populated, legally recognized place." —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I thought Townships were always kept _pbp 06:11, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find any evidence of its legal recognition that would definitively meet the criteria for the presumption of notability for NTOWN. GNIS says its a civil township, which would likely count as being legally recognized, but GNIS isn't reliable for the declaration of that. Further, I can't find any information from Divide County (which it is located in) explaining its status, beyond what just looks like tax information. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 12:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this would help, but here it, and the rest of the Divide Co. townships, on a map published by the Divide County government, found here. SouthernDude297 (talk) 14:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It contributes to reliability, but not inherently its notability. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 14:29, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Divide County, North Dakota#Townships. It's not true that townships are always kept. As seen at List of townships in North Dakota, only a small portion of the state's more than 2,500 townships even have articles since there's literally nothing to say about them beyond the census statistic. Only 1,314 of these townships actually have local governments. These are also not the same as towns and NTOWN does not really apply: the entirety of state was historically divided into townships and most including this one are mere artifacts and statistical areas. Reywas92^Talk 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Can you point to a previous example of a North Dakota Township being deleted? Have they actually been deleted, or just never created? _pbp 15:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any others specifically in North Dakota, but there's Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of La Harpe Township, Allen County, Kansas, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Albright Township, Chatham County, North Carolina, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Averasboro Township, Harnett County, North Carolina. I do not believe these townships need their own articles and that the very limited information can be (and already is) covered in the county article and township list. Reywas92^Talk 15:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure the applicability of the ones you've listed. The Kansas ones seem to overlap with other entities and the North Carolina ones seem to be legally defunct. This is neither, it just only has three people in it. _pbp 18:32, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, Wikipedia:OTHER is an argument NOT to make in AFD discussions, so don't really matter. Djflem (talk) 18:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was that township articles are always kept. It isn't true, as he showed by these examples. WP:OTHER is irrelevant. Mangoe (talk) 12:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:OTHER is relevant whether claiming they are kept or not kept.Djflem (talk) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the townships which have elected boards, Writing Rock is among [https://www.nd.gov/government/local-government 1,314 of 2500 mentioned above) (see: https://dividecountynd.hosted.civiclive.com/county_government/county_offices/auditor/township_officers and https://ndlegis.gov/cencode/t58c04.pdf), so it is defined geographic populated place and political entity, (https://www.ndstudies.gov/gr4/citizenship/part-3-local-government/section-3-township-government) which pass Wikipedia:NPLACE, plus it's home of historic site.Djflem (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Divide County, North Dakota#Townships. We do not keep township articles in every state because their importance varies wildly. For example, in North Carolina they were enacted and then almost immediately ignored. I get the impression that in ND they have some function with land use/zoning matters, but they otherwise do not appear to provide any of the other aspects of local government; I could not find anything that outlined what their powers are but I found a state land use form requiring a township officer signature. Be that as it may, I note that the list of officers in the state website gives the names of three people living at the same address which indeed is within the township, and if you believe the census, those same three people are the only people living in the township! It's easy but meaningless to hold an election when the only people who can vote are the officials (and I note that of the other three listed, one lives elsewhere in the county and the second lives in another county; the third has no address provided). I'm also quite dubious that location of the eponymous monument is a point of notability for the township; I had to verify it with a map. The fact that such a large percentage of the townships lack officials indicates their relative lack of importance, and when it comes down to it, it appears all that we can give for them as a rule is geography and populations, which can be served well enough with a map and a table, respectively, in the county article.

As far as ND township articles as a group, it doesn't look as though a great many have been created. One or two users started mass-adding them but did not get far. I found this stale user page for example which for the first county has a reasonable idea for a county table structure. And it contains most of what one would put in an article, so I'm not seeing the need for individual articles. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(North Carolina and North Dakota are not the same state.) Would seem that the name of the Writing Rock monument likely lends its name to the township, and is an important piece of history located within it.Djflem (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I an aware of which state is which, and if you think I confused them, you need to reread the passage. Yes, "it would seem", but that doesn't give the township any notability, and never mind that I have come across no source for that belief. The point is, townships are not necessarily that important in the state scheme of things, and they range from non-existent (Maryland) to vestigial (NC) to possibly more important than counties (NJ). What I'm seeing in ND is that they appear to be of minimal importance, especially given that around half of them have no governance and appear to be just lines on a map. Indeed, the very difficulty of finding out why they exist and what function they serve is an indicator that as individual bodies they are probably no more than minor administrative divisions. Mangoe (talk) 12:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Seemed you wanted to make a point about NC as being relevant to ND and therefore mentioned it in the 2nd sentence about ND. Djflem (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, As Djflem noted, this community is included as one of the townships with governmental officials and appears to be a political entity. -Samoht27 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Regardless of whether a single household is actually being treated as a "political entity", NGEO only provides a rebuttable presumption of notability. That this extant US place has no accessible sources on it beyond directory-level info shows it has no need for a standalone article at this time. JoelleJay (talk) 01:52, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND as it is a populated, legally recognized place and there is enough in-depth historical information about Writing Rock Township specifically in books such as Stories and Histories of Divide County (1964) – the main section about the township is on p. 454 but there are also other pages discussing various aspects of its history. In addition, as others have mentioned, the township is the location of Writing Rock State Historical Site, which makes it distinctive. Newspapers.com turns up obituaries about people who were born in or homesteaded in Writing Rock Township; a five-year-old girl who was killed by a horse in 1960; a farmer who threatened his neighbors with a rifle and tried to kill himself when approached by police in 1920 – even if none of this is worth mentioning in the article, it demonstrates that it was a real place where people lived (and not "just" a directory listing). (Of those clippings the most interesting one is the Bismarck Tribune article about how the 1928 election returns for Writing Rock Township were not counted by the North Dakota secretary of state because the automobile transporting them was destroyed by fire on its way to Crosby.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Opinion is divided between Keep and Redirection. Any opinions about the most recently found source?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shin Dong-geun (disambiguation)

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

Disambiguation page for 2 people who are probably not actually ambiguous, and one person who isn't even actually known by that name (it's just a traditional family name, not a birth name, legal name, professional name, or stage name).
Shin Dong-kun and Shin Dong-keun both receive one average daily pageview
Since Shin Dong-kun and Shin Dong-keun both use different romanizations of "신동근", a cleaner option would probably be to get rid of this disambiguation and change the hatnotes on each to point to each other. RachelTensions (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. RachelTensions (talk) 06:34, 18 October 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]
Withdrawn after thinking about it a little more RachelTensions (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Asian Cinemas

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

Fails WP:ORG; does not demonstrate sufficient notability, as it lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Furthermore, the content appears to be largely promotional and fails to adhere to Wikipedia's standards for verifiability and neutrality. Shinsi Bohansetr (talk) 07:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. Shellwood (talk) 10:15, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Telangana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: significant coverage, in The Hindu, to which one can add https://www.business-standard.com/article/companies/asian-cinemas-to-open-nine-more-multiplex-screens-shortly-114041000365_1.html https://telanganatoday.com/allu-arjuns-aaa-cinemas-is-now-open-in-ameerpet-hyderabad https://thesouthfirst.com/entertainment/venkatesh-and-mahesh-babu-join-hands-for-a-new-multiplex-in-hyderabad/ https://www.thehindu.com/features/metroplus/new-cineplexes-come-up-in-hyderabad-suburbs/article6304545.ece etc. -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And "promotional", how?? -My, oh my! (Mushy Yank) 18:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Soccer AM's All-Sports Show

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

Non-notable TV programme. Merge or redirect to Soccer AM. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Football, and United Kingdom. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect Only the first paragraph, and bearing in mind it still needs a citation. Govvy (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

United Lutheran Mission Association

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

Fails WP:NORG. Plenty of Ghits from Lutheran congregations affiliated with ULMA, but no significant, reliable, independent coverage found. schetm (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. schetm (talk) 07:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No GNG-qualifying sources in article and none found in a search for this four-congregation micro-denomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:52, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mick Armstrong

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

This was WP:BLAR'd to Socialist Alternative (Australia)#History, but is not mentioned in the target and the redirect was taken to RFD. The discussion called for it to be listed here. I'm listing this because I closed the RFD; I have not otherwise investigated the subject. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Politics, and Australia. asilvering (talk) 02:48, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd like to point out that Mick Armstrong was mentioned in the target when the redirect was created. He was only removed from that article a minute before the redirect was listed for discussion, for not being mentioned in the target... The removal (and deletion) may turn out to be perfectly justified (I have no insight into and no opinion about this matter), but I find the reason "not mentioned in target" strange when the reason for this is that the user has removed it themselves moments earlier, and then doesn't disclose that they did this. Renerpho (talk) 05:35, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the original state of the Socialist Alternative (Australia) article (before the removal of that paragraph, and more so when the redirect was created in 2020), that redirect looks sensible to me. The relevant paragraph was tagged as needing citations since June 2024; and as I said, removing it may be the right choice. But it wasn't an unreasonable target for the redirect based on what it looked like at the time. Renerpho (talk) 06:06, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think once the material was removed though (as failing WP:V) at that point the redirect being discussed was valid. TarnishedPath^talk 06:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TarnishedPath: Yes, and maybe others will be more lenient. WP:CHALLENGE is clear that you had every right to remove it. That doesn't mean that the timing wasn't unfortunate, and that this wasn't important. I would have preferred either an upfront mention that you removed it ("I have just removed this as failing WP:V, and believe the redirect should be deleted because it's no longer mentioned in the target"), or to leave it and include it in the discussion ("I plan to remove this unsourced information from the target, at which point the subject will no longer be mentioned in the target"). This gives users the opportunity to form an opinion if sources exist (the talk page exists if there's more to know). It's a matter of transparency: When I see an argument like "not mentioned in the target", my impression is that this is because the two are unrelated, and the redirect was unreasonable. I feel misled when important background about the article's history is hidden from me. Renerpho (talk) 07:36, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind for future reference. TarnishedPath^talk 08:12, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dar es Salaam School of Journalism

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

Fails WP:NORG and WP:ORGCRIT. I couldn't find multiple reliable sources, which are independent and address the organisation in depth and in detail. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Education, Schools, Africa, and Tanzania. TarnishedPath^talk 05:50, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:17, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endor AG

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

Keep, move to Fanatec as best alternative. The idea that "Notability cannot be inherited from products a company makes" leads to the absurd conclusions at AFD that "List of X products" would be notable but "X" would not, even when the article is substantially about X products. In any case, I maintain that Fanatec as a line of products passes WP:NPRODUCT. ~ A412 ^talk! 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, WP:LISTN would imply that a list of products from a company that is not notable, would also be non-notable. In other words, only the individual products by the company Fanatec may be notable. The article Fanatec Forza Motorsport CSR Wheel would be indisputably notable if it was created ([1] [2] [3] [4]). The company - not so much. This notability of products over developers is rather common in video games too. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:27, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Ajeet Khurana

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

Having 4 dozen references barely mention one's name when quoted is not a strong argument that there is direct and in depth coverage. More the opposite really. Article has been refbombed into a barren wasteland, it's about time it's put out of its misery. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and India. Alpha3031 (t • c) 02:00, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:28, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agni Poolu (TV series)

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

No significant coverage. The references on the page are 1) about the book and 2) don't even mention the show (FAKEREF?). A WP:BEFORE was unable to locate any significant coverage. Note there is a movie under the same name for those doing a search prior to voting. CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa

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

I have found next to nothing online that establishes notability for this organisation. The content could possible be merged to National Library of New Zealand as they seem to be the main drivers of the project. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 02:54, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Museums and libraries, Organizations, Internet, and New Zealand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 4 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!} 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Useful article with good citations of its own significance nationally in Aotearoa New Zealand public library services. I don’t think merging with the National Library of New Zealand article would be useful to either subject as the latter is mostly a legal deposit library not dealing with networked computer access.Rhagfyr (talk) 07:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NCORP and GNG. All sources are primary. Traumnovelle (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if Merge to National Library of New Zealand is deemed inappropriate. WP:USEFUL is insufficient to keep. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 21:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge as an editor is arguing against this outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dušica Bijelić

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

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

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