Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 18: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:14, 18 May 2024

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< May 17	May 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 02:48, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thumb Cellular

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

Fails GNG and NCORP. Sources in article and found in BEFORE do not meet WP:SIRS, addressing the subject directly and indepth by independent reliable sources. Found name mentions, promotional, listings, nothing meeting WP:SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. // Timothy :: talk 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not try to add on to the article rather than delete it? I worked on it for literally 2 1/2 hours trying to find the most information I could on the subject. I did it right before I had to go to work too. Plus, there are many local cellular providers and local radio stations listed on Wikipedia that have been up for years, meaning that there is an interest in them. What makes Thumb Cellular different? Demondude182 (talk) 07:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the current rule is supposed to be that we can't trust what companies have to say about themselves. This includes pres releases, and most of the regular business announcements that you see, which are mostly just copy-and-pasted press releases. It used to be less strict, and the articles on those other local cellular providers were probably created back then, and nobody has gotten around to reviewing if they need to be deleted since then. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you not ready of declaring your COI or connection with the company? Obviously there should be. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Safari Scribe, please do not be unnecessary confrontational in AFDs. They are tense already for content creators. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my bad, I never had that in mind. Well noted. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 05:57, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see some WP:ROUTINE local coverage but nothing that meets WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm relisting because there is an unbolded Keep here from the article creator, preventing a Soft Deletion closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please offer an assessment of improvements to the article since its nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the article creator but I don't see any way we can write a compliant article. To avioid losing their work, we do have the option of redirecting to, say, List of mobile virtual network operators in the United States, and retaining the content in the article history. We could also justify a potential SIZESPLIT for that list, perhaps by state or something, and I could see a short blurb on a split out "list of MVNOs in Michigan" or "Mobile providers in Michigan" as potentially justifiable, in which case some of the content could be merged. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alpha3031, I understand being empathetic for the creator. But it isn't any majority challenge for redirecting. Most editors including handful established editor has see their article deleted. Believe you me, this redirect you're leaning in will soon be turned again into an article and we will return here again. It's important we know when we can redirect a slightly notable article or not. It's kit the first time one will work in am article for years even and at the end of the fatal year, sees it at AFD

Ig we all should consider such empathy, hmmmmm...then, Wikipedia should never delete any article where the creator tells how they have suffered in creating that article. Maybe you can chill them up on their TP. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SafariScribe, I suggested redirect here because redirection to a list is a perfectly valid ATD. That there might be disruptive editing afterwards is not an argument against that any more than the page creator possibly recreating the page would be an argument against deletion (they're perfectly capable of doing that, they're autoconfirmed). The appropriate measures to deal with that would be page protection or blocks (though we wouldn't use those preemptively either). Redirects do not have to be notable or even encyclopedic or printworthy. We have over a million of {{R unprintworthy}} redirects, because redirects are cheap. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No redirect here pls. Much of primary, and WP:ROUTINE. Doesn't meet much requirement for entry per WP:ORGCRIT and WP:SIGCOV. Such articles may not slightly meet notability at instant and redirecting will not save us that it isn't notable at all. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:15, 3 June 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.

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 Withdrawn‎

Marmara Park

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

Shopping mall without sources to establish WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Current sources are primary; WP:BEFORE search is complicated by the Marmara Park Avenue Hotel, but nothing that meets GNG comes up. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the links of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP
- [1]
- [2]
- [3]
- [4]
- [5]
- [6]
QalasQalas (talk) 08:15, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sharing these. Withdrawn Dclemens1971 (talk) 11:56, 18 May 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.

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

The result was redirect‎ to Valley Link. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mountain House Community station

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

This proposed commuter train station does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSTATION Sources 1, 4, and 5 have WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of this planned station in the broader context of the Valley Link system; sources 2 and 3 are primary sources. With this station not scheduled to open until 2028 at the earliest, a standalone article is WP:TOOSOON. I propose to redirect this page to Valley Link until there is sufficient SIGCOV in reliable sources to warrant a standalone page. Dclemens1971 (talk) 00:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Stations, and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nomination. Appears to be too soon for a standalone article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are already lots of references, and their number and length will grow as designs are finalized and coverage of the project and individual stations continues. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:35, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You obviously didn't read them as none of the independent sources say more than a sentence or two about the station, and you're making a very bold assumption about a station not expected to open until near the end of the decade. Valley Link already exists. But why let facts get in the way of your personal feelings? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:23, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:39, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:FUTURE "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." According to the sources, "The Valley Link project has been awarded $25 million by the state.That funding will go toward Valley Link’s first phase — the 26-mile section from the Pleasanton BART station to the proposed Mountain House station. The overall project is expected to cost $3.6 billion." — Maile (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of how certain the WP:FUTURE is, the station still has to pass the WP:SIGCOV test to be notable, and it doesn't -- it has passing references in sources focused on the whole system. It will someday, but until then, a redirect is appropriate. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Fails NOT and GNG. The above keeps have entirely missed the part of FUTURE that says future events should be included only if the event is notable (bolding mine); there is no IRS SIGCOV of this event, so it emphatically fails that requirement. JoelleJay (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:44, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the station itself currently fails WP:GNG, but is a possible redirect and has the possibility to be restored in the future if it receives secondary coverage. The problem with the keep !votes: the coverage isn't about the station but rather about the proposed network, and there's no certainty the station will be notable in the future. A redirect is fine for now. SportingFlyer T·C 05:58, 3 June 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.

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Adeyemi

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

An article about a business person that doesn't present WP:SIGCOV. The sources rather based on the company which doesn't still meet WP:ORGCRIT. Lacks minimum sourcing, and here isn't the case of clean up, it is not MILL either but haven't attain notability. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 00:41, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing any notability-qualifying coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:46, 18 May 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.

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sankar Natesan

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG and also, being a registrar doesn't inherently make one notable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 00:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and India. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only possibility of a pass is WP:Prof#C1, but GS cites of less than 900 in this very highly cited field are not sufficient. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Registrar is generally a more senior post at Indian universities compared to the west, basically the chief administrative officer reporting directly to the president/vice chancellor, so it's possible that being a registrar might lead to more coverage. That said, I don't see sufficient sourcing for GNG and I don't see him clearly passing any of the NACADEMIC criteria. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology, Medicine, Singapore, Tamil Nadu, Illinois, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 02:36, 23 May 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.

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 __TOC__
 <!-- Add new entries to the TOP of the following list -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thumb Cellular}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marmara Park}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mountain House Community station}}