Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

6 December 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Purge server cache

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

No evidence of notability Maxvolt (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Maxvolt (talk) 07:57, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have done research across various sources to improve this article but I was unable to find any evidence this company meets the required notability criteria. The company does not appear to have received significant attention in reliable, independent secondary sources. The available sources are primary sources, press releases, company profiles, and promotional material, which do not count towards demonstrating notability. Maxvolt (talk) 08:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not NVIDIA but it's a pretty well known company on the west coast.
    Primary source
    https://www.bizjournals.com/seattle/subscriber-only/2020/05/15/largest-private-companies.html
    "The 100 largest private companies on The List collectively reported revenue of $43.8 billion in 2019, up from $41.3 billion in last year’s list. The Lemman family sold North Coast Electric Co. (ranked at No. 20 last year) to Paris-based electrical distributor, Sonepar USA on Feb. 25, 2019. Car Toys Inc. (ranked No. 8 last year), Sound Car & Truck Stores (ranked No. 35 last year), Aviation Technical Services Inc. (ranked No. 42 last year, Precept Wine (ranked No. 64 last year) and PSF Mechanical Inc. (ranked at No. 77 last year) declined to participate on this year’s List. " Clinton555 (talk) 04:58, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The notability of a company, according to Wikipedia’s standards, is established through significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent, secondary sources: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
    The company being listed among the largest private companies in the Seattle area may have value locally but it is not enough to establish notability on Wikipedia.
    While the article above definitely comes from a reliable secondary publication, it doesn’t discuss the company in detail (achievements, history, innovation, industry leadership, etc.). The article mentions Car Toys briefly and focuses on the rankings, instead of the in-depth coverage of the subject.
    This is considered trivial coverage: "inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)
    I see no evidence of multiple sources that discuss the company in detail rather than providing passing mentions.
    At least three sources are needed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Your_first_article Maxvolt (talk) 10:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per well detailed nomination rationale which is consistent with my own findings. Mekomo (talk) 10:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch 12:00, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Both the nomination and the Delete argument are coming from less experienced editors so I'm relisting this discussion in hopes of additional discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:53, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: looks like XFDCloser oopsied the log page again, manually listing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (tc) 07:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Esophur (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 BLP does not meet the notability criteria per WP:SINGER and relies heavily on unreliable sources. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:41, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NORG, there are only two references, one to planespotters and another one to this bulletin board where it is mentioned in passing. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable airlines, most of the sources are sourced to planespotters, own website or other similar sources. Fails WP:NORG. This article was also created by an editor with undisclosed COI in the airlines.[1] - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nowruz-e Ali (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)

Mass-created abadi article by Carlossuarez46. On the day he created this article, he created at least 450 others. I say "at least" because upwards of 20,000 C46 articles have been deleted already, and these won't show up in this search. No known location beyond the general area, appears to possibly be a store in the city of Izeh - the Iranian census is often counted around land-marks and potentially in this case this was simply the count of people around this store. Without a known location it is impossible to verify that this is an actual community and not just a census-counting-unit. FOARP (talk) 11:36, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tahir Zaman Priyo (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)

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and merging it into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. GrabUp - Talk 09:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Faiyaaz (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)

Clear case of WP:BIO1E: the coverage is solely about his death. This article is similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and merging it into List of people who died in the July massacre might be a good option. GrabUp - Talk 09:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:39, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Tagged for notability since 2019, tried looking his name up on Google, but hardly anything came up, especially since a lot of other people have the same name. Other than player profile sites and a couple Wikipedia mirrors, nothing else comes up. Searching his full name yields nothing either. Procyon117 (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Americanoid (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)

Delete or possibly merge with Okunev culture. The first paragraph is about a "discounted" theory which probably doesn't deserve its own article. The second also is not deserving of its own article and can be merged if it isn't already in the Okunev article (I only skimmed it). PersusjCP (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:52, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with this merge to help reach a WP:CONSENSUS.4meter4 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 07:37, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would be fine with merging with Vladimir Jochelson as well, for consensus. PersusjCP (talk) 17:50, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Okunev culture. Encoded  Talk 💬 18:51, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:28, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Basketball at the 1997 Summer Universiade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Ahri Boy (talk) 05:30, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:24, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shahariar Khan Aanas (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 see the WP:GNG being met here. The cited sources only discuss their letter before death in the Bangladeshi movement, with no significant coverage found. This article seems similar to Foysal Ahmed Shanto, and a merge to List of people who died in the July massacre might be a better option. GrabUp - Talk 04:14, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New Tokushima Broadcasting (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)

Reviewed during NPP. No evidence of wp:notability under GNG or SNG. Planned TV station that never existed. North8000 (talk) 03:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Serie A broadcasters (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)

Notability of this topic has not changed since the last AFD 6-7 months ago. It still falls foul of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, and doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. I would support WP:SALTing this to prevent another re-creation. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding: (1) the extant state of sourcing; and (2) if renaming as an alternative to deletion would be suitable; would be helpful in ascertaining a consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but this still needs a lot of rework. Looking over the list, I don't see it working as a rename and it wouldn't work as a redirect. Plus, SportingFlyer gave some good sources. Conyo14 (talk) 05:08, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:20, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

A user recreated this page two months after it was redirected by Donaldd23 in September 2024 and said "Putting this through AfD is better than just redirecting it." Well, here's putting it through AfD. MNEK's first EP is simply not notable. I can't find any usable reviews or news sources on this really, and it didn't chart, even if a few of its included singles did. Total fail of WP:NALBUMS in all senses. Ss112 14:46, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to MNEK per above. Redirect is preferred AtD. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 04:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion regarding the proposed redirect would be helpful in attaining a more clear consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:54, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous relister's concern, which has gone unanswered.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:DICDEF and WP:GNG. Perhaps it could be redirected to and explained in weapon? ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ () 02:32, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Despite the sheer number of keep !votes, their arguments are not so clearly based on policy or guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:17, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. A basic google books and scholar search shows WP:SIGCOV. It's a widely used term with legal implications both domestically and internationally. I can't imagine any serious WP:BEFORE was done, because I am seeing some obvious avenues for article development in google scholar and google books as it relates to international law and armaments agreements in relation to conventional weapons. The possibilities for expanding this are there, and we are not under any time limit to do so.4meter4 (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
McCoy's Building Supply (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)

Clearly fails WP:NCORP, no significant coverage of this company anywhere online CutlassCiera 01:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article is new. Granted, needs work. Local/regional news stories: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]
Listed as one of USA's top retailers: [11] Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And national news^ Tejano512 (talk) 02:41, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://familybusinessmagazine.com/growth/supplied-for-success/ Tejano512 (talk) 02:56, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A little too quick on the deletion-axe there, as this is a brand new article still being worked on, when it was put up for deletion here. I just surfed the internet and found many mentions of this company, branched in Texas and multiple other states. The article could use more work, but the business is legitimate and a pretty big operation overall. — Maile (talk) 02:57, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the sources are PR-type articles, and the few others that are local sources don't provide enough for significant coverage. An announcement claiming that a company had made a donation does not provide notability and significant coverage. CutlassCiera 13:26, 2 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 06:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources that would establish notability. The previous AfD contained a lot of vague gestures about "historical significance" without suggesting sourcing improvements. If voting Keep, please show that the subject meets notability requirements by pointing to specific secondary sources that are reliable and cover the subject in-depth. HyperAccelerated (talk) 06:05, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Trump (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)

Previously deleted/redirected at AfD. Recreated by a new user and honestly the coverage doesn't look any better than it did at the first AfD, so I can't see it warranting a standalone article. Serious issues with WP:NOTINHERITED. Should be redirected back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (EDIT: I am also fine redirecting back to Family of Donald Trump) as per the consensus of the last AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Restore redirect per last AfD. This shouldn't even go to AfD, it should be up to those few who think it should be a standalone article to demonstrate what has changed and why that would change the previous AfD consensus. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:07, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These references have all been published after the last AfD, and/or were not in the article during the last AfD. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of this coverage suggests that she is notable separate from her relationship to the broader Trump family, and is pretty insubstantial. Per Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Invalid_criteria That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She is covered in-depth in multiple WP:RS that are independent of her, which satisfies the requirements in WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a silly post that could be made about any subject whatsoever.
None of the sources at the article Julius Caesar suggest that he is notable separate from his relationship to his broader military and political achievements -- do you here suggest a redirect to Roman Empire per WP:NOPAGE? jp×g🗯️ 00:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the valid reason would be that she has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. This is a point that is often misunderstood on Wikipedia, presumably because of WP:UPPERCASE shortcuts like WP:NOTINHERITED. If you actually read WP:NOTINHERITED, you'll see that it says Individuals in close, personal relationships with famous people (including politicians) can have an independent article even if they are known solely for such a relationship, but only if they pass WP:GNG. What it actually means is that people are not automatically notable just because they're related to someone – they can still meet GNG, even if that is all they are "known" for. C F A 💬 00:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has she done that is actually noteworthy? These articles are basically puff pieces. We know she plays golf and that she was invited to give a speech at an RNC convention where she says Donald Trump a normal grandfather and that she has no interest in pursuing politics. The social media stuff in the article is irrelevant puffery. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 20:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The social media stuff is obviously not independent of her. But the 5 references above (and there are more in the article, I just listed the top 5) are all in-depth (not a casual mention), independent of her, and independent of each other. That's all that is needed for WP:GNG. The Mountain of Eden (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So what? This isn't a policy-based argument. jp×g🗯️ 14:35, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1.Firstly, Trump has made a YouTube channel as of October that has already received 220,000 subscribers (and more than 50k of those in the last 24 hours), has a video with over 2 million views in two days which has significant political interest and coverage in major news outlets (and a second video with over a million views).
2. Kai Trump has more than a million followers on TikTok and 500,000 followers on Instagram, which has all changed since the last AfD where she had 100,000 followers on Instagram for example.
3. The election of 9 days ago also casts her in a different light- she is a content creator who will have significant proximity to an in-power president between the ages of 17-21, and already has a huge audience and is receiving notable coverage. Do you really think that Kai Trump is going to fade into obscurity and never again achieve notability? Deleting this article is only going to delay publication for six months or less, and she is already receiving 9,000 plus article visits per day (not that this means anything for notability purposes, but the article clearly has demand and she clearly has significant attention).
In my opinion, the previous AFD fell the right way because of the fact she was only notable for her RNC speech- by all accounts she is now achieving notability for other reasons at this point, and she will continue to do so. There are now [sources] claiming that she is Trump's most important social media ally, etc. I would expect coverage on this subject to increase dramatically in the coming months with the inauguration and as she produces more content. Let us compare with her uncle Barron Trump (as she has been compared with before), who has been deleted via AFD before: this would suggest that Barron has attained nowhere close to the notable achievements or coverage that Kai has now received, with no sections of independent notability as far as I can tell. Kai's article Passes WP:GNG. I edited her article extensively yesterday though, so I would expect some degree of bias from me in trying to keep the article retained.Spiralwidget (talk) 01:51, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump (1st choice) or back to Donald Trump Jr.#Family (2nd choice). (I think the family article is better than the father's article for the same anti-patriarchal reasons I detailed in the first AFD and won't repeat here.)
In the first AFD, I thought the article subject was just shy of meeting WP:GNG, with borderline sigcov from WP:TIER3 sources like [12] [13] [14] [15], with the best source at the time IMO being ABC News, though even that one had little in-depth information about the subject, and was mostly about the RNC speech.
The 5 new sources posted above don't really move the needle for me. #1 WP:DAILYBEAST is yellow at RSP, and anyway it's an opinion piece. #2 I'm not sure that EssentiallySports is an RS. #3 is not technically not independent of the other ABC News article, and anyway is more about the subject's election night vlog than about the subject herself. #4 is a routine signing report which usually don't count as sigcov of an athlete, and #5 NYT is about the RNC speech, like the earlier ABC News article, not in depth of the subject herself. What's missing is like two solid biographies of the subject; then I'd be convinced that there is so much material about the subject that it should be on its own page.
But for now, I think everything that meets WP:DUE/WP:ASPECT in all of those sources that is actually about the subject is only enough to fill up a section in an article, e.g. Family of Donald Trump. Even if the subject meets GNG, for WP:PAGEDECIDE reasons (readers will understand the subject better in the context of her family rather than as a stand-alone article, particularly since most of her notability is derived from her family, with her golf career constituting a minority of the overall RS coverage), I think it's better to cover this topic as part of another article rather than as its own article.
Also, I note that the prior AFD resulted in consensus to redirect, and it was edit-warred back into an article, which led to this second AFD (1, 2, 3). A trout to those editors for editing against consensus. The new information should have been added to the target article, and if a stand-alone was sought, a split should have been proposed on the target article's talk page per WP:PROSPLIT. Levivich (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain the distinction between "significant coverage of something a person did" and "significant coverage of the person"? I am confused by this claim. jp×g🗯️ 14:36, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, probably easiest to show you examples, all from the same RS:
The #1 stories have some biographical information about the subjects, but they're really focused on specific events/statements/actions/etc. #2 are actual full-length biographies of the subject. You see a lot of differences in these types of stories: #1 is focused on a particular time and place, #2 spans the subject's entire lifetime. #1 includes a lot of quotes from the subject (what the subject said about the event/action/whatever), whereas #2 has much more in the BBC's own voice. (You can scroll through and just see that #2 has fewer quotation marks than #1.) #1 is usually shorter than #2, sometimes by half.
For our purposes -- writing a stand-alone biography article about a subject -- we can kinda/sorta do it with RSes like #1's, but you really need #2's to cover the subject's whole life, as opposed to just some action/event that happened during their life.
For this article subject (Kai Trump), we only have #1's, no #2's. Levivich (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above discussion. I’m against any minor child of a political person or celebrity having an article, even if they have spoken in public about their parent or grandparent. (Redacted) Bearian (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have two comments to make here on this AfD after already giving my "keep" opinion a little further up.
1. Firstly, I would be concerned that a merge/redirect to Family of Donald Trump would destroy a lot of potentially important encyclopedic information in the article, such as Trump's RNC speech and her recent coverage of election night, as well as information about her name being related to her grandfather and such. The current Family of Donald Trump article has only a short section on grandchildren, and it would be difficult for me to see how a redirect/merge would fit in with the format of that article. I think that merging to "Donald Trump Jr." would be preferable, but the problem there is that Kai Trump does not actually have any significant activity directly related to her father; appearing at the RNC and her social media and golf activities all seem very unrelated to her father, especially considering the fact her parents are divorced and she actually lives with her mother. It also seems to perpetuate stereotypes relating to patriarchy to redirect to father. I therefore find a redirect or merge to be less than ideal in this circumstance.
2. Secondly, I have a real issue with Wikipedia attitudes as regards social media influencers and younger influential people as it stands. I distinctly remember having a similar argument about Niko Omilana when I first made that article. As a younger editor myself, I feel it is important to point out that these people are household names to a degree. People in my social group and my age range have almost all heard of people like Niko Omilana or Kai Trump, and she is seen from my perspective as more of an influencer with her own brand than a relative of Donald Trump- without a doubt her grandfather is a part of her brand, but it is honestly rather derisive of younger people to just expect that all of their life has a focus on their family She clearly receives significant independent coverage on her "social media brand", which I would characterise as "rich republican golf girl", such as [[16]] and [[17]]. Another example is Deji Olatunji, which currently redirects to KSI despite clearly passing GNG, partially because people underestimate the fame, influence and importance of these figures for a younger audience- again, these are the celebrities and personalities that are the most important and discussed among people below the age of 25, and they without a doubt pass GNG. I find it both patronising, astonishing and frustrating that such articles are routinely struck down by people that in my opinion have not got the finger on the pulse of the way fame and influence is being peddled, and Wikipedia itself is in danger of being left behind if it is not more forgiving to younger subjects. The information is clear, it is well-cited, and it receives coverage in multiple reliable independent sources, so what's the big fuss? The bottom line will be that when young people search online for their idols and role models and such, they will be looking at their instagram account rather than Wikipedia, and I think that is a crying shame.Spiralwidget (talk) 12:55, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you call "a crying shame," I call the entire point of Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Fame and popularity are not sufficient for inclusion in the encyclopedia. It's not about her age, or profession (many influencers with huge followings are nevertheless not notable), it's about this: Wikipedia summarizes sources. For a Wikipedia biography article, the sources are other biographies. Wikipedia should never be the first place to publish someone's biography. So to vote keep on a biography, I'm looking for at least 2, preferably 3, totally independent (of each other and of the subject) full-length biographies. That's what gives us enough source material to write a Wikipedia biography article that meets NPOV. Kai Trump doesn't appear to have been the subject of any full biographies, much less two or three. (The RSes I've seen so far have some biographical information, but very little, and I wouldn't call any of them in-depth biographies.) As it so happens, there are many famous people who aren't the subject of biographies (athletes, influencers, famous people's kids); they don't qualify for Wikipedia articles IMO. And everything we have to say about Kai Trump--all the info in RSes that's WP:DUE or a significant WP:ASPECT--can be said in a paragraph or two that can be part of the family article (which could have multiple mini-biographies about various not-quite-notable members of the family). The RNC speech, for example, is one sentence, that says she gave a speech at the RNC. That's all there is to say about it. Levivich (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Likely TOOSOON. Playing golf isn't notable, there is coverage of a speech given, but being social media star in 2024 isn't notable alone. We've had a flood of coverage since the event, but nothing before. I'm not sure this person is notable for what they've done; outside of the Trump name, what have they done to be notable. She's a "potentially notable" influencer, so nothing notable at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This was accidentally removed from the log on Nov 21. So one more go around on the AfD logs, despite the seemingly snowy keep here; given that this was somewhat hidden, there are canvassing concerns here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:18, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPLACE. Unable to find any sources via Google or its sub-engines, the only sources are basic geographical databases and a census from 1981, which doesn't seem to constitute presumed notability. Although this doesn't matter nearly as much, the article is an orphan (and FindLink cannot find anything), which questions its notability. I doubt this article has potential in the encyclopedia both now and in the future, and I suggest it's removal. Sparkle & Fade (Talk|contribs) 03:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ozempic (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 (Ozempic) appears to be a content-fork for a specific product containing the original article (Semaglutide) as its active ingredient. I don't see anything here that is highly specific to this individual product or independently notable about it, but instead often promotional. It's spent most of its life as a redirect to the ingredient's article. Looking for additional input whether it is notable for its own article. DMacks (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ozempic is an almost genericised trademark at this point and is used all the time in the media and elsewhere to refer to this medicine. This page should definitely redirect to the active ingredient. —turdastalk - contribs 05:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as it’s definitely a likely search term. Mccapra (talk) 07:21, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect. At least today, it's practically got Band-Aid status as a tradename being used as a generic term, but that may not always be the case later, so now wouldn't be the time to say Ozempic has standalone notability. Instead, the brand is directly tied to the active ingredient that would make it hard to separate notability even years down the line, so it makes sense as a very likely search term to retain the redirect to semaglutide. The general preference for trade names is to avoid them as article titles and instead have the active ingredient as the title with common trade names included briefly somewhere in the article when warranted. KoA (talk) 07:40, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cliff Lerner (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)

None of the reliable sources that mention this person discusses him in any significant depth. Some provide Lerner's commentary about his own companies, others are interviews with him (not very independent, since it's him talking about himself), others are plainly unreliable puff-pieces. Badbluebus (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. This company was briefly covered by some reliable sources when its name was confused with Snap Inc.'s during their IPO in 2017 [18] [19] [20], and there was no WP:SUSTAINED coverage after that. The brief WP:TECHCRUNCH puff-piece isn't reliable, and the other sources are not independent. Maybe this article would merit a passing mention in the Snap Inc. page. This page was previously deleted in 2006, then it was recreated by a blocked sock in 2014 and then edited by multiple other socks after that. Badbluebus (talk) 03:34, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asmodel (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)

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_24#Asmodel * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reliable sources found for this software developer Ednabrenze (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Adams (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)

Notability is not inherited, and founding a (maybe) notable company doesn't make the person notable. Found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 02:14, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.forbes.com/profile/hayden-adams/ he was 30 under 30 in finance (2023) https://www.forbes.com/30-under-30/2023/finance Szenon (talk) 02:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Devon Anthoni Ringi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable rapper. Neither of the listed sources seem reliable, and I found no additional ones online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talkcontribs) 02:10, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Libyan–Syrian Union (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 at least two-thirds fluff. In its entirety, it is background, direct excerpts from a book, an uninformative scheduling timeline, and the personal puffery and conjecture of the respective heads of state. Given it is about a polity that never existed or even got at all close to existing, coverage of it should likely be limited to a blurb between a sentence and a paragraph in length on a handful of related articles. Remsense ‥  01:52, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pyletown, Virginia (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)

Another of the place name articles in Virginia that is tagged as unsourced. This is very similar to Claytonville, Virginia (AfD discussion); the two are in the same county. Nothing in the 1914 county history about this place, nor in a recent Arcadia press book about the county. There are zero results on newspapers.com in Virginia for "Pyletown"; searching for the variant "Pyle Town" brings up nothing about this place either.

While this does show up as a place name on the USGS topos, all I can find about this place is that there is a Pyletown road in a rural area several miles outside of Boyce, Virginia. This doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:GEOLAND and isn't really verifiable. Hog Farm Talk 01:51, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peace efforts during World War II (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)

Somehow, it seems like a synthetic topic—should we really have a terribly under-cited laundry list under this heading? Its items do not seem like they go together except superficially. Naturally, no connective sources are cited. Remsense ‥  01:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raids inside the Soviet Union during the Soviet–Afghan War (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)

An unwarranted WP:SPLIT of the Soviet–Afghan War, clearly a Pov ridden article and glorification of measly notable Pakistani raids in Soviet Afghan. Garudam Talk! 00:49, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a Split and these raids aren't "measley notable" in that it involved the forces of four different states infiltrating into the territory of a global superpower. Waleed (talk) 02:58, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 01:38, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

İstanbul Efsaneleri: Lale Savaşçıları (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)

Was actually gonna do this some time ago. Anyway, this article has no sources (and been like that for a few years) and looking for possible source and there doesn't seem to be anything prove this article can still be rewritten and kept. Their official website seems to have been taken down, or perhaps never existed in the first place. The subject alone is likely non-notable, if not as much as Battle for Dream Island always tended to be. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:BIO, WP:SINGER. No indication of significance.Single ref is a profile. Been on the cat:nn list for 10+ years, never been updated. No coverage. scope_creepTalk 08:24, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not a lot to base notability on. It all seems to local news. The book may be notable. I see its published by Rowohlt which is an old established publisher, potentially an indication of a pass as WP:NAUTHOR. I don't think these add up to much. There is a couple of event listings and promo articles for the book. There could be more here though. scope_creepTalk 04:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 11:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: A quick search shows several articles about her and her performances. She seems to be a important figure in the cultural scene in the Ruhrgebiet. @Bridget:, German-speaking user here. WAZ is the biggest regional paper in Germany, focusing on the Ruhrgebiet. There are also other articles on the Westdeutsche Zeitung (a state-wide focus). [36]

[37] [38] TanookiKoopa (talk) 13:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two of these references are routine notices of the events with ticket prices and not reliable sources. See what else turns up. scope_creepTalk 22:24, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep Again, "quick search". The page need to be expanded and properly cited, sure. No reason to delete it for that :) TanookiKoopa (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a WP:BLP and as such it needs high quality WP:SECONDARY sources. So far there has nothing been presented that makes this individual notable. Its all ultra-local news, small snippets that don't cut it. If there is WP:THREE secondary sources, that are international in nature then that would be great for WP:SINGER but not local city news, the local papers reporting on the own wee z-list celebrities. That is not establishing notablity per long established consensus. scope_creepTalk 19:14, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go read what the Ruhrgebiet is first. TanookiKoopa (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call WAZ "local" any more than the Washington Post or the Boston Globe. -- asilvering (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not waz, the news is all from the same place. scope_creepTalk 22:23, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seem to be differing opinions on the quality of sources available, perhaps some new commenters can make a consensus clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Step Sideways from this world ..... today 00:19, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Ilidža (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)

Yet another non-notable minor action of the Bosnian War created by one of the editors who have been very busy in this space recently. The comprehensive two volume history of the war, Balkan Battlegrounds" https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=jodpAAAAMAAJ&pg=GBS.PA346&hl=en_AU states only that street battles commenced on 22 April, and then with reference to this suburb of Sarajevo, "Over the next few days, Serb forces occupied all of Ilidza (at the northwestern end of the airport runway)". This isn't significant coverage, and doesn't even indicate there was fighting, let alone a major battle. The article body (less background, which is cited to a dead link I haven't tried to resurrect as yet to verify) is completely unsourced. Lacks SIGCOV and should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:09, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh conquest of the Punjab (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)

Clearly a pseudo-historical article created by a blocked-sock, that should not have been in the mainspace to begin with. Fails WP:MILNG, nothing significant to be found related this event. Garudam Talk! 00:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with the deletion nomination and the reasons for deletion...Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:36, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Per nom. Pure nonsense. The entire article is based on one source alone.
Someguywhosbored (talk) 07:32, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]