Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      June 29 (Sat)      June 28 (Fri)      June 27 (Thu)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

AlgoSec

AlgoSec (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NCORP and lacks any reliable sources. Brandon (talk) 23:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, Internet, Georgia (U.S. state), New Jersey, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:13, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast

Vaskino, Mezhdurechensky District, Vologda Oblast (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)

Population 8? All of the little hamlets in Sukhonskoye Rural Settlement put together might justify a stand-alone article; separately most of them do not. Qwirkle (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Milton Owor

Milton Owor (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)

BLP of the chair of a rotary club who is also a successful HR professional. I don’t see anything here to indicate notability. Mccapra (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Uganda. Mccapra (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

This article should be retained because of the following reasons;

Asking ourselves questions

If we were to determine notability using the criteria that you have followed then we would be asking our selves;

• Is Denis Toussaint Lesage is also notable or not? He was a successful deputy of his time
• What is so special about that president of a certain country as there has been more presidents before him that have done great things?
• What makes that CEO notable as their are people who have done what he has done.As in he founded a company but their are big companies than what he founded, etc
  
  
• Does one being a member of a certain club, association or secret organisation make that person notable?

But according to the;

• Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria, He was covered by New Vision and also Daily Monitor which are national newspapers.
• Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Additional_criteria: Particularly the Any biography, he won the "The Business transformation leader" Award at the HR Reveal Awards 2021, if it was an easy to win award, then all Human Resource Managers would be having it, and Would Milton Owor not be included in the Biographical dictionary of Uganda?
• I also believe that this article followed the WP:BLP that is particularly; Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V), No original research (NOR) and also the WP:BLPSTYLE
  

He is not just a HR professional at the NSSF Uganda, not everyone can be in that position. But he also won a top HR award in Uganda for his profession. B722N (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

It’s true that New Vision and Daily Monitor mention him, but neither piece is in depth coverage of him and does not contribute in any way to demonstrating notability. Everything else we have for sourcing us either from organisations associated with the subject, or a non-notable award. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

One of the biggest challenges faced by African Wikipedians is getting in-depth references that talk about people they are writing about. Most of the content in the newspapers and books is just a paragraph or a sentence. Very few Ugandans have books written about them or entire newspaper pages dedicated to them.

I request that you check most of the Ugandan Wikipedia articles and check whether their references have entire pages dedicated to the people that have been written about. Most of that information comes from their personal or company websites which are mostly not written with Neutral Point of View. And then the information from those websites is backed up with those paragraphs and sentences that have been found the notable media sites and publications.

Even most of newspaper articles about the profile of a person is usually tagged as sponsored content and you know that as long as an article drives sales or generates clicks or they have been paid then they will have to publish it. And how many international media houses are going to write about the profiles of Ugandan people in depth from childhood to education to their careers. They will just write a paragraph about the career and working experience.

And for the awards, what makes the award notable?

Should we be only considering the Grammy Awards or the BET Awards as the notable awards and not the top Ugandan Awards that awards their Ugandan musicians.

Or we should only be considering the Komla Dumor Award as the only notable award for journalists and not the awards that are given by the Uganda Journalists Association (UJA) because they are not recognized anywhere apart from Uganda.

I understand that we are doing the deletions to improve the quality of content on Wikipedia and that not everybody deserves to have a Wikipedia article since it is not an advertising platform.

And also you are not tagging these articles in bad faith but it is for the greater good. But how are we going to increase the African content on Wikipedia yet the articles written with the fewer references that are harder to get are also being deleted. If the article did follow guidelines such as WP:NPOV or the Wikipedia:Notability (people) or the tone was harsh.

I suggest that this article should be retained.

And also instead of deleting the published articles, they should be moved back to the draft space where someone can wait for 6 months before even getting a reference that writes about that person in depth. But at-least it gives the editors another chance to look deeper for the reference to find the new references that have written.

These kinds of deletions demotivate new editors, they will end up losing interest in contributing to the different projects of the Wikimedia Foundation especially if they tried to follow the guidelines for writing the articles about different topics. B722N (talk) 08:27, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Biographies of living people are one of the most challenging types of article. A lot get deleted because we have a very high threshold for notability where they're concerned. I’ve no doubt there are many articles to be written on Uganda-related topics, using ordinary newspapers and other sources, where they won’t be challenged - that’s why newer users are often advised to avoid BLPs to start with. I’ve no objection to this article being draftified if there are in fact better sources that will clearly demonstrate notability. But draftification is pointless unless those sources probably exist. Mccapra (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your time @Mccapra and enlightening me. All of your points have been noted. B722N (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Economics. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Winfried W. Weber

Winfried W. Weber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article fails to establish notability under WP:NPROF. There are references to articles written by the subject, however there is no secondary coverage of the subject as a journalist. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Management. Brandon (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Authors. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:14, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete. No pass of WP:Prof: citations to work seem negligible. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC).reply
• Delete: This article doesn't quite meet WP:NPROF. While it mentions the subject's own writings, there aren't enough independent sources discussing their journalistic career. Waqar💬 17:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Hugh James (law firm)edit

Hugh James (law firm) (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)

Coverage in the sources given and my before search are routine for a law firm, such as opening new offices, new hires etc. The coverage in Legal 500 etc. applies to any law firm worth its salt, and I think it is being well established that appearing in a ranking doesn't make a company notable. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Wales. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:26, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 16:41, 7 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep. Satisfies GNG with significant coverage in national newspapers and other sources. There is very extensive coverage in The Times. There is also coverage in The Financial Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent, and The Guardian. There is also coverage in The Scotsman and Reuters and The Week. There is very extensive coverage in WalesOnline. There is very extensive coverage in many periodicals and news sources in Google News. There is a very large number of news and periodical articles that are entirely about this firm. The last time I checked, it is not routine for any British law firm to receive the exceptionally large volume of coverage this one has. That is not surprising because most British law firms are not as large as this one. It is or was the largest Welsh law firm: 1. James500 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  @James500: There are 87 mentions of the firm in The Times, though one is not about the law firm. Which of those do you consider to be in depth, independent, secondary coverage? Four of those are articles by Alan Collins, a partner at the firm who is also a columnist at The Times, e.g. this. Most of the others are quotations. The article you linked to is four paragraphs about them, as part of 200 Best Law Firms 2019. Please cite some of the best examples? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  Okay, I was not aware of Alan Collins. It will take me time to do a write up of the available sources. I have a lot to do at the moment. However, we could sidestep this altogether by a page move to Lawyers in Wales, Legal profession in Wales, Legal sector in Wales, Law firms in Wales or something like that, followed by a rewrite. That would satisfy GNG beyond argument eg 2 and other sources, including more modern ones. James500 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  The search you ran does not bring up all the results in The Times that Google brings up. In the following, I shall confine my attention to The Times, as you requested. The following articles are profiles of Hugh James in The Times: 3 4 5 6 7. These are entire periodical articles entirely about the firm. Such articles are in depth, secondary coverage. I am not aware of any notability guideline that requires more than four paragraphs of coverage. Whether they are independent would depend on whether Alan Collins had any influence over them. I do not know the answer to that question yet. The following articles are about the case of "Edwards on behalf of the Estate of the late Thomas Arthur Watkins (Respondent) v Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors (Appellant)" in which the law firm Hugh James Ford Simey was sued for negligence: 8 9. The following article is about the internal affairs of the firm: 10. There are also a lot of articles in The Times about litigation conducted by Hugh James on behalf of clients. For example, at one point they acted for 6,500 people in the Seroxat case, which has a lot of coverage everywhere. James500 (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep, on the basis of multiple articles in general Wales business media, such as Business Live, or the general news outlet Wales Online11, for example. Admittedly the article is currently poorly sourced but there is ample opportunity to add reliable citations if required. Sionk (talk) 19:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For input on the sources presented by James500.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:26, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone check out these sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 14:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Last attempt at looking for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep: The new references are enough to establish notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:16, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  @Eastmain: which 'new references' are you referring to? None have been added to the article in the last five years? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep: I believe the recent references significantly improve the article's notability. Waqar💬 17:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  @Eastmain: which 'recent references' are you referring to? None have been added to the article in the last five years? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply

• Delete This is a company (law firms are still companies/organizations) therefore GNG/WP:NCORP requires at least two deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information *on the company*. "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

It appears that James500 above misses half the point of "Independent" sources - not only must we show that the publication is independent but that the content is also independent. The profiles pointed to in The Times above are part of the Top Law Firms series but the profile is a regurgitation of what the company says about itself and then it simple lists activity and cases in which they had clients to represent. There is no in-depth information *about* the *company* in these profiles. Fails both CORPDEPTH and ORGIND. The next two articles also comment on *cases* in which the company had clients to represent, they do not provide in-depth information about the company. The next article is an interview with their HR Director - no "Independent Content" fails ORGIND.

We require in-depth "Independent Content" *about* the *company* (not their principals, not cases they've been involved in, not their clients, etc). None of the other Keep !voters have identified any sources nor put forward an argument that is supported by guidelines or sources. None of the sources meet the criteria and I'm unable to identify any references that do. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Aneta Kowalskaedit

Aneta Kowalska (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:NSKATE; medal placement at the junior level or bronze/silver medals at the national championships do not meet the requirements of WP:NSKATE. Google search turns up nothing outside of wikis and scoring databases. Previous AFD received zero arguments in favor of keeping this article that cited any evidence of notability. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Poland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:30, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Comment: Some limited coverage here, here, and here, which I think is evidence of further offline coverage. JTtheOG (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  I'm inclined to agree with this – that's an awful lot of coverage and perhaps we should be looking to the GNG rather than the NSKATE SNG. Toadspike Talk 22:20, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Delete – The third source provided by JTtheOG seem to contain somewhat in-depth coverage, but multiple good sources are required to pass WP:GNG instead of just one. I'm leaning towards delete as a result. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Dallethedit

Dalleth (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)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG / WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Organizations, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Delete no sources and none when I search. Not notable— Iadmc♫^talk  15:57, 15 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Keep. Have added references. Looks notable to me, and I think there will be additional coverage in offline sources and in Cornish-language texts - both whilst it was operating, and in memoirs and historical discussion of this period of the language movement. Tacyarg (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Anyone able to find some sources like those Tacyarg mentioned?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cocobb8 (💬 talk • ✏️ contribs) 19:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Comment. I've added another couple of references, and tagged as citation needed the only sentence which is now not sourced. Probably need a Cornish history or Cornish language expert for more, or at least access to a decent reference library in Cornwall. Tacyarg (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To consider sources added by Tacyarg.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:22, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

C. M. Rubinedit

C. M. Rubin (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)

Upon review of article and its sources, the person in question meets none of the notability guidelines in question: the person is not (1) widely cited by peers (2) known for originating a new concept (3) become a significant monument, etc. (4) The work itself is non a well-known or significant work. The article was written by a blocked user and seems to primarily serve the purpose of self promotion as defined in WP:NOTADVERT. P3D7AQ09M6 (talk) 23:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: I have fixed this heretofore-malformed nomination. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Laboratory Response Networkedit

Laboratory Response Network (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 WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:RS. Redirect to Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, of which it is a part. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Behavioural science, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
  • "No reliable sources"? There is one reliable source. None of the included material would be found in the CDC article. My vote: Retain. Valerius Tygart (talk) 17:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply

    Per WP:GNG, the topic should receive SIGCOV in multiple RS, which having only one source does not satisfy. In addition, the coverage is simply WP:DICT, not WP:SIGCOV. Perhaps a merge. Longhornsg (talk) 18:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Bus (group)edit

Bus (group) (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 band. Article was moved from draft space and I originally returned it. After examining the article I noticed that it claim the band started 6 December 2023. However, the the only reference was published 2 February 2021. This was at least 17 months before auditions started. In addition the reference seemed to be about three young women and not twelve young men. The article provides no references for a band that has only released two singles and was created by a non-notable reality show, 789 SURVIVAL. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 22:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Thailand. Shellwood (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Comment: The citation currently in the article was clearly incorrectly inserted, probably the result of an inappropriate copy/paste job. But may I remind the nominator that Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article. A Google News search for BUS 789 Survival turns up plenty of Thai-language coverage. (I'm not !voting keep just yet due to quality concerns raised by the aforementioned copy/pasting). --Paul_012 (talk) 02:45, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  Yes but as said the band does not appear to be notable. CambridgeBayWeather (solidly non-human), Uqaqtuq (talk), Huliva 15:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Islamic Association of Palestineedit

Islamic Association of Palestine (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)

Very obvious WP:POVFORK of Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, spends much of the article talking about the trial and the same people from a very biased POV. Not certain if there are notable differences from the HLF article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Some Info:

Initial Merge Discussion

I've been trying to solicit advice about Islamic Association of Palestine and merging it into Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development. I don't want to force a WP:SILENCE on this, as I assume this may be contentious and relate to WP:ARBPIA, but it seemed noone was interested in a merge discussion after a month.

Information about the trial

The IAP article is a POVFork about the same trial as the HLF, with the same individuals and facts of the trial, and the original version of the article IAP last month went really deep into various conspirary theories linking IAP to every other Muslim organization in some grand "Jihad" terrorist ring. Particularly egregiously, the support for the conspiracy theory was from a source that was attempting to debunk it. The sourcing for HistoryCommons.org is a deadlink. And a source from Matthew Levitt is used more than ten times to make up most of this article, a person from the very pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and a key witness for the trial. Relying so heavily on sourcing that is intrinsically related to the trial seems like a good argument to suggest this is an article about the HLF trial and not the IAP as an organization.

Information about what the IAP

I can't seem to find anything specific about the IAP from a lot of searches that doesn't immediately reference the HLF trial, and some of the sourcing on this that seemed to talk more specifically about the IAP is from deadlinks. If the only thing notable about the IAP is the HLF trial, then the article should be just merged into the HLF trial page.

I cleaned up some of it, but there is not enough differences between the two versions I think to justify making a new article.

The HLF article makes more sense and seems more objective without having to go full "Civilization Jihad." User:Sawerchessread (talk) 19:13, 22 June 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 June 22. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Toadspike Talk 22:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep. Not seeing how it's a purported POVFORK. Per sources, the Islamic Association of Palestine is a separate organization from the Holy Land Foundation, so they should not be in the same article. An editor's perception of bias is not a reason for AfD, which is determined by coverage in WP:RS. Levvitt is a scholar and reliable source. Affiliation with an organization perceived as bias does not affect whether the source is credible and a reliable source of facts. Lots of coverage in source across the ideological spectrum that clearly establishes WP:GNG:
• 12
• 13
• 14
• 15
• Significant coverage in scholarly work The Muslim Brotherhood and the West by scholar Martyn Frampton and published by Harvard University Press
• 16 in scholarly work by scholars Thomas. M. Pick, Anne Speckhard, and Beatrice Jacuch. Longhornsg (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  First article seems fine.

  Second, third, fourth article is about the HLF trial.

  Fifth source mentions IAP for one paragraph, and includes HLF.

  6th source uses a scratch note from one Muslim Brotherhood guy that was never accepted by any other muslim brotherhood. This 1991 note became the basis for the Civilization Jihad conspiracy theory in the 2000s to 2010s.

  matthew Levitt was the key witness for HLF trial, and his work is entirely about proving financial connections between groups. His writings are about the holy land 5.

  i argue that if this article is mostly about the trial to convict the 5, and the IAP is not sufficiently notable by itself except in context of the trial, it should be merged (maybe keep as a subsection in HLF what it did). User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  I'd argue that a passing mention (one word mention) in three of these sources also suggests it is a passing reference as part of discussion for the HLF trial.

  I want to find more sourcing beyond the HLF trial and its repercussions, that there is enough info besides just the HLF trial to suggest it warrants an article User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:32, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  That Matthew Levitt source is used 11 times throughout this article, when in the Holy Land article, his sourcing is used only once suggests a POV Fork.

  A review of his work on NYTimes

  "Similarly, to judge from his acknowledgements and his notes, Levitt depends heavily on analyses from the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center of the Center for Special Studies — an Israeli nongovernmental organization created "in memory of the fallen of the Israeli intelligence community" and staffed by its former employees... None of this would matter if Levitt used the center's analyses critically, but he doesn't appear to. As a result, there will be readers of this book who will see it as fronting for the Israeli intelligence establishment and its views."

  Not arguing he's not academic, just biased (As is every source on Israel/palestine), and that citing him heavily about the trial and the evidence tying the defendents together in one article, and not citing heavily in another suggests a POV fork. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 23:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  So add more sources. This is not what a WP:POVFORK is. Longhornsg (talk) 04:10, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Keep. The Islamic Association of Palestine is a different organization from the Holy Land Foundation. How is this a POV fork of the Holy Land Foundation - the article does not exclusively rely on Levitt's writings, directly cites an FBI report, and refers to a different organization from the HLF. Both were convicted of providing material support for terrorism and were proven to be fundraising arms for Hamas, alongside the Quranic Literacy Institute. All three organizations are notable as per the general notability guideline as per the sources Longhornsg provided. This article could easily be repaired by bringing in sources from the other two articles about the Holy Land Foundation case, so that the article is not largely reliant on Levitt, given possible concerns of bias. In order for something to be a POV fork, it must be on the same topic as another article. The Holy Land Foundation article is about the Holy Land Foundation, whereas this article is about the Islamic Association of Palestine.
• TL;DR: No, this is not a POV fork because it simply isn't on the same topic as the Holy Land Foundation article and the Islamic Association of Palestine clearly meets WP:GNG. »PKMNLives 🖛 Talk 04:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  It discusses the same trial to the same five men for 95% of the article. The suggestion to bring it into line by including sourcing from the other article would be to keep discussing the trial.

  There is not enough about the organization by itself, outside of the context of the trial, and it is not notable except as part of the HLF trial. User:Sawerchessread (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

Muuse Ismaciil Qalinleedit

Muuse Ismaciil Qalinle (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)

Contested PROD. The sources do not demonstrate notability under WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, or WP:NMUSIC. (The first source is some kind of WP:USERGENERATED list of MP3 files, the second source has a single WP:TRIVIALMENTION of the subject, and the third fails verification entirely, referencing an entirely different individual with the patronym "Qalinle.") Edited to add: an editor has added a reference to Somali Culture and Folklore, pages 63-64. I do not believe this is a valid reference; the book itself is 64 pages and according to Google Books pages 63 and 64 appear to be index pages; Qalinle does not appear as a search term. Additional qualifying sources were not found in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:09, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Somalia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:12, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

John Quastedit

John Quast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article unconditionally and utterly fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Article has been tagged for 18 months due to this deficiency and still no SIGCOV. Preferred result is redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923 but my efforts to do that have twice been reverted (in 2022 by User:BeanieFan11 and in 2024 by User:Let'srun). Cbl62 (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, and Kentucky. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:21, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1923: My revert was due to the previous request for a discussion regarding notability of the subject, which had not yet occurred. A search of multiple newspaper archives failed to uncover any WP:SIGCOV for the subject, however, and as such WP:GNG is not met. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• Redirect to the list mentioned, player isn't notable by himself BFC Aspie (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply
• I think there's a case for keeping here. There's lots of mentions and some articles on him which could arguably be SIGCOV, such as this piece from The Courier-Journal which is a decent-sized piece focusing on him and one other; there's also an article on "Quast Is Added To Grid Staff At U. of L." ("He was one of the best punters ever produced by a local school and his kicking won immediate attention at Purdue") and a brief piece with a photo 17 ("his ability to snag forward passes has gained him recognition") – his one-game stay with the Brecks also has coverage: "Quast, Ex-Purdue Star Is To Play With Brecks In Tomorrow's Contest" / 18. His death also received coverage in the area papers, such as 19 ("Quast ... starred at Purdue and he became an outstanding football official"). Thoughts @Cbl62, Let'srun, and BFC Aspie:? – I can turn this into something pretty decent if you like. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  I think that of those sources, the best one is the 1926 one talking about him joining the Louisville coaching staff. The other ones are either mentions or focus more on other people, while I'm not sure how to rate the obit. I do think this is a close call with those sources though, so maybe draftify (or userfy) to try and find more sources? I'm also wondering now if there are any books which may have covered him? Let'srun (talk) 19:49, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• If someone is willing to work on adding the sources and improving the article, I'd support draftification. Cbl62 (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• If I were to expand the article with the sources found, would both of you consider that sufficient? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:00, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  I'd support draftifying at this time, but I think we'd need one more piece of significant coverage to have the GNG (or BASIC) be met. Will take another look later though as it is a close case of notability. Let'srun (talk) 00:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  I agree. Draftification seems like the best way forward if someone is willing to work on it. Cbl62 (talk) 00:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  Agree that more sigcov is needed or that it would be sufficient if it were expanded? I can absolutely expand it whenever necessary – but I want to make sure I'm not wasting my time on something that will be deleted if further coverage isn't found. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  @Cbl62:? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Probably enough to get by the lower bar of WP:SPORTBASIC #5, but not sure if it's enough under WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 20:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  @Cbl62: I guess, my question is, would you support it being in mainspace if I were to substantially expand it? It takes time for me to do these things and I want to make sure that, if I did expand it, I wouldn't be wasting my time. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• I've thought this through and I'm not convinced that the proffered sources satisfy GNG. The whole basis for his claim to notablity is that he played one game for the Louisville Brecks in 1923. Only two of the sources touch briefly on his pro "career", namely this one, and both simply announce that Quast signed with the Brecks -- with no depth whatsoever. And the obit in the Courier Journal (here) doesn't even mention his one-game NFL "career" -- if his one game with the Brecks wasn't even significant enough to merit even a brief mention in his obituary, how in the world can we then claim that it is notable enough to be the basis of an encyclopedia article?? Cbl62 (talk) 05:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply
  • Why should the only thing that matters here be whether his obituary mentions that he played in the NFL? If it had added, "Quast also played in the NFL", are you saying you'd suddenly think it worthy of being kept? I thought it was the coverage that mattered, not whether his brief obituary mentions a certain aspect of his life? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Let's get real. The one and only reason that this one-sentence sub-stub was created was because he appeared in an NFL game. That is the real-world assertion of "notability" that purportedly supports the creation and maintenance of the article. The complete absence of coverage of his one-game NFL career (certainly no SIGCOV -- and not even a mention in his obituary) eviscerates the contention that his NFL "career" was notable. Seems pretty clear to me. Cbl62 (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Your argument brings to mind the Buck Saunders AfD where you presented some routine coverage that likewise made no mention of his one-game NFL career. Didn't satisfy GNG in that case and shouldn't here either. Cbl62 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)reply

Benzingaedit

Benzinga (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)

It is my opinion that this article falls short of the WP:CORP and WP:CORPDEPTH standards in regarding to sourcing and significant coverage. Some of the sourcing comes from the Benzinga site itself, other coverage is minimal and does not go into any great depth. At least one major contributor to the article was paid to polish the text (and that person has since been blocked). I welcome the conversation on the editorial merits of this article. Thank you. Capt. Milokan (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Finance, Companies, Websites, and Michigan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply

  note that a previous version of this article was deleted.

  I agree that nearly all available souces with exeption of CRJ article (which trashed Benzinga as reliable news source, in some depth) don't meet standards. Two or three other secondary sources ARE reputable sources, but mostly is just brief, superficial coverage of a Benzinga press release about its aquisition. These items don't confirm, (but merely "report") info in press release. The SEC I suppose is a "primary source," certainly reliable.

  Nearly all other sources here are junky.

  The assertion above, that somebody was "paid" to work on this article, seems plausible but unknowable, and thus in some sense incorrect. 212.95.5.96 (talk) 11:26, 30 June 2024 (UTC)reply

George Kane (American football)edit

George Kane (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article unconditionally and utterly fails WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5 ("Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Article has been tagged for 18 months due to this deficiency and still no SIGCOV. Preferred result is redirect to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929)#1921 but my efforts to do that have twice been reverted (in 2022 by User:BeanieFan11 and in 2024 by User:Let'srun). Cbl62 (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2024 (UTC)reply Zdroj:https://en.wikipedia.org?pojem=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2024_June_29
Text je dostupný za podmienok Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License 3.0 Unported; prípadne za ďalších podmienok. Podrobnejšie informácie nájdete na stránke Podmienky použitia.