Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge

30 October 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

< October 29 October 31 >

Purge server cache

El Uvito

[edit]
El Uvito (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; all 1 references are census data Pitille02 (talk) 05:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I believe it should be updated. LexigtonMisiENG (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Springs Toledo

[edit]
Springs Toledo (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 RS evidence satisfying WP:AUTHOR. No secondary RS coverage of his work or impact. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Vũ Minh

[edit]
Mai Vũ Minh (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 page was deleted under the title Mai Vu Minh (log). The statement "In 2016 he was elected as a people's deputy to the National Assembly of Vietnam and served in the economics committee" in this article is not correct, this name does not appear in the list of deputies elected to the National Assembly of Vietnam in 2016. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 04:22, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The source is not reliable to begin with for any claim, even if it was actually in the blog post. This is one of the entrepreneur contributor blog posts ("Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own")- a favorite target for UPDE scammers similar to the forbes contributor blogs. Perhaps we could look at the other blogs that the "author" posted to the site, like "How to Sell Feet Pics & Make Money: 10 Simple Steps". Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ג'ימיהחיה: Can you supply some of those that post-date the euronews piece? I was unable to locate anything even remotely reliable. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I tried to clean up this article, but I haven’t changed my vote. Independent sources like Euronews aren’t enough to write a biography, and others repeat his unreliable claims. Cherry Cotton Candy (talk) 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - The pre-2020 sources are useless given that they're part of a hoax per the Euronews source. There is an unbelievable amount of known, fake, blackhat SEO garbage blogs that are running PR pieces on him. Previous incarnations of this article (Draft:Mai Vu Minh and Mai Vu Minh) have used similar junk sources - fake forbes sites, paid advertorials, blackhat blogs and more. Clearly, there's a lot of SEO/paid editing in play. I can see the Mate Sam99 (talk · contribs) UDPE socks were at work at one point. This leaves us with no source for any real notability, a lot of fake sources, and one passing source showing that he's an interesting scammer. Not enough for a WP:BLP. Sam Kuru (talk) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there are very different opinions of this article. User:Jiaoriballisse and User:ג'ימיהחיה can you identify the sources you think are reliable? Because those arguing for Delete says that most of the coverage of him is fake and even the article that you reviewed asserts this, too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Fake millionaires could be notable I suppose, but this doesn't seem to be. I'm not sure why Croatian and Serbian media are interested in a person from Vietnam. Meeting with xyz form Bosnia doesn't get you notability here either. I don't see this person as passing criminal notability over the alleged fake photos, so this isn't at all notable. Oaktree b (talk) 03:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Duggan

[edit]
Emily Duggan (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 GNG as they have only ever competed in entry-level categories and one obscure international category where they did not make a notable impact. Page history indicates the page was either self-created or COI, although an attempt has been made by an IP to clean it up, and the sources are mainly social media or primary. MSportWiki (talk) 04:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

T. J. Jacob

[edit]
T. J. Jacob (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 inherent notability in the highest position attained, deputy Inspector General. The police medal may add to notability but it appears to be only covered in primary sources. His swimming achievements do not meet WP:ATHLETE. An orphan article. LibStar (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage by secondary coverage past trivial metnions. Takipoint123 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monal (software)

[edit]
Monal (software) (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)

Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any coverage for this chat client at all. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find any coverage. Takipoint123 (talk) 02:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brussels International Festival of Eroticism

[edit]
Brussels International Festival of Eroticism (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 due to not having any WP:SIGCOV. Only took placed for two years and doesn't not meet notability Demt1298 (talk) 01:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:16, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist to determine whether this article should be Deleted, Kept or Redirected.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:05, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of Storm Prediction Center meso-gamma mesoscale discussions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The meso-gamma designation has a clear definition, however it isn't marked on each Mesoscale Discussion individually. There's an OR problem when it comes to determining entry as to determine an entry in the list, barring a secondary source confirming the meso-gamma designation (which I don't believe exist on the list at the moment), the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors and I don't have to go into any more detail to let you know that's a bad idea. I'd accept if this article was completely rewritten with sources confirming each entry's inclusion but I'm not holding out hope this goes down as anything more than WP:LISTCRUFT, as much as I'd like to keep this article. Departure– (talk) 00:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – False statement was given in the nomination. "the MD must be analyzed by Wikipedia editors" is a false statement. The definition is clear, as even described by the nominator. Just because the government doesn't mark them separately does not mean editors are "analyzing" it. I'd practically argue the basic principles behind WP:CALC & WP:DUCK. This list, simply put, is when the SPC confirms (1) an ongoing tornado or (2) 100+ mph winds. These are not analyzed by Wikipedia editors, as claimed by the nominator, but rather, literally editors looking at the NOAA text (cited obviously) where the NOAA forecasters (along with any RS media) say there is a tornado. To note, this article was kept following a previous deletion attempt for being "niche" and LISTCRUFT. Given the nominator acknowledged (1) there is a clear definition for this list's topic and (2) stated Wikipedia editors were violating OR (which has no evidence supporting that) and (3) this survived a previous AFD for being niche/listcruft, I see no new deletion reasons to try to overturn the previous consensus to keep this article.
RS media like this article from Forbes discussed the SPC issuance of one of the items on this list: "The Storm Prediction Center (SPC) even issued a mesoscale discussion—a small-scale, short term forecast—alerting the region that radar and environmental data indicated that the tornado was likely an EF-4 or an EF-5. Meteorologists usually don’t put out that kind of a statement while a storm is in progress, but the SPC closed the discussion with a harrowing, all-caps warning: “THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT.” While it may be a partially "niche" topic, it is clearly not OR violations and LISTCRUFT arguments were already under a "keep" consensus. No new deletion reasonings, in my point of view. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 01:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion there's far too many "Is this a meso-gamma discussion" topics on the talk page and too many "revert if necessary but I don't think these are meso-gamma" edits that aren't reverted for what I see as fit for inclusion. I see too many gray areas for WP:DUCK (especially considering it's a policy on sockpuppetry and wouldn't hold water on original research). Not every case has a bold "THiS IS AN EXCEPTIONALLY RARE EVENT" in it's text. Departure– (talk) 02:14, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I myself almost nominated this for deletion too. And I have to disagree with WeatherWriter’s rationale here. And I’ll list the multiple reasons why this needs deleted below:
1. As the nominator points out; while the meso-gamma criteria is very clear cut, the SPC doesn’t mark them. In fact, the term “meso-gamma mesoscale discussion” is so obscure that I didn’t even know about it until I stumbled on this article.
2. Because it is so obscure; and because the SPC itself doesn’t even use the term in ANY of its discussions; it leads me to think that it isn’t the Storm Prediction Center determining which discussions are “meso-gamma”; it is Wikipedia making that determination. Which (unlike what WeatherWriter will tell you), would violate WP:OR and quite possibly WP:LISTCRUFT as well (although I’m not that familiar with the latter, so I won’t say for sure on the cruft part).
Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 01:51, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – The ONLY keep argument that I might be okay with is if we renamed the title to something like “List of Storm Prediction Center Mesoscale Discussions that concern individual tornadoes”; since that would remove the WP:OR problems. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 02:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could get behind that, since that would remove the “OR violation” (I don’t see one, but I know you and Departure see one). That is basically what meso-gamma discussions are anyway, so yeah, I would 100% support a renaming over deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–: Would this be something you could get behind? That topic would be well-sourced and clear any possible OR violations. If you do get behind it, then this AFD discussion could be speedy-closed and then the article instantly renamed and restructured appropriately. Thoughts? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:23, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Really not sure about that one. What connects an MD to a tornado event? I could see news linking watches to events but I'd be shocked if they knew what a mesoscale event. Barring that and obvious cases, there's still the problem of meso-gamma discussions being hard to define without OR (no matter how simple). Departure– (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mesoscale discussions are named by the Storm Prediction Center. Like actually, that is their formal name (see SPC Mesoscale Discussions. The Mesoscale Discussion text themselves (for those that are "meso-gamma" directly mention an ongoing tornado. There would be 0 OR as every aspect would be cited. The entire possible OR issue mentioned by You and Hurricane Clyde are on the "meso-gamma" aspect, not "mesoscale discussion", which is a very well-known/well-cited thing. For reference, the SPC has issued thousands of mesoscale discussions. This list, simply put, is those that mention ongoing tornadoes. "What connects an MD to a tornado event" is the text of the mesoscale discussion. For example, this right here is the mesoscale discussion referenced by the Forbes article. which states directly, "...confidence is high for a likely violent tornado. A long-track tornado is expected to continue..." Those are obvious to connect with damage surveys/articles over on the yearly tornado articles (for that tornado, 2020 Easter tornado outbreak#Bassfield–Seminary–Soso–Moss–Pachuta, Mississippi). Others include this Mesoscale discussion which directly states "Intense tornado (EF3+) ongoing" (for the 2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado...note, the mesoscale discussion is specifically mentioned in the article's "Storm development" section) or this Mesoscale discussion for the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado which actually stated, "A strong to potentially violent tornado is ongoing and expected to continue for at least another hour".
In fact, now that I think about it, I highly support keeping the article and renaming/restructuring it to be specifically mesoscale discussions mentioning ongoing tornadoes. No OR issue and those specific mesoscale discussions are often used in other articles as references + actual descriptions in the article text. With that explanation, does that satisfy your possible OR concerns with a renaming Departure–? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 02:50, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note, RS media does know what a "mesoscale discussion" is. I recommend going to Google, searching "Mesoscale discussion" and then going to the "news" tab. That will save me from linking the hundreds of articles mentioning them. For simplicity, here is an RS news article titled "What Is a Mesoscale Discussion?", so obviously, RS media does know what they are and can explain them, which would solve any "niche" topic arguments regarding a renamed/restructured list for any mesoscale discussion mentioning an ongoing tornado. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:01, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The small scale topic of the article may get it brought back to AfD, but I wouldn't be too opposed to that if it kills the OR concerns. But either way, I'd advise waiting until this discussion closes before taking any restructuring actions. Departure– (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion theoretically could be closed now per [[WP:CSK|Wikipedia's Speedy Keep reasonings], since the only 3 !voting editors involved in the discussion all are not opposed to a rename/restructuring. The 7-day AFD doesn't need to continue unless you want it to. So, do you wish to withdraw the AFD nomination and let the restructure/rename occur, or, do you want to wait the full 7 days before that could occur? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:15, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Departure–, the SPC does clearly say whenever the discussion concerns a single tornado. They just don’t use the “meso-gamma” wording.
But I am still going to support deletion; and just consider the renaming to be an acceptable alternative. Hurricane Clyde 🌀my talk page! 05:03, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Canada

[edit]
List of cultural icons of Canada (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)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. Previously existed for ~a day before being converted into a redirect to Culture of Canada. However, the target page does not contain the word "icon" or any mention of cultural icons, much less an entire list of them. Does not seem suitable to be a redirect, but also doesn't seem suitable to be an article, either. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NOT. Seems like a random collection of terms. Not encyclopedic. Takipoint123 (talk) 03:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of the Netherlands

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of cultural icons of the Netherlands (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)

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. Recently restored from being a redirect, as the target in question does not contain a list of cultural icons. Not suitable to be a redirect, but it doesn't seem to be a need to have this as an article, either. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:28, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of cultural icons of Italy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of cultural icons of Italy (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)

As per the deletion discussion of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of cultural icons of Australia. This has been recently restored from targeting Culture of Italy, but the page contains no such list of "cultural icons". It is not suitable to be a redirect, but it also does not seem suitable to be an article, either, so we arrive here. Utopes (talk / cont) 00:26, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Joanne Adamson

[edit]
Joanne Adamson (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)

Ambassadors are not inherently notable. 5 of the 6 supplied sources are primary. The supplied third party source merely quotes her making a statement and is not WP:SIGCOV. A search could not find any indepth third party coverage to meet WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was procedural close‎ as wrong venue. Deletion discussions of articles in draftspace go to WP:MFD, not AfD. No prejudice against a refiling over there. (non-admin closure) --Finngall talk 00:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:2025 Sterling Heights mayoral election

[edit]
Draft:2025 Sterling Heights mayoral election (edit | [[Talk:Draft:2025 Sterling Heights mayoral election|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 was declined four times at WP:AFC. After the last decline, the creator -- who is busy creating a lot of mayoral election stubs -- went ahead and added it directly to mainspace.

I'm concerned there is not enough non-WP:ROUTINE WP:SIGCOV to support a standalone article on a suburban mayoral election. Of course, there's certainly coverage in the way that any election gets coverage but - from that perspective - that coverage will be ROUTINE by definition. My WP:BEFORE is unable to find any coverage of this event other than one reference in the article (there are two refs in the article, but only one is about the election). Chetsford (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cory Schmitz

[edit]
Cory Schmitz (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 graphic artist who has worked on a number of significant games, but the sources presented and available don't focus on the person, or show compliance with WP:ARTIST Acroterion (talk) 00:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Today&oldid=1238673950"