Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 October 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< October 10	October 12 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Endor AG

AfDs for this article:

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

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 I would argue the previous AfD of this article was withdrawn in error, as the supposed sources given were of the company's products, not the company itself.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technical failure

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

WP:DICDEF Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 04:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although it is a DICDEF right now, I can see ways it can be expanded into an article. For example, we could write about the most common types of technical failure, the impacts they have on people and organisations, and summaries of famous technical failures. QwertyForest (talk) 09:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Manouchehr Behzadi

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

Apparent memorial page for an Iranian activist based on related or possibly unreliable sources. Holding senior positions in Tudeh does not seem to me to amount to a claim of notability. Mccapra (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Mccapra (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sperry UFO case

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

None of the cited sources are WP:RS. After searching, I cannot find a single WP:FRIND source to cover this topic. It's had a banner warning that it gives undue weight to the fringe viewpoint, but every source I can find is either an interview with the witness or from within ufology. I checked some books that cover many famous UFO sightings like Curtis Peebles' Watch the skies!: a chronicle of the flying saucer myth, and I don't see this mentioned. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, History, Mythology, Science, and Astronomy. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Voyles

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

Like John Storm (AfD discussion) another bio of a fairly routine soldier from the American Revolutionary war. This article appears to be pieced together from primary source and family records; I can't find anything that would indicate a pass of WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Hog Farm _Talk 01:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and North Carolina. Hog Farm _Talk 01:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aotearoa People's Network Kaharoa

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John "Hannibal" Smith

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

Fails WP:GNG tagged for notability since 2021 Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Television, and Military. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 02:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Gül

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

Being mayor of a town of 50,000 doesn’t make for a WP:NPOL pass, and despite his local controversies I don’t think the subject is a GNG pass either. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Turkey. Mccapra (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Writing Rock Township, Divide County, North Dakota

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

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

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

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

NTOWN is a notability guideline which specifically addresses this class of article. While the first reference is not useful, the census most definitely is a reliable source and all that's needed to satisfy NTOWN. Clarityfiend (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It establishes reliability, but not notability; which NTOWN explicitly excludes census data from determining. Sincerely, Guessitsavis (she/they) (Talk) 13:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Infinity Exchanger

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

This crypto exchange does not appear to meet WP:GNG. My search does not turn up any coverage in reliable sources, only mentions in crypto forums and blogs. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Websites. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 01:22, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find PR items [5]... And putting in the article that you don't do "know your customer" analysis, nor money laundering tracking is pretty much admitting you're an illegal financial operation, just an fyi. That's not really helping notability, and admitting to illegal activities on the open web might not be the best business decision. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn’t true. Given that it operates solely on Tor, we cannot definitively say if they are functioning in a country that violates any laws, so claiming money laundering and similar accusations isn’t really valid. If that were the case, decentralized exchanges and privacy coins shouldn’t be listed here either. Additionally, they could be aligned with a BRICS-type framework. KYC (Know Your Customer) is very much a standard used by Western banks and international banks, but not all banks follow these rules.

If we remove this article, then what’s next? Are we going to start asking to remove offshore companies that happen to be shells from history? Removing this article would be like arguing with history. It’s a site that has been up for a long time and documents a significant period in cryptocurrency history and its evolution. Darkwebhistory (talk) 07:33, 8 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't meet notability requirements, regardless. We have no sourcing we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is an unbolded Keep vote so Soft Deletion would not be appropriate. It would be great to get more participation in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WISEPA J062309.94-045624.6

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

Redirect to List of brown dwarfs This article fails WP:NASTRO, I did WP:BEFORE and there are only three academic sources but none have anything notable about this object that would satisfy WP:NASTRO. If anyone finds material for this article please ping me, I'll add it to the article and withdraw the nomination. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is the second nomination for this article; it was previously merged and redirected in 2013 in the bundled nomination Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WISEPC J222623.05+044003.9. The redirect was only recently converted back into a new article. I note this in the interest of completeness (and to emphasize the likely soft deletion ineligibility should that be a factor), but have no opinion or further comment at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

IMOCA 60 Initiative Coeur 4

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

There is no WP:SIGCOV of this sailboat and thus it fails WP:GNG. PROD was contested. Would support redirection to IMOCA 60. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Transportation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:56, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, its common practice that every IMOCA 60 has its own page, like the french wikipedia (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initiatives-C%C5%93ur_4). The importance is given by the Vendée Globe starting only in about two months. Give me some time to bring the article up to speed. V.Glas (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@V.Glas ~~You created the page~~ This page was created in November 2023 and it has had no independent, reliable, secondary sources since then. That seems like plenty of time to find them and "bring the article up to speed." (I don't believe they exist, since I searched for them WP:BEFORE nominating.) As for your argument that "it's common practice," that's an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument that does not rely on any actual guidelines, and we follow English Wikipedia guidelines here. What is your policy-based reason for keeping this article? One alternative, if you believe sources will be available after the Vendee Globe, is to draftify this article, which is the appropriate place for it if you're still working on finding sources. Let me know what you think. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I did not create the page. That was @Yachty4000. If you are looking for sources or notability, take the French article as reference. I already translated and added some parts. V.Glas (talk) 20:13, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my misstatement and have struck it above. Regardless there is now a week for sufficient sources to be identified. As I said, I didn’t find any that fit the bill (and I looked in French as well). But if you find some and they do meet the standards of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS I will withdraw the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:29, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: V.Glas has added several sources. Five of them are to the IMOCA website and thus not independent. Three ([6], [7], [8]) are WP:INTERVIEWS with the boat's skipper and thus primary sources. One ([9]) is a WP:TRIVIALMENTION in an article about several boats being built for the Vendee Globe. One ([10]) appears to be a publicity piece. Two ([11], [12]) do not mention the Initiative Coeur 4 at all. One ([13]) appears to be self-published. And finally, one ([14]) is a brief mention amid WP:ROUTINE race coverage. In short, I still don't see any SIGCOV in secondary, independent, reliable sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 18:09, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Further input would be of assistance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 00:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the French version of this article has a lot of sources and material, could this be a helpful direction to take this article? If not redirecting would be fine. Dr vulpes (Talk) 01:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jordan Halliday

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

Subject of article is not notable, sources cited show that they were sent to jail for a contempt of court charge and a misdemeanor picketing charge. Article is very WP:PROMO and not WP:NPOV. I did WP:BEFORE and he mentioned briefly in a three books one of them is a published that only publishes material on veganism and animal rights. The mentions were not in-depth from what I could tell. There is a section about his writing but none of the material would qualify under WP:NAUTHOR Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also article was PRODed so that's why I brought it here to AfD. Dr vulpes (Talk) 00:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Animal, Crime, Politics, and Utah. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:10, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

University Place (TV Series)

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

Completely unsourced. Tried Googling for sources, and got a bunch of official PBS websites (that is, they weren't third-party sources). I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Wisconsin. I dream of horses (Hoofprints) (Neigh at me) 00:15, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Health and fitness, Education, Science, Economics, and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PBS Wisconsin. If that article were done correctly, it would have a "Local programming" header which would mention this program and any other station output. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- An alternative, given the miscapitalized disambiguator, is an entry at the disambiguation page University Place. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:08, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to PBS Wisconsin: Not independently notable. - Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 03:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]