Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 June 2

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.

Rusking Pimentel

Rusking Pimentel (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 far as I can tell, there's pretty much zero coverage of this person outside of the routine announcements, and NPOL doesn't extend to everybody working in the office of the state level politicans in question. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Dominican Republic, and New York. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : I looked into it and found the following new sources which are independent and have significant coverage: [8], [9], [10]. This a notable subject and fulfills the WP:NPOL as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caddygypsy (talk • contribs) 16:48, 15 May 2024 (UTC) Also, {{page creator}} and all that. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 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!} 16:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please include a signature with your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:03, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article meets
  WP:ENT. The NPOL may not be for here. Why not redirect to the show? Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:38, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I won't quibble on whether they had a significant role (eswiki article on the show is no help since it only goes up to 2008 and has even fewer references than ours), but ENT specifically says multiple, SafariScribe, and I don't think I've seen anything that claims they were part of any other notable production. I also don't see anything that could really be considered GNG or BASIC-level SIGCOV, anything beyond bare mentions seem to be routine coverage surrounding the announcement, excluded by SBST. No objection to redirect though, I just didn't want to BLAR since I anticipated an objection was not unlikely. Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:28, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. It would be helpful to get a second opinion on the sources offered in this discussion and if a Redirect target article was identified. Thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Fails GNG, ANYBIO, NPOL. I don't see a redirect target. This subject is a run of the mill political operative with no significant coverage which meets directly detailing RS. The sources presented above (subject graduates) don't assert any notability (lots of folks graduated). BusterD (talk) 22:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all of graduates get cover stories. Caddygypsy (talk) 14:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My point precisely. No significant coverage, no notability. BusterD (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cooperative web

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

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

An obscure jargon term coined by IBM for a now-defunct project (a collaborative real-time editor named "Blue Spruce", and a successor called "OpenCoWeb"), which the article hardly mentions at all. Independent sources describing the project only use the term "cooperative web" in passing. This should not be confused with unrelated uses of the term "cooperative web". Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The term is still used, but doesn't seem to apply to the concept here. Article appears to have been created without inline citations so I can't assess the sources used. Oaktree b (talk) 23:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Elli (talk | contribs) 20:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Cavallaro

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

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

I cannot find anything on this author in both print and online sources despite them writing 28 books. I cannot confirm even the most basic of biographical information (age, country, etc), nor even whether this is even a real person. What if this is simply a collection of authors who publish under this name? I cannot find a single newspaper article on this person, or any kind of faculty biography attached to any kind of institution. There is a short overview that lacks any biographical information on one of her publisher websites. I cannot confirm whether this person is an academic or has any kind of academic background.

Doing online searches, you find people spending years asking the exact same questions and not coming up with anything definitive:

https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/19/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-1/

https://www.animemangastudies.com/2014/03/21/who-is-dani-cavallaro-part-2/

In principle, her works could be used as sources for Wikipedia (not every author is notable enough to have their own page). There are a handful of academic reviews of her books but this is simply not enough. Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as article creator. I understand the concerns you're raising in your nomination, but they seem to be primarily concerns about the subject herself, which is a separate discussion from whether the subject merits a Wikipedia article. If your argument is that Cavallaro does not qualify for assessment under the
  creative professionals guideline: her Google Scholar results indicate that her work is widely cited, some of them having hundreds of citations, her work has been the subject of plentiful reviews in addition to the ones already present in the article, and physical copies of her works seem to be widespread, with this book and this book being available in hundreds of libraries. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 22:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

She fails literally every single criteria for the academic notability guideline (and rather badly I might add). She's made zero impact in her field, and merely spams out a lot of very low quality books that get trashed in reviews or cited in other low quality scholarship. She does not publish in any peer reviewed journal at all, and does not hold any position in any unviersity or academic setting, and does not go to any conferences (or even fan conventions). In the end, I can't even prove she's a real person and not 3 teenagers in a trench coat. The article will be permanent stub status simply because there's no sources and likely never will be. Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain whether the academic guideline applies in this case, but that's pretty irrelevant as I've already demonstrated how she passes the guideline for creative professionals. Again, none of the concerns you're raising here are relevant to the question of whether Cavallaro merits an article. A person does not need to have a public image or appear at events in order to be notable. Even if you think Cavallaro might be "3 teenagers in a trench coat", that isn't a reason to delete the article. Should

fringe theory. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

There is actual proof Shakespeare existed beyond people saying he wrote some works at least. What is there to say about somebody with no known personal details or expertise? XeCyranium (talk) 00:03, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, bringing up the Shakespeare thing was probably unnecessary, but I believe the point stands. None of Wikipedia's notability guidelines require verification of any personal details. In most cases, what's important is that the subject receives

reliable sources; authors get slightly more leeway with the consideration of their works and how widely cited they are. Cavallaro meets both of those thresholds. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 01:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete  : Plenty of books/papers written by her, nothing about her. I don't find much of anything outside of books she's written. No coverage, no critical reviews of her works, unsure about scholarly notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oaktree b: Did you click the links I provided in my comment above? —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes I did. The site is listed as a RS [11], but we need more than two articles from the same site to establish notability here. Oaktree b (talk) 23:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm confused. I'm not referring to the nomination but to

  self-published source; the WikiProject only recommends a single page of references as a starting point for further research. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Visual arts, Anime and manga, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The Jstor link provided above shows ample reviews of her written works, easily passing AUTHOR notability. Oaktree b (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment: Since the author's reliability has come up here, notifying of a Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard discussion about this author. The discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § Dani Cavallaro. Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:55, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Reliability aside, her works have been reviewed enough for notability as an author. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the provided Jstor link. Also if scholors are criticizing her then there is that as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:10, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn‎. Thanks to research by Oaktree b, I'm satisfied this chef is notable Valereee (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Valereee (talk) 14:46, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pascal Caffet

Pascal Caffet (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 seems to be a non-notable chef. Couldn't find much on google. Valereee (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 19:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep This [12] and this [13], small biography here [14], [15]. Probably just enough for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Lejdc is just an interview, and not really much in it except that he opened a shop. Les Echos and the Wine Table book look good. I've added those three. @Oaktree b, I can't get to the other book -- could you possibly tell me what it says? Valereee (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Second one might not be about him, they go into a biography of a person born in 1965 in Lapalisse; our subject here was born in 1962 in Troyes. Oaktree b (talk) 23:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a few more sources: this one from a woman's magazine [16], this story in a newspaper [17].Oaktree b (talk) 23:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Great, thanks! I've added those, and I'm going to withdraw this, clearly notable. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:03, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

VonZipper

VonZipper (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 appears to be a non-notable eyewear company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently 2 cited sources are either passing mentions, or press releases. Therefore, it fails to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:19, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Best I can find are PR-ish product reviews, written by the editors of whatever news outlet it is... [18] this is the best that came up, and it's promotional. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No reliable secondary coverage of the brand. Contributor892z (talk) 02:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Ryderwear

Ryderwear (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 company with routine paid posts, poor sourcing. SmartCompany articles posted somewhere else then resposted. Forbes Former contributor article (non-

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:17, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Din Mohammad Jurat

Din Mohammad Jurat (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 subject fails to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Politicians. Gabriel (talk to me ) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per ladmc. thetechie@enwiki: ~/talk/ $ 03:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article clearly meet the
  WP:POLITICIAN
  .

please have a look at these reliable sources.

• • BBC (1) (2) (3) (4)
  • CNN (5)
  • New york times (6)
  • VOA (7)
  • Radio free europe (8)

Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All the link you have provided still doesn't address why he was nominated for an AFD. The only reasonable news was that he was sacked. The rest of the news has nothing to do with him apart from him being sacked. Editors should take note that the article creator was the same person who voted this keep.--Gabriel (talk to me ) 21:55, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What about this one ?

https://www.afghan-bios.info/index.php?option=com_afghanbios&id=795&task=view&total=1733&start=766&Itemid=2 Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The sources (including the above) only briefly mention him so lack of significant coverage and he barely passes
  WP:POLITICIAN. The Afgan bios source is better so if there are more like this I might change my mind. The article will need a rewrite though as it is a mess. — Iadmc♫^talk  21:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  please have a look at this :https://generalmohammadjurat.blogspot.com/2017/05/1340.html Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Also this one https://generaljurat.blogspot.com/ Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  ".blogspot" is not Wiki acceptable sourcing. Non reliable, non-independent. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  They are in Persian and I can't translate them. Not that the language of the source is important only the reliablity and coverage given to the subject. These blogs are not considered reliable per

  WP:blog — Iadmc♫^talk  20:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Delete or Draftify I am open to draftify, but article is a mess. Needs a proper re-write and submittion if kept. The tone is very bias. As per
  WP:POLITICIAN: Subject must have "received significant press coverage". Sourcing seems to only briefly mention him, appears to lack significant coverage. Lekkha Moun (talk) 16:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Dear @Lekkha Moun Please allow me to prove it to you. In this section, there are dozens of reliable references available. There are various news articles as well. Please pay attention to the news section. All these references are trustworthy according to Wikipedia. In the biography section, detailed information is available on the Afghan Bios website, which is specifically dedicated to politicians and important figures of Afghanistan. So, what is the issue? Parwiz ahmadi (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not convinced a draft would be any better: they would see all the same issues and reject it over and over. @Parwiz ahmadi the issue is the lack of significant [i.e. a large amount of and important] press coverage. Cheers — Iadmc♫^talk  20:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean & Earth

Ocean & Earth (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 currently cited sources are company website and company profile on Surfd. Fail

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete cause the article lacks sufficient reliable sources and verifiable information to establish the company's notability per Wikipedia's guidelines. Additionally, the content appears promotional rather than neutral, which does not align with Wikipedia's standards --Welcome to Pandora (talk) 08:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment here are some sources I found, perhaps still not sufficient for
  WP:NCORP [19][20][21][22] Broc (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:NCORP. LibStar (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tenderd

Tenderd (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 subject lacks significant in-depth coverage. I was not sure about the reliability of this [23] as its mostly covered tech related news. Also i dont know if i need to write this but upon google searching "tenderd.com", i found that the creator mention this corporation somewhere in the off-wiki site. Initiating this AfD to get input from senior editors. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Libraa2019 (talk) 18:50, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject clearly passes WP:GNG, and all the references are cited in the article such as coverage in Bloomberg, Tech Crunch, Business Insider, The National etc. But despite that, @Libraa decided to take this to AfD. I'm confident this nomination is driven by retaliation. @Libraa2019 appears to be taking offense to my AfD nominations, where they consistently voted for keeping the articles, only for the discussions to result in redirects. Therefore I suggest SK this under WP:CSK. However, I want to emphasize that such retaliatory behavior is not acceptable. I'm unsure why they're taking this so personally. --—Saqib (talk I contribs) 18:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not personal, its just that i saw you mentioned it off-wiki, and i am unsure if its acceptable or not therefore initiated AfD. Also it is nowhere retaliation as you nominated almost 9 creations of mine sine last month [24], i just initiated this one due to the reason i found it off-wiki (will not share that link as it leads to breach of privacy). Libraa2019 (talk) 18:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Libraa2019, Why does it even matter if I mentioned it off-wiki? It's one of the most funded startups based in the UAE. So you want to delete it just because I mentioned it off-wiki? Seriously? This just proves that this AfD is entirely retaliatory. It also suggests that you're attempting to locate me through Google. Now I can guess why I've been receiving a lot of off-wiki attacks lately. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:07, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Saqib, Its not retaliation, please assume good faith as we are assuming your editings as good faith too [25] I am not sure about the reliability of the sources you mentioned. And as you mentioned it off-wiki, its likely that you have a connection with them. As per my understanding wikipidea does'nt permit COI? Libraa2019 (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Libraa2019, First, you're blatantly HOUNDING me off-wiki, and now you're audaciously accusing me of having a COI with Tenderd! —Saqib (talk I contribs) 19:23, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have'nt. You are accusing me without any evidence just because i found some off-wiki news source which anyone can find as its a reliable Pakistani newspaper. Please avoid casting aspersions. Libraa2019 (talk) 19:26, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails
  WP:ORGIND. A secondary source must "contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." and for corporate articles we have tough standards. What the author did in The National article is just post all the quotes, just promo content. No action needed against Saqib. 2001:8F8:1267:606B:BD92:3040:C1F0:74FD (talk) 01:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete,it looks
  WP:TOOSOON for an encyclopedia. A startup which attracted a bit of coverage about its fundraising, but nothing really beyond that. Coverage lacks depht. I have the feeling it will become notable at some point, but not now. Cavarrone 07:14, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mountcastle & Sons

Mountcastle & Sons (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 significant coverage in reliable sources. Only company website sources. Konhume (talk) 18:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Mooks clothing company

Mooks clothing company (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 Non-notable Streetwear clothing company with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently cited sources are just passing mentions no indepth coverage. Therefore, it fails to meet WP:CORPDEPTH Konhume (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

M.J. Bale

M.J. Bale (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 appears to be a non-notable fashion store with no significant coverage in reliable sources. The currently cited sources are either passing mentions, press releases, or paid brand posts. It fails to meet

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Fashion, and Australia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a prominent menswear chain in Australia with lots of stores. A Google News search returns a large number of useful stories about the company [26], including articles in the Australian Financial Review ([27], [28], [29]) and other major news sources (examples: [30], [31], [32]). The firm has also received some interesting coverage in speciality retail news websites (examples: [33], [34]). Nick-D (talk) 01:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Timinsky

Brandon Timinsky (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 subject is known for founding SadaPay but lacks sig./in-depth coverage from RS. The available sources appear to be either unreliable or paid coverage. I had same concerns back in 2020 and persist to date. Fwiw, the BLP was created by a SPA Llohcs who also edited BLPs of people related to SadaPay. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 17:40, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ROTM entrepreneur. Fails
  WP:GNG. 188.29.129.61 (talk) 19:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: No independent coverage found for this person. all items are PR/promo items. I don't see notability outside of SadaPay, perhaps merge there if needed. Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Promo puff. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:37, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:
  WP:BIO failure. And so it is 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom lacks sources.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Erik Thorbecke

Erik Thorbecke (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 subject fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JFHJr (㊟) 17:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics, Netherlands, California, Iowa, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets
  WP:NACADEMIC. His professorship is a named professorship and likely endowed. Co-creator of Foster–Greer–Thorbecke indices; the originating paper has almost 9000 cites on GScholar. 21k cites and h-index of 48. One of the chapters in Poverty, Inequality and Development: Essays in Honor of Erik Thorbecke is a biography. A conference was held in his honor. Jfire (talk) 19:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:Prof. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. Obvious pass of
  WP:BEFORE, the nominator's removal of indicia of notability and then claiming without justification that the notability is not present, while presumably well-intentioned, is not how we should be operating. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 18:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Light Hill Music

Light Hill Music (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 is pretty much

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Entertainment, Organizations, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Non notable record label. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, it’s not a record label but a gospel music community. Check references. Madeforall1 (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This article is about a gospel music group and not a recool label, it’s an independent gospel group with notable artists. The references as real facts, true facts and all visible on the internet, everything mentioned on the articles are reliable and from reputable news publications, when the keyword “Light Hill Music” is searched, you find sources corresponds with the references, kindly check the YouTube page of the topic I have written about and check it out. I’m not connected to the subject but it’s a community of artists I’ve seen there songs trend and I wish to write about them here, So I strongly suggest this article should be kept, there are no exaggerations, articles is written in line with Wikipedia community guidelines Madeforall1 (talk) 20:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: non-notable music group, does have a sense of promotion about it. The sources aren't terribly in depth; having a youtube in this day and age isn't notable. We'd need to see charted singles, musical awards or other forms of musical notability here, see MUSIC. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails
  WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

List of American Basketball Association broadcasters

List of American Basketball Association broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It's dutifully noted at the very top of the article, that the American Basketball Association had its games (primarily just the All-Star Game, weekend playoff games, and a game from the championship series also on the weekends) televised by CBS. Don Criqui, Pat Summerall, and Dick Stockton were among the announcers that were featured on CBS' stint with the ABA, which lasted from the 1969-70 season through the 1972-73 season, just prior to them landing the National Basketball Association contract from ABC. It's also noted that by 1976, CBS had envisioned televising a postseason playoff series between the NBA and ABA. The final game in the ABA's existence prior to the merger with the NBA was Game 6 of the 1976 ABA Finals between the New York (now Brooklyn) Nets and the Denver Nuggets, which aired on HBO. It's also noted at the top that NBC was slated and contracted to televise a potential Game 7, but since the series ended in six games, the contract with them was void. The point is that there's much more to this article than simply listing names of announcers and TV and radio stations. One of the factors for why the ABA didn't last longer was that it never really had a solid network television contract. Keep in mind that ESPN was still about three years away when the ABA closed up shop. However, it's been reported that former ABA owners such as Ozzie and Daniel Silna of the Spirit of St. Louis (who didn't make the cut for the merger) still make money of of the NBA's TV contracts. Bob Costas was the play-by-play announcer for the St. Louis franchise early in his career. BornonJune8 (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The American Basketball Association is part of the NBA's history and DNA, hence the ABA–NBA merger and four of its franchises, the San Antonio Spurs, Denver Nuggets, New York Nets, and Indiana Pacers crossing over. The NBA absorbed the records of the ABA when the two leagues merged in 1976. Its influence on its chief rival can't be denied or overlooked. So it perhaps, isn't entirely fair to simply say or write it off as something that would appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans. Like I said, a major television network like CBS aired some of the ABA's games for about three-four years and was subsequently interested in televising an ABA vs. NBA playoff series. There isn't a whole lot of coverage, in-depth or elsewhere about the ABA's media deals (TV and radio), in part because of its inability of landing a substantial network TV deal. BornonJune8 (talk) 08:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    You could argue you like but this argument belongs to the article about ABA. New sources are about the games and announcers. Still it doesn't excuse my rationale. SpacedFarmer (talk) 17:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think this is a reasonable spin out of the main ABA article. The broadcasting side is an important part of any modern sports league's history. TV and radio coverage are essential for a team to build a fanbase, so calling this "listcruft" is unnecessarily harsh. I know Terry Pluto's book Loose Balls (already cited in the article) devotes some space to broadcasting rights and some of the broadcasting personalities. Zagalejo (talk) 23:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I believe significant enough coverage has been demonstrated to meet
  WP:LISTN. Also pretty clear the nominator doesn't understand what's important in a nomination if they're attacking those who are interested in an article. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: However, I think this should be moved to something along the lines of ABA on television. There are plenty of sources covering the broadcasters, several of which are RS, but not as a group per se. I'd look to get rid of the list elements here and work on improving the prose here as I think there is some great info here that should be kept. Let'srun (talk) 16:46, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Star Mississippi 16:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Axel Hultgren

Axel Hultgren (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)

He was no doubt a metallurgist, and I see that he wrote about metallurgy, but I do not see a lot of reliable secondary sources that would constitute significant coverage. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Fred Zepelin (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the subject was elected a member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences in 1930 and of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences in 1945 so passes criterion 3 of
  WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 18:21, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. In addition to the four pages in w:sv:Jernkontorets Annaler referenced in the English article, Swedish Wikipedia references an entry in Vem är vem inom handel och industri?: 1944–1945, so that would be a couple of different sources having significant coverage. /Julle (talk) 20:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As a third source for
  WP:PROF#C3. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Third party sources. WP:GN applies as well.BabbaQ (talk) 23:33, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mccapra AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I agree there were no source but since the article define itself, the nominator may have bypassed
  WP:GNG and sources. Clean up is the best way of cleaning such articles. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 11:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: Per Julle -- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 17:48, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 06:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of ACC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

List of ACC men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Unable to find any RS discussing the broadcasters as a group. As such, this fails to meet
  WP:LISTN. Let'srun (talk) 17:14, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 09:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Big Ten men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters

List of Big Ten men's basketball tournament finals broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Basketball, and Lists. SpacedFarmer (talk) 13:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:OR making a list of trivia only suitable for the fandom wiki. Conyo14 (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of West Coast Conference Men's Basketball Tournament Finals broadcasters.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:49, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. I'm guessing this was relisted twice because a previous mass-AfD closed as no consensus? Toadspike [Talk] 09:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

Tibet Airlines Flight 9833

Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 (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 accident. No

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and China. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 14:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep There is clearly lasting coverage – simply search "关于2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故相关处理（处罚）情况的通报" and you will find several articles on the recently-released report by the CAAC, like this one [35]. Keep in mind that news sourcing in China is already sparse to begin with. This coverage is far beyond what I would expect for notability. Toadspike [Talk] 07:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have now added the information from that source/the CAAC report to the article. It is source ten, in the last paragraph. Toadspike [Talk] 08:03, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  My argument still stands. There is clearly not

  lasting effects that have been generated by this accident and fining those related/involved in the accident certainly won't help develop the aviation industry. Reading the safety recommendations from a translated version of the Final Report, the recommendations don't seem to be that significant in regards to improvement in the long term. In my opinion, the accident isn't particularly noteworthy in itself. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:29, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I understand your concerns. My view of sustained, continued coverage seems to differ from yours. To me, having several news articles about the event over two years is a sufficiently significant period of time (sustained), and is not a burst or spike of news reports (there were several such "bursts") or an event only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion (continued).

  Separately, I must re-emphasize the point that this is a country with barely any news reporting to begin with, especially of disasters and tragedies. And you can bet that there will be lasting effects, we just won't see them, since they'll be implemented behind-the-scenes by some mid-level official doing his best to enforce national policy and prevent future embarrassment. I am much less concerned with recentism here than I am with geographic bias. Toadspike [Talk] 09:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  While geographic bias may play a factor in the amount of international news coverage, that does not mean there can't be any (excluding chinese news coverage). The article had multiple international news agencies covering this on the day of the accident (none after the accident).

  Another issue regarding this article is that most if not all news coverage regarding this accident consist of

  WP:NOTNEWS

  .

  When taking a look at the sources given when typing "关于2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故相关处理（处罚）情况的通报", it's clear that news coverage regarding the release of the final report only repeat what was stated by the CAAC in its final report with no real analysis.

  Whilst there may be

  lasting effects, the recommendations given don't seem to be particularly impressive such as "cockpit tidiness". Whilst aviation safety cannot be perfect, most of these recommendations should've long been implemented such as better CRM training. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep. The event meets
  WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE
  ), even if those sources were prompted by the final report. If the event were non-notable, it would not continue to receive significant coverage years later.

  Sources published from the day of to two years after the event (ordered chronologically) that provide significant coverage about Tibet Airlines Flight 9833:

  1. Barrett, Eamon (2022-05-11). "China's Tibet Airlines flight bursts into flames after aborting takeoff and veering off runway". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "China suffered a second aircraft disaster in as many months on Thursday, when a Tibet Airlines plane burst into flames after veering off the runway during takeoff. Videos posted online appears to show the front of the Airbus A319 engulfed in flames as passengers flee from the aircraft. Over 40 people were reportedly taken to hospital, with minor injuries. There have been no fatalities reported from the 119 passengers and nine crew members on-board. ... The A319 is one of Airbus’s smaller models and the plane that caught fire on Thursday was nine years old, Reuters says. An isolated incident like the “abnormality” at Chongqing airport will unlikely affect Airbus’s broader operations. Airbus’s London-based shares have yet to react to the news."

  2. Qiu, Stella; Freed, Jamie (2022-05-12). Feast, Lincoln; Wong, Jacqueline; Cameron-Moore, Simon (eds.). "Chinese jet aborts takeoff, catches fire, causing minor injuries from evacuation". Reuters. Archived from the original on 2023-01-11. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "Crew members noticed that fuel oil was leaking and started evacuating passengers down slides, Mr A said. Fire soon broke out, forcing some passengers including himself to jump from the aircraft, he said, adding that he had injured his back and legs. Unverified photos on social media show both engines separated from the airframe as well as a major crack in the rear fuselage and damage to the right wing. The plane involved is a nine-year-old A319, one of the smallest versions of the A320 family."

  3. "Tibet Airlines passenger jet catches fire". The Sun. Agence France-Presse. 2022-05-12. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "Images shared by Chinese state media showed flames engulfing the side of the stricken jet as terrified passengers ran from the scene. Photos of the aftermath showed scorch marks covering the nose and one wing of the jet, which had been doused in water to control the blaze. ... Flight TV9833 deviated from the runway during take-off and “the left side of the aircraft’s nose caught fire”, Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport said in a separate statement."

  4. "Passenger Jet Bursts Into Flames During Takeoff in China". Bloomberg News. 2022-05-12. Archived from the original on 2022-05-12. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "More than 40 people were taken to the hospital after a Tibet Airlines plane burst into flames after veering off the runway during takeoff at China’s Chongqing Airport. The front of the Airbus SE A319 aircraft was engulfed in flames and enveloped by thick black smoke, footage posted on social media showed. Passengers carrying bags and other items were seen on the tarmac running away from the burning jet."

  5. Manning, Joshua (2022-05-12). "Breaking News: Plane with 113 passengers catches fire on runway in China". EuroWeekly News. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "On Thursday, May, 12, a Tibet Airlines plane caught fire after veering off the airport runway in Chongqing, China. The plane was departing from the city of Chongqing, China, to Nyingchi, Tibet, carrying 113 passengers and nine crew members, when the crew noticed “abnormalities” and suspended take off before the plane caught fire."

  6. Lawrenson, Anthony; Rodrigues, Clarence C.; Malmquist, Shem; Greaves, Matthew; Braithwaite, Graham; Cusick, Stephen K. (2023). Commercial Aviation Safety (7 ed.). New York:
     ISBN 978-1-264-27870-1. Retrieved 2024-06-09 – via Google Books
     .

     The book provides two sentences of coverage about the subject. notes: "The second incident involved a Tibet Airlines Flight 9833, which overran the runway before catching fire and injuring 36 of the 122 passengers. The CAAC has now announced a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance."

  7. Su, Xuan 苏璇 (2023-08-05). Liu, Liang 刘亮 (ed.). "西藏航空客机偏出跑道事故调查进展：原因已查明 将公布报告" [Investigation progress of the Tibet Airlines passenger plane runway deviation accident: the cause has been found out and the report will be released] (in Chinese). China Central Television. China News Service. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "2022年5月12日，西藏航空有限公司空客A319-115型客机(注册号B-6425)执行TV9833重庆至林芝国内定期客运航班，在重庆江北机场03号跑道起飞滑跑过程中偏出跑道。机上旅客113人、机组9人全部安全撤离，飞机及机场地面设施不同程度受损。"

     From Google Translate: "On 12 May 2022, Tibet Airlines Co., Ltd. Airbus A319-115 passenger aircraft (registration number B-6425) carried out TV9833 Chongqing to Linzhi domestic scheduled passenger flight, and deviated from the runway during the takeoff runway 03 of Chongqing Jiangbei Airport. All 113 passengers and 9 crew members on board were safely evacuated, and the aircraft and airport ground facilities were damaged to varying degrees."

  8. Qiu, Xiaoya 邱小雅 (2023-08-05). Yu, Wenxin 余文欣 (ed.). "民航西南局：西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故原因已查明" [Civil Aviation Administration of Southwest China: The cause of the Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight deviating from the runway has been found out]. Chongqing Hualong [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "据悉，2022年5月12日8时09分，西藏航空TV9833航班（重庆至林芝）在重庆江北国际机场起飞时偏出跑道，航空器机头左侧起火。"

     From Google Translate: "It is reported that at 8:09 on May 12, 2022, Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight (Chongqing to Linzhi) deviated from the runway when taking off at Chongqing Jiangbei International Airport, and the left side of the aircraft nose caught fire."

  9. Wei, Juanming 韦娟明 (2023-08-05). Zhang, Yali 张亚莉 (ed.). "藏航空客客机偏出跑道事故原因已查明！曾致36人擦伤扭伤" [The cause of the Tibetan Airlines passenger plane deviating from the runway has been found! 36 people were injured and sprained]. Southern Metropolis Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

     The article notes: "国内三大航一名飞行员告诉南都记者，客机起飞前机长会做绕机检查，遇到需要中断起飞的情况“很罕见”。他同时指出，如果飞机带着起落架或轮子故障起飞，“回头再落地会更麻烦，损伤会更严重”。 事发当日下午，西藏航空有限公司重庆营业部告诉南都记者，飞机上的轻伤旅客安排在医院治疗，大部分乘客则安排到酒店住宿，会保障他们后续的出行安排，事故原因正在调查中。"

     From Google Translate: "A pilot from one of the three major domestic airlines told Nandu reporters that the captain would do a circumnavigation inspection before the passenger plane took off, and it was "very rare" to encounter a situation where the takeoff needed to be aborted. He also pointed out that if the plane took off with a landing gear or wheel failure, "it would be more troublesome to turn around and land again, and the damage would be more serious." On the afternoon of the incident, the Chongqing Sales Department of Tibet Airlines Co., Ltd. told Nandu reporters that the slightly injured passengers on the plane were arranged for treatment in the hospital, and most of the passengers were arranged to stay in hotels, and their subsequent travel arrangements would be guaranteed. The cause of the accident is under investigation.

  10. Wang, Xin 王鑫 (2024-01-04). "律师申请公开西藏航空事故调查报告遇阻后起诉，一审法院驳回诉请" [The lawyer filed a lawsuit after encountering obstacles in applying for the disclosure of the Tibet Aviation Accident Investigation Report. The first instance court rejected the lawsuit.]. The Paper (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

      The article notes: "澎湃新闻此前报道，2022年5月12日，西藏航空TV9833航班在执行重庆—林芝客运任务时，在重庆机场起飞滑跑过程中偏出跑道。根据机组反映，飞机在起飞过程中出现异常，按程序中断起飞，偏出跑道后发动机擦地起火，目前已扑灭。机上共计122人，其中旅客113人，机组9人，已全部安全撤离。在撤离过程中，有36人擦伤扭伤，已及时送当地医院检查。该起事故事发一年后，胡磊向中国民用航空西南地区管理局（下称：民航西南局）申请政府信息公开，要求公开该起不安全事件的调查进展情况（周年报告）。"

      From Google Translate: "The Paper previously reported that on May 12, 2022, Tibet Airlines TV9833 flight deviated from the runway during takeoff at Chongqing Airport while performing the Chongqing-Linzhi passenger transport mission. According to the crew, the aircraft had an abnormality during takeoff and interrupted takeoff according to the procedure. After deviating from the runway, the engine rubbed the ground and caught fire, which has been extinguished. There were 122 people on board, including 113 passengers and 9 crew members, all of whom have been safely evacuated. During the evacuation, 36 people were bruised and sprained and were promptly sent to local hospitals for examination. One year after the incident, Hu Lei applied to the Southwest Regional Administration of the Civil Aviation Administration of China (hereinafter referred to as the Southwest Regional Administration of Civil Aviation) for government information disclosure, requesting the disclosure of the investigation progress of the unsafe incident (annual report)."

  11. Guo, Qian 郭倩 (2024-06-05). Liu, Liang 刘亮 (ed.). "西藏航空一客机在重庆机场偏出跑道起火，民航西南局通报相关处理情况" [A Tibet Airlines passenger plane veered off the runway and caught fire at Chongqing Airport. The Civil Aviation Administration of Southwest China reported the relevant handling situation] (in Chinese). China Central Television. Archived from the original on 2024-06-09. Retrieved 2024-06-09.

      The article notes: "经调查，2022年5月12日西藏航空TV9833航班偏出跑道事故是一起机组处置失误导致的运输航空一般事故。民航西南地区管理局按照相关法律、法规及规章，已对西藏航空公司及相关人员作出如下行政处理（处罚）决定："

      From Google Translate: "After investigation, the runway deflection accident of Tibet Airlines TV9833 Flight on May 12, 2022 was a general transport aviation accident caused by crew handling errors. In accordance with relevant laws, regulations and rules, the Southwest Regional Administration of Civil Aviation has made the following administrative handling (punishment) decisions on Tibet Airlines and related personnel:"

  There is sufficient coverage in
  reliable sources to allow Tibet Airlines Flight 9833 to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 08:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Sources 1-5 are all sources from the first week after the accident happened.

  
  

  "The second incident involved a Tibet Airlines Flight 9833, which overran the runway before catching fire and injuring 36 of the 122 passengers. The CAAC (Civil Aviation Administration of China) has now announced a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance"

  I am unable to find evidence of a far-reaching reform of the whole of the Chinese aviation system to address this lapse in safety performance.

  Additionally, two sentences from a source is not enough to establish notability. Just because this accident was the second of its kind involving Tibet Airlines doesn't mean much unless something gives the accident some sort of notability.

  
  

  Regarding the Chinese sources that you provided, saying they are independant is quite a stretch.

  
  

  • The CAAC's parent agency is the Ministry of Transport which is a constituent department of the Chinese State Council.

  
  

  • China Central Television is owned by the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party whose parent company, China Media Group, is owned by both the Publicity Department of the Chinese Communist Party and the State Council of the People's Republic of China.

  
  

  • China News Service is owned by the United Front Work Department of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party.

  
  

  • Whilst I'm a bit unsure about this one, from what I can tell, Chongqing Hualong [zh] is affiliated with Chongqing Daily Newspaper Group which is the official newspaper of the Chongqing Municipal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party

  
  

  • Southern Metropolis Daily is a constituent/owned by the Nanfang Media Group which in turn is under the supervision of the Guangdong Provincial Committee of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). [36]

  
  

  • The Paper is owned by Shanghai United Media Group which in turn is owned and overseen by the Shanghai Municipal Committee of the Chinese Communist Party. [37]

  
  

  Obviously, it cannot be expected that there will be independent newspapers in China but this does mean that the reliability of these sources can be questioned. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Two years of detailed coverage is sustained coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Detailed coverage is quite a stretch. There isn't any coverage regarding some sort of (re)analysis of the accident. Most sources only repeat what was said by the CAAC and only stop there. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Zyvex Technologies. Star Mississippi 16:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zyvex Marine

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

)

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

Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:INHERITORG - being a division of Zyvex Technologies doesn’t automatically make it notable. The sources are almost entirely PR-based or non-independent. No actual in-depth coverage in reliable secondary sources, just press releases and blog posts. Wikilover3509 (talk) 14:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to
  WP:NCORP; a redirect could be an alternative outcome. AllyD (talk) 17:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]