Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

8 July 2024

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< July 07	July 09 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

João Van Zeller[edit]

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

Van Zeller played 84 mins of professional football before a brief career at the semi-pro level. I can't find any WP:SIGCOV. The closest that I could find was a squad list mention at Espinho TV. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pedrinho Rodrigues[edit]

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

Pedrinho Rodrigues never participated in a professional league match and seems to fail WP:GNG and WP:SPORTBASIC as far as I can tell. I've searched his common name and full name, including in conjunction with clubs that he played for, and can find nothing other than database sources. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Magnani[edit]

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

Not particularly relevant as an essayist, nor as a lecturer. Excellent career, no doubt, but rather in the normal range. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 10:44, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Economics, Singapore, Italy, Connecticut, Massachusetts, New York, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The page needs cleanup as it's written like an advertisement, but the books have quite some coverage to meet WP:NAUTHOR:
- Fatti non foste a viver come robot: [1] (access via WP:LIBRARY) [2] [3] [4] [5]
- Il grande scollamento. Timori e speranze dopo gli eccessi della globalizzazione: [6] [7] [8]

Broc (talk) 15:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some profiles in the press (although mixed with interviews, not sure if they would contribute to WP:GNG: [9][10] and some more coverage of Il grande scollamento [11] Broc (talk) 15:58, 24 June 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) 11:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational institutions in Thrissur district[edit]

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

Non notable list per WP:LIST. WP:DIRECTORY applies too with no WP:SIGCOV. Can be merged to Thrissur. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 11:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of educational organisations in North Paravur[edit]

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

Non notable list per WP:LIST. WP:DIRECTORY applies too with no WP:SIGCOV. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Lists, India, and Kerala. The Herald (Benison) (talk) 10:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yoke Kuan High School[edit]

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

Does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines (see WP:GNG,) not an important school in Malaysia, and no reliable and independent sources cited or significant coverage. N niyaz (talk) 10:18, 8 July 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 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Malaysia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SMK Seri Kembangan[edit]

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

Article does not satisfy Wikipedia's general notability guidelines ; most of the secondary sources cited are paid materials by Asia Pacific University (see WP:SPIP.) N niyaz (talk) 10:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Malaysia. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 8 July 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 July 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since I cited most of the secondary sources in the article. I would like to ask the nominator for deletion N niyaz, is it possible to list some of the secondary sources that you claimed are paid materials by Asia Pacific University? KjjjKjjj (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The bubble theory[edit]

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

This appears to be a novel theory that has seen close to zero uptake in the field so far. I can only find a single reference to the concept and/or paper [12], and that is a passing mention in an unreviewed preprint. This is not at all surprising because the paper was only published a month ago. Someone is trying to use WP as a publicizing platform here. There is as yet no notability basis for this topic. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the second paper from 2019 there is a whole section titled Bubble Theory. Jedzwarzywa (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... the second paper from the same author... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an hypothesis by one author and it has not gained any consensus by the scientific community. The two papers are primary sources and should not be used alone. Graham Beards (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Live Art Development Agency[edit]

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

Sources not passing WP:ORGIND and I believe it fails WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Entertainment, Organizations, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 07:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As well the 2011 piece by Lyn Gardner of The Guardian which is referenced in the article, searches also find a 2019 piece by the same author. It is partly an interview with the co-founder of LADA, but starts with the writer's overview of the Live Art field and evaluation of LADA's role in it. AllyD (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following doesn't contribute to notability here, but I will also note that the present article doesn't mention organisational controversy during 2023 (news item discussing the closure threat and petition). AllyD (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quick google scholar search https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22live+art+development+agency%22&btnG= indicates multiple quality sources referencing the organisation and its significance in global and UK live art, including books https://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=wyJHEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA12&dq=%22live+art+development+agency%22&ots=M7sejwMOu5&sig=66lY7cxWvj0E_0jIdmuCmVU5DN8&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22live%20art%20development%20agency%22&f=false and peer review articles dating back to the early 2000s DrawingDays (talk) 09:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I vote against deletion. While the article has issues, they aren't based on notability. It is clearly a well-cited and long running organisation that is important the UK cultural scene. The article could more clearly lay out the history and challenges of the org, as mentioned above, but this doesn't warrant deletion. genericxz (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nominator has invoked WP:NCORP, however from this link [13] we see that the subject is a charity, therefore WP:NONPROFIT applies. It is not necessary for the subject to meet the more stringent guidelines put in place for corporate entities. On this basis - in particular including from the arguments above - there does appear sufficient coverage and citations of the activities of this charity to have a reasonable presumption of notability. ResonantDis_tortion 22:20, 2 July 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) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Willie XO[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage. Majority of the references are just from mere blog talking about his music. It is also clearly written by the creator the subject paid for billboard advertising. This doesn’t even sound like a biography but a promotional work and majority of the contribution are from the creator suck puppet account https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Mark_Yung_Chukwuebuka user:MarkIblog for reference. Gabriel (talk to me ) 09:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Music, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Gabriel (talk to me ) 09:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don’t see how this passes WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Looks very promotional too without imparting any useful information. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Oke[edit]

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

Non notable chef. All sources in the article are primary and the only credible source which is a BBC report mentions the subject in passing. Before search did not yield anything useful. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Food and drink. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keji Giwa[edit]

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

Business person not eligible for an article. Media sources used in the article are from blogs which are unreliable. A before search brought press statements issued by their business entities with passing mention of them. others found are interviews written in news article formats which extensively quoted their onw words Ednabrenze (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Ednabrenze (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don’t see anything to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kheibar Shekan[edit]

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

This article is about an Iranian ballistic missile. The article is clearly written from a fan or someone with a pecuniary or otherwise disallowed interest in the matter, which violates WP:NPOV. Alongside this, the article relies on Persian sources, which would challenge WP:MOS. These sources are biased and the majority are from Iranian state-sponsored news sources and agencies, and the author had designed it this way. The article also has a large amount of grammatical and otherwise errors. I would have liked for the article to remain with a NPOV and grammatically correct form, however at this point I believe that it is too far gone. DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 08:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article's tone is a little odd, but it's okay to like missiles. Also, googling the subject immediately gives a number of reliable sources, which are also in English:

Current article may be bad but if it's bad enough to delete the article can honestly just be blanked and restarted as a stub. Maybe delete everything cited to state-sponsored news, condense the rest, and leave it at that? Mrfoogles (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It may be OK to like missiles, I do myself, however that isn't a justification for failing WP:NPOV? DeadlyRampage26 (talk) 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there are plenty of sources. It’s daft to object to Iranian sources about an Iranian missile. Deletion is not cleanup so if the tone and language need to be improved, anyone can go ahead and improve them. Mccapra (talk) 10:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Phoenix Object Basic[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSOFT Mfixerer (talk) 08:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwize[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article about a non-notable rapper. Sources are passing mentions and nothing indepth on the subject. I don't see it satisfies WP:NMUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. Jamiebuba (talk) 07:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Blues Brothers: Private[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOTBOOK with no independent third-party coverage. Article has been nothing but unsourced fancruft since its 2006 creation. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 07:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: if sources are found content can be added to Blues Brothers Mrfoogles (talk) 08:20, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An H. P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia[edit]

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

Non-notable encyclopedia. --Viennese Waltz 07:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support: can't find any sources either Mrfoogles (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: created in 2006 with probably original research analysis, still unsourced (except to the book itself) today Mrfoogles (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sul Ross State University Lobos[edit]

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

Merge with Sul Ross State Lobos. This page was created with an unconventional name when the target page already existed as a redirect. It should be merged with the target page to comply with naming standards on these types of articles (see New Mexico Lobos or Ohio State Buckeyes). JTtheOG (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Sports, and Texas. JTtheOG (talk) 06:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wall (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a crypto entrepreneur, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for businesspeople. As always, CEOs of companies are not "inherently" notable just for existing, and have to establish that they pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage and analysis about them and their work -- but five of the eight footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability, such as his own company's press releases and his own self-created YouTube videos and a "staff" profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, and one more is an unreliable source crypto-news forum. And what's left for reliable sources is one Forbes article that just briefly namechecks him as a provider of soundbite and one Forbes article that completely fails to contain even a glancing namecheck of Peter Wall at all, and instead is just here to tangentially verify stray facts about a company.
As always, Wikipedia is not a free LinkedIn alternative for tech entrepreneurs, so nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 12:56, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I complete understand your reservations about Peter Wall, and it was never my intention to sound like a Linkedin profile. Maybe I did not do due negligence when sourcing my references but the entire of the article was becuase he is a notable man both in Canadian media and in bitcoin. Can I nominate that we move the article to a draft while I source for other sources which do exist on the individual concerned and am sure when you searched online you will find that Peter Wall is extensively covered. LynnEditor.Nam (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: current sourcing is Canada C3 Coast to Coast describing him as a team member (non-independent), a coworking space review mentioning his company but not him, two sources by him (non-independent), and two sources mentioning him joining and leaving as CEO without saying much about (providing significant coverage of) him, one short source about an IPO not mentioning him, and the bitcoin mining rush source which includes a quote from him and says basically nothing else. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify as suggested: nominator is being unnecessarily harsh by calling it "not a free linkedin alternative" but I cannot find sources googling that are not associated with him, by him, or coverage that does not go into detail of him being in various positions.

Per Wikipedia:Notability, significant coverage (at least a paragraph specifically talking about him and who he is) from at least two reliable, independent (not affiliated with, employing, employed by, working together with him) sources is necessary for an article so that it can be written sufficiently independently and in-depth. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thelma Rodgers[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. 2 of the 4 sources are dead. out of the other sources, this one is just a 1 line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. No real article links to this. Being the first woman to spend time at a base is not a claim for notablity. Google news yielded nothing. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Science, Antarctica, and New Zealand. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No indication of passing GNG. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 06:16, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. This has an enormous amount of coverage: probably >10 paragraphs. Full paragraph in this article. This does pass GNG. Being the first woman to overwinter at a base when it took an effort, and there is significant coverage of the experiences is a claim for notability. That said given she only operated the equipment and wasn't a scientist with her own discoveries to cover it may be more appropriate to put in a section in Scott Base. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably have to merge, given the limited coverage, but I would argue there is notability and a reasonable claim to GNG Mrfoogles (talk) 08:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there is substantial coverage in the Bradshaw source, and a geographical feature Rodgers Point bears her name: Wikipedia should be able to answer the question "Who was that Rodgers?", and the current article does so nicely. PamD 09:48, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I've had a look what The Press has on offer and found that she was secretary of the Canterbury Caving Club soon after it was founded, and that it was not until 1988 that the second New Zealand woman spent a winter on the ice. The article in the Antarctic Magazine is very decent, but without at least a second article of substance, there isn't a good reason to keep this article. Merging seems appropriate. Schwede 66 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Amparo Santana[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO - I'm not seeing third party SIGCOV.

Previous Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marvin Santana KH-1 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Dominican Republic, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G4 and G5, see also:

... etc. Wikishovel (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Monarch Mountain (ski area)[edit]

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

Written like an advertisement, no references cited, no indication of notability. These are long-standing issues (5+ years) with no attempts made by other editors to fix. Ultimately, this could probably be deleted and merged into Monarch Pass. GSK (talk • edits) 04:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems right. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame (2023). Skiing in Colorado. Charleston, South Carolina: Arcadia Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4671-6055-1. Retrieved 2024-07-01 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Monarch Pass, c. 1936. People have been skiing the mountains surrounding the valley of Monarch Mountain since 1914. Monarch's first unofficial winter season was in 1936, when James Kane and the Salida Winter Sports Club brought a Chevy truck engine up Monarch Pass highway. Other skiers instrumental in the initial opening of the area were Thor Groswold, Sven Wiik, and Charlie Vail. By 1939, the club applied to the US Forest Service for a permit to cut trails, construct a lodge, and erect a lift. The first run cut at Monarch was Gunbarrel, an expert trail with a 30 percent slope. During the first official ski season of 1939–1940, season passes cost $1. Rope tow revenues netted over $50, with 25¢ day tickets. Ownership of the resort changed multiple times, with each change resulting in additional lifts, more terrain, and a base lodge. Stability returned to Monarch in the 1990s after a turbulent decade throughout the 1980s when the area filed for bankruptcy. In 2006, the Mirkwood Basin opened to skiers and riders willing to hike."
2. Mait, Sandy (2021-01-11). "Monarch Mountain: One of Colorado's Best- Kept—and Snowy—Secrets". Ski. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The review notes: "Monarch is rare in the ski-resort world, running on 100 percent natural snow (about 350 inches annually) leading to the resort’s motto “We don’t make snow. Mother Nature does.” The resort’s base elevation of nearly 11,000 feet helps keep the snow fluffy and frequent. And most of the more difficult trails remain un-groomed, providing a true backcountry feel with the ease of chairlift access. And for anyone looking for more than a backcountry feel, there are 130 acres of hike-to terrain."
3. Scoville, Peter (January–February 2012). "Monarch Mountain". Skiing. EBSCOhost 70248700.
  The review notes: "I first discovered Monarch Mountain in the winter of 1995. I was on my annual pilgrimage from the Front Range to Crested Butte for its ski-for-free weekend when we pulled our old Subaru Outback, bottoming out under five ski buddies and gear, off U.S. Highway 50 into the area's dirt parking lot for a pee break. ... Somewhere between cheap lift tickets, nine inches of fresh pow, nonexistent lift lines, and steep shots like Gunbarrel and High Anxiety that filled back in after every lap, I fell in love with Monarch Mountain. We ended the day in the Sidewinder Saloon, Monarch's only bar, for an après-ski scene that embodied all of the comfort and camaraderie a down-home, slopeside watering hole should. Though I didn't realize it then, that chance stop sold me on the beauty of Monarch and reminded me why I love skiing. Fast-forward 16 years, and nothing much has changed at Monarch. It now sports a terrain park and new steep lines and tree runs that came with the 130-acre expansion into Mirkwood Basin, but those improvements only built upon the fundamentals: deep snow, few crowds, and an unpretentious group of hardcore skiers and beginners alike."
  The review provides more information: "Average Snowfall: 350 inches. Skiable Acres: 800. Vertical Feet: 1,162. Advanced/Expert Terrain: 58%. Lift Ticket Price: $57."
4. Osberger, Madeleine (2017-02-10). "Monarch Mountain Keeps it Real". Aspen Daily News. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "For this special occasion, deep-winter getaway, a retro theme seemed apropos, with “most snow” and “funky factor” used as criteria for mountain selection. Monarch Mountain, circa 1939, which has been getting hammered by storms all season, won out. Modest in vertical rise — just 1,162 feet of elevation gain between its 10,790-foot base and the 11,952-foot peak – Monarch packs a lot of punch and fall-line skiing into an area slightly larger than Aspen Mountain. At the start of an early January storm that would drop 35 inches in less than 24 hours, we set out from Aspen for a deceptively long drive given Monarch’s close-as-the-crow-flies location (like Crested Butte) in the central Rockies."
5. Blevins, Jason (2023-10-02). "Monarch Mountain plans new terrain as visitation, pass sales soar". The Colorado Sun. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "Monarch ski area is busy. Pass sales more than doubled in the past three seasons. Skiers have flocked to the Chaffee County ski area, with visitation reaching more than 210,000 in 2022-23, up from 140,000 when Bob Nicolls led his investment group to buy the 800-acre ski area in 2002. "
6. Willard, Heather (2024-03-04). "Monarch Mountain's 377-acre expansion clears environmental assessment". KDVR. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "This project has been years in the making. PowderMonarch LLC, which owns Monarch Mountain ski area, filed its application for the expansion on Oct. 6, 2021. Monarch is also one of the oldest ski areas in the state, having first opened to the public in 1939, according to the Forest Service’s environmental assessment of the project."
7. Boster, Seth (2019-12-16). "In 80th year, party rolls on at Monarch Ski Area". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "The ski area had built itself on grit. Locals in 1936 formed a sports club on the mountain, powering a shoddy rope tow with a six-cylinder truck engine. The pass was finished over the next few years, spelling greater access and higher popularity. ... All the while, Monarch has resisted the industry trend of glitz and conglomeration. Possibly on deck for the future: a terrain expansion on the mountain’s backside, along with another lift."
8. Harmon, Tracy (2014-12-21). "Monarch celebrates 75 happy holidays". The Pueblo Chieftain. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "Monarch Mountain has come a long way from a one-run wonder to the 75-year-old beauty it is today. When Monarch opened in 1939, it was constructed by Works Project Administration workers and featured a 500-foot rope tow driven by a gear box from an old oil derrick. Today, Monarch features six chair lifts and 54 runs plus nearly 1,000 acres of back country skiing opportunities."
9. LeBlanc, Pam (March 2021). "Colorado Ski Gems". Austin Travels Magazine. Archived from the original on 2024-07-01. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "I’ve always bypassed Monarch, assuming it didn’t have enough terrain to keep me interested. I was wrong. The cozy, 800-acre ski area doesn’t have any on-mountain lodging. The closest is the no-frills Monarch Mountain Lodge a few miles away, where you can get a room for about $100 and a free shuttle to the ski resort. Nearby, you can explore restaurants and shops in town, swim laps at the Salida Hot Springs Aquatic Center downtown, or detour over to Mount Princeton Hot Springs Resort after a day of skiing and plop yourself into a pool of steamy water right along a riverbank. Monarch Mountain officially opened as a ski area in 1939, but its off-the-beaten path location means it’s less crowded."
10. Hirschfeld, Cindy (2020-11-25). "7 Places Where the Slopes Are Less Skied". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2022-11-25. Retrieved 2024-07-01.
  The article notes: "For more than 80 years, this central Colorado ski area along the Continental Divide has drawn powderhounds. Its fairly modest size — 800 acres and a 1,100-foot vertical drop — is counterbalanced by 350 inches of average annual snowfall that can stay untracked for several days past a storm, plus guided snowcat skiing on 1,600 additional acres of advanced terrain. Experts also love the hike-to, backcountry-style runs in Mirkwood Basin. Recent required thinning of pine-beetle-stricken trees has opened up more gladed skiing across the mountain. (Denver-based Meier Skis sells custom Monarch models using some of that harvested wood.) Many guests opt to stay in the artsy, riverside town of Salida, 20 miles east."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Monarch Mountain to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:26, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's fine research. Sadly we have many articles needing editing improvement for 5+ or even 10+ years, but that doesn't mean the subject isn't notable.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to assess new sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Cunard's large number of sources. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:49, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Red Storm (webtoon)[edit]

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

Fails significant coverage. The little commentary I found is in this CBR listicle, others are just plot summary and mention in other listicles. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and Webcomics. Neocorelight (Talk) 02:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: could there be Korean sources we're missing? Not to say it might not be non-notable. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? Maybe you can find them? I can't read Korean. Neocorelight (Talk) 09:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too Lost (company)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Still unclear if there's enough independent coverage for WP:NCORP.

Previous AfD was speedied per the author's request. Also speedied for copyvio Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Too Lost, also deleted under G12 KH-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Technology, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zenith Data Systems Challenge Trophy[edit]

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

Non-notable individual pre-season friendly club match. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Football, England, Argentina, and Florida. Idiosincrático (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – with 1989–90 Arsenal F.C. season#Results as WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 07:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would help to add to the Arsenal season, however that would negate any redirect to Club Atlético Independiente the other team in it. Maybe adding a sponsorship section on Zenith Data Systems with a snippet there? I am still not sure of a redirect. But there are sources, a few on the article, one Guardian source in the external link. Maybe some other sources out there. It could be possible for some basic GNG pass here. Not sure know. Guess I am running at an abstain vote here. Govvy (talk) 10:33, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Doesn't merit a redirect. Giant Snowman 19:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFhost[edit]

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

I'm not seeing much third party coverage, likely to fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Unclear how much weight should be given to those awards. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KH-1 (talk) 03:19, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delight Mobile[edit]

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

This is a bundled nomination of five articles on UK MVNOs failing the notability guidelines for companies/products. They are part of a larger set of seven created by the same author in October 2011: two have since been deleted, one through PROD and the other through AfD.

The other four are:

Dalya Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Dialog Vizz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Now PAYG (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stan Mobile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rather than continue the slow trickle of individual deletions, I figure it makes more sense to discuss them all at once. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, United Kingdom, and England. – Teratix ₵ 02:59, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The few existing sources:

Are anyone of these affiliated? Have google searches been done? Mrfoogles (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oggcast[edit]

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

There are no sources establishing WP:N. The definition is based on a 2016 blog entry apparently by the main contributor to the article. The rest of the sources appear to discuss the Ogg and MP3 codecs, their history and merits - but not the topic of the article (the link for the last source that might have contained some information does not work, but the site does not appear to be a good WP:RS). The article was WP:BLARed in January of the 2016, but restored per the Articlefy (without prejudice) result of an RfD WP:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_31#Oggcast. The article was WP:PRODded in January 2012, so going the AfD route. Викидим (talk) 01:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Computing, and Internet. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article lacked notability at the time of creation and the passage of time has only made that more clear. Brandon (talk) 06:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no non-blog available sources other than things used for original research; even if the term was notable it could easily and more appropriately be under OGG. Mrfoogles (talk) 08:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]