Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 17	January 19 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Real Flight Simulator

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

Rationale Non-notable per WP:GNG. Sourcing only supported by user-generated review scores.

Source search: No MobyGames page. Nothing on the reliable sources search engine. Metacritic has no reviews for the title. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Aviation. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Immaculate High School

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

No indication of notability under WP:NORG. A single Primary Source to the school's website. A search of the web brings up local newspapers with GCSE results, new buildings being opened, but no significant non-routine coverage. Article was recently replaced with promotional unsourced text by a self-disclosed paid editor. qcne (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, Christianity, and Wales. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)<o/span>} 17:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: How was the article able to last a decade on Wikipedia without any Significant Coverage?? Clearly fails WP:NORG and appears to be a promotional article. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was sourced before it was messed around with. Sufficient sourcing to meet WP:GNG as with pretty much all British secondary schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as it is a public school WP:NORG does not apply umless it happens to pass it. The correct policy is WP:GNG which permits local sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In light of Necrothesp's comments, I made a bold move and restored the article to before it was coimmandeered. If it stands, maybe we should be continuing discussion on the basis of that version. _signed,Willondon (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, that still just leaves one independent source (local news). qcne (talk) 11:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Phachi collision

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. The event doesn't appear to have much coverage after it originally occured, failing WP:LASTING. Let'srun (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Thailand. Let'srun (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:SIGCOV. The event is only published by one reliable source Bangkokpost twice. I find it very hard to get more reports about this event even upon all reverse searches. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Was the subject of an hour-long TV documentary on PPTV.[1][2][3] --Paul_012 (talk) 05:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per said documentary. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 17:32, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a subject of a documentary and well sourced. 223.204.68.125 (talk) 05:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taaid

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

Only source appears to be a self-published site. No further sources on Lebanese wiki. — Moriwen (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 19:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Moriwen, Quick question, since this is a physical location, and appears on multiple reliable weather sources, does it not seem to count? I'm just curious. if there's any WP guideline for for locations, please kindly drop so I can read. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The guideline is WP:GEOLAND which Taaid appears to meet, assuming that it's status as a municipality can be verified by reliable sources. However I couldn't find an entry in [4] [5], either reliable source I checked. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is really a municipality? I can't find anything on it at City Population and the Arabic article appears to describe it as a village. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I can't prove it due to a language barrier, but this village does appear to meet WP:GEOLAND (can verify it exists). SportingFlyer T·C 21:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It does appear to meet WP:GEOLAND, which states "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." The source given in the article may be of questionable reliability - its home page says, according to Google Translate, "Electoral facts about Lebanon ... The data presented, throughout the site, is derived from the static files on disks purchased by me from the Lebanese Ministry of Interior, relating to the 2014 voter lists for the parliamentary elections, which I converted into databases that can be queried to obtain the desired data reports." So apparently compiled by one individual, with no editorial oversight - but if the official voter lists include this place, presumably it is both populated and legally recognized. I found another website [6] which seems to be reliable - it says Taaïd is a "Populated place - a city, town, village, or other agglomeration of buildings where people live and work". Further down that page are listed nearby localities, including many described as caves, unnamed quarries and other geological features - which Taaïd is not. It also gives several alternate romanised spellings of the name - T`id, Ta`id, Taaid, Taaïd, T‘īd, Ţa‘īd - which adds to the complexity of searching for English-language sources. I think we'd need access to (and understanding of) Arabic language sources to find more references, but in the meantime, keep it as meeting WP:GEOLAND. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jodi Hildebrandt

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

Appears to be a WP:BIO1E case, most reliable standalone coverage that can be found (both on the article and in my WP:BEFORE search) is in the context of the subject's criminal trial and conviction. Unlike the other person involved in the case, Ruby Franke, there does not appear to be enough coverage for an individual BLP, and that is why I believe this specific biographical article just barely misses the criteria of WP:PERPETRATOR, and should be redirected to Ruby Franke as a result. JeffSpaceman (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Crime, Latter Day Saints, Internet, Arizona, and Utah. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:36, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh Beniwal

AfDs for this article:

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

Here we are again, a year after the fourth deletion discussion was closed as Delete. Speedy was declined so we are here to decide yet once again if this meets notability guidelines. Nothing since the last AfD shows notability. Note that most of the press is from reliable sources, but it is all similar to this which is unreliable churnalism and falls under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging everyone from the last deletion discussion to see if they see anything I don't as far as notability that has taken place since this was closed in 2023. @Worldiswide:, @Mooonswimmer:, @Edwardx:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment, Internet, and Delhi. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources 2 and 7 are RS, but trivial coverage, barely anything beyond a paragraph. This [7] is about what you find, celebrity shares photos. This [8] is barely longer than a paragraph. We don't have enough sourcing for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR or WP:ENTERTAINER as Harsh has had played significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows. He has played an important role in the film Student of the Year 2, played the lead role in the film Checkmate.. He has also played the lead role in the series Who's Your Daddy?, Who Killed Jessica?, and Heartbeats, also played an important role in the TV series Campus Diaries. This is an in-depth coverage which is talking about his journey. 1, 2 are reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jitujadab90 (talk • contribs) 23:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is unreliable per WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The other two were already decided in the four previous AfD's to not be enough. Looking closer, they are churnalism based off the announcement of his roles. What press can you provide since the last AfD that would be considered in-depth?--CNMall41 (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Checked WP:NEWSORGINDIA; not a single word is saying News18 is unreliable. So we can say News18 is a reliable source. The other two are not churnalism, as the two articles are written by journalists; the 1st is reported by Archit Mehta on May 7, 2019, and the 2nd one is reported by Sana Farzeen on April 13, 2019. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. Just because NEWSORGINDIA doesn't explicitly mention News18 among the examples it gives of media outlets engaging in churnalism, doesn't mean that News18 doesn't do that; a variation on the theme of "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". In any case, NEWSORGINDIA is making the general point that "even legitimate" outlets commonly do this. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:54, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, respected or legitimate news outlets sometimes engage in churnalism. But does this mean News18 is an unreliable source? If so, then on what basis will you judge that News18 is an unreliable source? Can you point to any policy that backs up the statement that News18 is unreliable? Jitujadab90 (talk) 09:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means that News18 shouldn't likely be used if you have better sources. Churnalism is the issue, not any news source in particular. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of these sources? 1 2 Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No one said the publication is not reliable. The source itself is unreliable per NEWSORGINDIA. There is no byline, it is marked as being created by "buzz staff" or "trending desk" which is a clear sign of churnalism. So, it is not that News18 isn't reliable...it is that particular reference in News18 that is unreliable. As far as the two you just posted above, they are not in-depth and the second one (the publication itself) is unreliable. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will stick to my vote to keep, as Harsh has more than 16 million subscribers on YouTube (according to WP:NYOUTUBE, Subscriber count helps meet the second criteria of WP:ENT). Also, he has had significant roles in multiple notable television shows such as Campus Diaries, Who's Your Daddy?, Who Killed Jessica?, and Heartbeats, thus satisfying WP:ENT. Jitujadab90 (talk) 21:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That essay is a great guide, but there is no subject-specific criteria for notability on YouTubers. I do respect your contention and the right to vote !Keep however. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Added more news reference which are reliableThe Pioneer, The Quint, Rediff (RS for subscribe count), The Statesman, News18 Interview Jitujadab90 (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is this article (or some version of it) fifth visit to AFD. It would help to get more of a consensus here and if recently identified sources were fairly assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Per request when the discussion was extended, here is an evaluation of the sources just presented by page creator. Note that the last discussion was closed in October 2023 and some of these sources were from before that time. So, they were available to the nominator and four delete votes of that discussion. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Daily Pioneer, from 2020 so not a new source. This is an interview and not independent.

2. The Quint, from 2019 so also not a new source. Blog which has no editorial oversight which by its own account "is not responsible for the accuracy and completeness of Blogger/Contributor content."

3. Rediff, from this year (six days prior to page creation). It is a listicle article where he is one of thirteen people listed and dedicates a whopping three sentence to him.

4. The Statesman, also available prior to the last AfD in 2023 and clearly NEWSORGINDIA (no byline promotional article).

5. News 18, also available prior to last AfD and its an interview so not independent.

1. The Daily Pioneer is a well-established newspaper with editorial oversight. Although the article is an interview, it still follows journalistic standards, making it an independent source of information.

2. The Quint, while it has a disclaimer for user-generated content, has professional journalists and editorial staff who ensure its articles meet journalistic standards. Its news content is independent and reliable. How can you say that The Quint article is a blog when it is clearly written and edited by professional journalists under editorial oversight? Can you tell why you are saying that the journalist is an individual contributor, not a journalist for Quint Media?

3- News18, a mainstream network, follows editorial oversight for all content, including interviews. Despite focusing on one perspective, interviews are a valid form of independent journalism. Jitujadab90 (talk) 07:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the interview is about Harsh Beniwal’s experiences and involvement in notable films and TV Series( SOTY 2, Campus Diaries) . It adds details about his career which is fulfilling the requirement of "significant coverage" under the GNG. Jitujadab90 (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Bosson

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

Local politician; fails WP:NPOL — Moriwen (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Ghana. — Moriwen (talk) 20:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think the current position is notable, sounds like a civil servant. Running in an election isn't notable. Sourcing isn't quite enough. Oaktree b (talk) 21:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A Chief Executive Officer of a Municipal Assembly is the President of Ghana's direct representation in that part of the country which is similar to the Mayor or Governor in the USA system. Its a very notable position and hence passes NPOL. Owula kpakpo (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Inside with you Sir. Thank you. Amos Kojo Amponsah (talk) 11:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if he's eligible for NPOL or not, but the article does not pass GNG "on its face." However a BEFORE search brings up a lot of coverage, though I'm not able to tell if it's just normal political coverage. But it's not a clear delete... SportingFlyer T·C 23:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SportingFlyer You want to provide the coverages you found let's lookg at them? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of this is true about Mr. Divine Richard Komla Bosson.He is a reputable Ghanaian politician who have served so diligently during his tenure in office. This are just baseless allegations, which are obviously politically incline. Amos Kojo Amponsah (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to get more opinions. And this is an AFD discussion on Wikipedia, one of hundreds going on right now. There is no political conspiracy going on here. This is just another article that needs to be evaluated to see if it, and its sources, meet our standards.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anine Bing Corp

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

Article seems to fail WP:ORG almost all of the sources are about the founder and only mentions the organization. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Companies. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see one big giant WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The company is owned by Venture Capital, not its name-sake. At any point, this company could replace Anine Bing as its designer which is why fashion designers and their companies should be separated especially when there are tons of legitimate sources to make these entries separate. This brand's revenues are over $50 million. When I searched the article, it had nothing in it because of over zealous editors who were too lazy to google sources. While many of the sources were dead links, I used the waybackmachine to verify the authenticity of the original sources some of which came from legitimate Swedish newspapers and fashion magazines. I am not sure why you have to have URL link to sources when physical editions should be enough but I spent two solid weekends finding alternate sources for some of the information. I will continue to add information to this article. Feel free to re-write it. At the end of the day, this company is too large and has too many brands and collaborations to be lumped in with Anine Bing's personal page who has returned to music. Modelknowledge (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Modelknowledge If you wanted to expand the article with more information and sources there is a draft space for that. If you decide to publish an unfinished article directly to main space then it has consequences of getting deleted or draftified which you accept by publishing it. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A lot of new content has been added since this article's nomination so i'm going to relist it so it can be evaluated. it would also be nice to hear from the article creator.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see a wall of text, two good sources (Vogue and WWD) and a lot of unreliable sources added such as LinkedIn, blogs, and PR matter. In some ways, this has made it worse. Bearian (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TYPEINFO (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Egan

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

Apart from being there at 9/11 and dying, there is nothing notable about this person's career. Was a working nurse. No lasting notability, 25 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Terrorism and Canada. Oaktree b (talk) 21:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than meets GNG, plenty of coverage in reliable secondary sources (eg [9][10][11][12]). Nikkimaria (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with initial editor. Nothing really notable and after all these years nothing new has been added to change that. ContentEditman (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I'm sorry Nikkimaria, but did you clearly check the references you pasted here? Blogspot really? a PDF file?? we are talking about notability and not some random passive article or mentions. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did; did you? The PDF file is a publication of the Canadian national nursing association, and the Blogspot page is a publication of the Hull History Centre authored by the city archivist. Neither are "random"; both are substantial and reliable. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: She wasn't even working in the area, just visiting. Being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Oaktree b (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Nikkimaria. Bearian (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets notability requirements; newspapers.com brings up articles about her in major Canadian newspapers even before her death. Not "working nurse"; was a leader in nursing in Nunavut and has a scholarship named for her. One might just wonder why you chose a queer non-American woman to nominate for deletion above the dozens of other victims who are actually less notable - but were American. --BasicBichette (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources in the article demonstrate that the subject passes the general notability criteria and is still notable 20 years on, given that CBC News ran an over 800 word article about her in 2021. She's considered notable by the Manitoba Historical Society [13]. She's considered notable by the Hull History Center - and the fact that their website is hosted on blogspot is completely immaterial. Whether or not nurses should be notable is immaterial. Whether or not she worked in the towers is immaterial. None of those are policy-based reasons for deletion. So, to summarise, the article subject is notable enough that historians from two countries consider her important enough to talk about, and she's from a part of Canadian history which is woefully underdeveloped in Wikipedia, and, most importantly, the sources are enough for us to build a comprehensive encyclopedia article. Which we have. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The content of the coverage by the historical societies and CBC profile might incline me towards believe that she's 1E, but that would require assuming that is only getting coverage for how she died. I don't see that this is necessarily the case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. There is significant coverage over at least 20 years, in 3 countries, and a memorial scholarship in her name which is still available 24 years later. There is definitely lasting notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ji (surname 蓟)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article went through AfD a few months ago, which ended in no consensus. Every single source brought up at the nomination page was a name dictionary that briefly mentions some mythical legend about how a descendant of the Yellow Emperor was enfeoffed by King Wu of Zhou in some town named Ji and then the town was conquered by some neighboring state and then the residents took up this up as their surname. None of them provide any evidence of the notability of this name or family. The sources currently in the article are two dictionaries that only mention the name and some brief explanation of the legend. Unless more sources can be found outside of "some people in a town 1,000 years ago adopted the town name as their surname and then they went to live in some other places" then this article runs afoul of WP:NOTDICT and WP:NNAME and is best deleted. It was also proposed that it could be redirect to Ji (surname) in the old AfD but I don't think this would really benefit readers as that page is just a listing of links to articles about different surnames transliterated as "Ji". Sorry for the very long nomination statement. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No Wikipedia articles about people with the name. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
Analysis of the sources
After translating from Chinese to English through Google Translate, Zhu 2009 provides 352 words of coverage about the subject, Xu & Hou 2017 provides 205 words of coverage about the subject, and Beijing Evening News 2009 provides about 500 words of coverage about the subject.
My view is there is sufficient depth in these sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. The sources discuss the origin of the surname 蓟, etymological analysis about the different components in the the character's formation, the places where the surname is most common, the fact that it is not among the 400 most common surnames, how the Eastern Han scholar Ji Zixun [zh] and the Eastern Han military commander Ji Liao (Chinese: 蓟辽) have the surname 蓟, and how King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Yellow Emperor the title of Marquis of Ji following which they took Ji as their family surname. There is enough information that "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline).
This depth of coverage about the surname means that WP:NOTDICT is not violated. The guideline Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Minor differences notes: "An article about a given name or a surname is an anthroponymy article that contains a list of people with this name as well as encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name." The sources provide enough information to write an article that has "encyclopedic content about the meaning, etymology and history of the name".
Sources
1. Zhu, Tianmin 朱天民 (2009). 姓氏的尊嚴：從姓氏起源察知神對人無盡的愛 [The Dignity of Surnames: Discover God's Endless Love for People from the Origin of Surnames] (in Chinese). Taipei: 歸主出版社. pp. 262–263. ISBN 978-986-6769-160. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "我所姓的這「薊」,很少人能正確的認識,當然是因為這姓氏太少;可是,究其歷史卻是相當久遠。約等於士師後的撒母耳時代,周武王封黃帝裔孫於「薊」,即今日的北京城西的大部分地區,後代就以「薊」為姓而留存。"
  From Google Translate: "Very few people can correctly recognize my surname "Ji", of course because there are so few people with this surname; but Yes, its history is quite long. Around the time of Samuel after the Judges, King Wu of the Zhou Dynasty named the descendants of the Yellow Emperor "Ji", which is most of the area west of Beijing today. The descendants continued to use "Ji" as their surname."
  The book notes: "然若查考古人為何以圖二的「草」,與圖三的「魚」和圖四象形的「刀」來組成,而稱開紫色小花之菊科花草的名字。乍看之下,它們似乎是毫不相干;當然,依造字的原則,可叫我們知道它是一種草的名字。又因它的葉子為魚翅狀,所以就如此組合。可是,古人又把它的右旁組以圖四的「刀」, 真會使這魚和草都不敢面對。"
  From Google Translate: "However, if we look into why the archaeologists combined the "grass" in Figure 2 with the "fish" in Figure 3 and the pictographic "knife" in Figure 4 to name the flowers and plants of the Compositae family with small purple flowers. At first glance, they seem to have nothing to do with each other; of course, according to the principles of word creation, we know that it is the name of a kind of grass. And because its leaves are shark fin-shaped, they are combined like this. However, the ancients also placed the "knife" in Figure 4 on the right side of it, which really made the fish and grass afraid to face it."
2. Xu, Tiesheng 徐铁生; Hou, Xiaoru 侯笑如, eds. (2017). "263蓟　Jì". 《百家姓》新解（精） [A New Interpretation of "Hundred Family Surnames" (Excerpt)] (in Chinese). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company. ISBN 978-7-101-12533-7. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Google Books.
  The book notes:
  
  姓不在中国400个常见姓之列。分布于北京市，河北石家庄、正定、滦南、永年，山西太原、大同（市）、朔州、阳泉、长治（市）、介休、万荣、孝义、汾阳、文水、绛县，江苏南京、常州、无锡、兴化，浙江宁波、海盐，安徽宿松，福建柘荣、三明，山东高密、烟台，河南中牟、宁陵、义马，湖北武汉、钟祥、英山、荆州、石首、公安，湖南长沙（市、县）、岳阳（市）、华容、益阳、攸县、衡阳（市），贵州正安，陕西西安、合阳，甘肃酒泉等地。望出内黄县。
  蓟姓有内黄堂、宗新堂等堂号。
  相传蓟姓出内黄帝轩辕氏之后，蓟姓家族因以“宗轩”为家族堂号。
  蓟氏，祁姓。以国为氏。蓟国，在今北京城西南隅。周武王时始封，后灭于燕。
  蓟姓历史人物有：蓟辽，东汉建安中驸马都尉，齐人。
  From Google Translate:
  The surname is not among the 400 common surnames in China. It is distributed in Beijing, Shijiazhuang, Zhengding, Luannan, Yongnian in Hebei, Taiyuan, Datong (city), Shuozhou, Yangquan, Changzhi (city), Jiexiu, Wanrong, Xiaoyi, Fenyang, Wenshui, Jiangxian in Shanxi, Nanjing, Changzhou, Wuxi, Xinghua in Jiangsu, Ningbo, Haiyan in Zhejiang, Susong in Anhui, Zherong, Sanming in Fujian, Gaomi, Yantai in Shandong, Zhongmou, Ningling, Yima in Henan, Wuhan, Zhongxiang, Yingshan, Jingzhou, Shishou, Gong'an in Hubei, Changsha (city, county), Yueyang (city), Huarong, Yiyang, Youxian, Hengyang (city) in Hunan, Zheng'an in Guizhou, Xi'an, Heyang in Shaanxi, Jiuquan in Gansu, etc. The ancestors came from Neihuang County.
  The Ji surname has hall names such as Neihuang Hall and Zongxin Hall.
  According to legend, the Ji surname came from the descendants of Emperor Huangdi Xuanyuan, so the Ji surname family used "Zongxuan" as the family hall name.
  Ji clan, Qi surname. The surname is taken from the country. Ji State was located in the southwest corner of Beijing. It was first established during the reign of King Wu of Zhou and was later destroyed by Yan.
  Historical figures with the surname Ji include: Ji Liao, a military commander of the imperial son-in-law during the Jian'an period of the Eastern Han Dynasty, from Qi.
3. "以蓟为姓在童话里飞扬" [With Ji as the surname, soaring in the fairy tale]. Beijing Evening News (in Chinese). 2022-04-06. Archived from the original on 2024-09-09. Retrieved 2024-09-09 – via Sina Corporation.
  The article notes: "也由于被人喜爱，才有了蓟国，并带来了蓟姓。据《姓氏考略》记载，大约在殷商时期，古代范阳（约今北京城西南一带）因为漫山遍野长着独具气质和才情的蓟，便自然形成一个小国，史称蓟国。蓟国是今北京最早形成的国家之一。... 蓟在中国古代姓氏中的位置也比较理想，开创了神话一般的存在。其中心人物是东汉建安年间名士蓟子训。正史、野史、方志类古籍对他均有记载。"
  From Google Translate: "Because of its popularity, the Ji State was established, and the Ji surname was brought to the country. According to the "Surname Research", around the Shang Dynasty, the ancient Fanyang (approximately the southwest of Beijing today) naturally formed a small country, known as the Ji State, because the mountains and plains were full of Ji with unique temperament and talent. The Ji State was one of the earliest countries formed in Beijing today. ... Ji also has an ideal position in ancient Chinese surnames, creating a mythical existence. The central figure is Ji Zixun, a famous scholar during the Jian'an period of the Eastern Han Dynasty. He is recorded in official history, unofficial history, and local chronicles."
4. Less significant coverage:
  1. "蓟姓起源,名人及家谱" [Origin of the Ji surname, celebrities and family tree]. Shangdu.com [zh] (in Chinese). 2008-07-17. Archived from the original on 2014-05-08. Retrieved 2024-09-09.
    The article notes: "据《姓氏考略》记载：周武王封黄帝的后裔于蓟（今北京），其子孙便以国名为姓。"
    From Google Translate: "According to the "Surname Research", King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Emperor Huangdi the title of Ji (now Beijing), and their descendants took the name of the country as their surname."
  2. Wang, Kezhong 王克忠 (2011). 国学精粹 [The Essence of Chinese Studies] (in Chinese). Beijing: China Textile Press [zh]. ISBN 978-7-5064-7230-2. Retrieved 2024-09-09.
    The book notes: "【蓟姓】西周时,周武王封黄帝的后代在蓟,其就以蓟为自己家族的姓氏。"
    From Google Translate: "[Ji surname] During the Western Zhou Dynasty, King Wu of Zhou granted the descendants of Emperor Huang the title of Marquis of Ji, and they took Ji as their family surname."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ji (surname 蓟) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ji (surname 蓟) participants: Yinweiaiqing (talk · contribs), Mx. Granger (talk · contribs), CFA (talk · contribs), AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk · contribs), Traumnovelle (talk · contribs), and OwenX (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FYI to readers, these are the same sources I addressed in the nom statement. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 05:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources found by Cunard, which are enough to meet GNG. I've also edited the article to add an offline source, which has about a paragraph of information about the surname. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 16:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's more evaluation of newly found sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:03, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Julius Koome

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NBIO. Minus Facebook, LinkedIn, Youtube and Amazon, not seeing any results of coverage. The sources used in the article talk about things that Koome has said and his reports on HIV cases, but are not significant coverage about Koome himself. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Kenya. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Biology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Yaqubian

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NMUSICIAN. No coverage anywhere I can find, mahoor.com is broken and much of the other links currently present are download links. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Boelens

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

Every single source is IMDB. Cannot find many other reliable secondary sources. Roasted (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and United States of America. Roasted (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not finding anything beyond passing mentions (i.e., name listed on credits) on Internet Archive or Newspapers.com. No matches found via Wikipedia Library general search or Gale General OneFile search. Does not meet WP:BASIC, let alone WP:GNG, as there is no significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a mirror of IMDb (which has all this information), and IMDb itself is not considered a reliable source per Wikipedia guidelines. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:03, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bertrand Nepveu

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

Fails WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG. Only sources that come close to establishing notability of Nepveu is this and this, but both seem to be interviews and not quite the significant coverage for Nepveu to be notable. Other sources discuss more about the companies and firms he worked with and not Nepveu himself. ~ Tails Wx 21:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Engineering, and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note: I was reviewing this page at the same time and have come to the same conclusion. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 22:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Women in the Mongol Empire

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

WP:NOR Pollia (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, History, and Mongolia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is clearly sourced to more than 3 independent, reliable, published, secondary sources, all but one of which are fully accessible online. There is no basis for saying this is original research. It's also clearly a notable topic, with sources named "Women in the Mongol Empire", "Women in Steppe Society" and "Women and Gender under Mongol Rule". It's tagged for non-encyclopaedic style, but this is not a reason to delete, nor is improving the style of the article the purpose of AfD. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - I can't find any rationale for deletion. Just writing "WP:NOR" is not a compelling argument for deletion. The article is not tagged for OR, there is no discussion on its talk page regarding any suspicion of OR. And even if there would be any OR in the article, the remedy would be to edit and improve the article rather than bringing it to AfD. --Soman (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic is clearly notable from the sources provided and I don’t see any indication of OR. Mccapra (talk) 05:18, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AvoDerm

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable product; reads like an advertisement; was nominated for speedy but declined as "weird". Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Products and California. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Besides one piece from CBS Philadelphia about their salmonella outbreak in 2012, only references I could find to AvoDerm were in pet ownership blog/web pages (low-quality, listicle format). Does not seem to meet notability guidelines. InsomniaOpossum (talk) 02:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eadwig's Charter to Abingdon Abbey c.957

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

This article is a rambling mess that spends no time at all describing the supposed subject, a land grant. I'm not making a notability argument here, more of a blow it up and start over argument.

If the charter itself is notable, the article should be about that, but this article wanders from one subject to another, like what kind of farming Danish Vikings may have done on this land before the charter, what kinds of rushes like what kind of soil, a three-hundred-year timeline of the area that was the subject of the charter, etc. I don't know what this is supposed to be, but it does not look like an article about a land charter. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 20:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Concur with the nom statement, but in addition, even if the charter were independently notable (it is not), the best place to discuss it anyway would be Abingdon Abbey. A redirect would not be appropriate; this is not a reasonable search term. -- asilvering (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was tempted to nominate it when I added the maintenance templates 3 months ago, and nothing has improved since I flagged the issues. Even if the topic is notable, it would be easier to start from scratch than try to fix the current article which is pure WP:SYNTH going far beyond what any of the citations support. Joe D (t) 20:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not an article. Someone's notes on tangentially-related topics. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or at the very least, get it out of mainspace. This is a draft at its fetal stage. Qwirkle (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Denmark. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Goodness gracious. This is many things. A coherent article is not one of them. Insanityclown1 (talk) 07:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Possible subject for a PhD. But not enough material out there for an article right now and I don't see cause to presume notability. TNT considerations are also valid. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In terms of notability, the article Anglo-Saxon charters lists two volumes of Charters of Abingdon Abbey, published by Oxford University Press in 2000 and 2001 - this article references neither. This charter might be individually notable, or the collection of charters to Abingdon Abbey might be, but it's not clear without access to the sources what a notable topic might be, and it's definitely not this strange conglomeration of information. I agree, WP:TNT applies. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not a useful encyclopedia article. PamD 11:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Where (SQL)

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

This content doesn't belong on Wikipedia because it violates multiple Wikipedia policies. I think it'd be plainly inappropriate to have separate articles for each keyword in a programming language, because this would violate WP: INDISCRIMINATE. It's not clear to me why SQL should be treated any differently. Also, anything encyclopedic about the subject probably already appears in Filter (higher-order function): a WHERE clause filters rows on a certain condition. Anything specific to SQL, like how to use it in a query, would likely violate WP: NOTTEXTBOOK, which this article currently does. I think that the article on the aforementioned filter function may make a good redirect target if people would prefer a WP: ATD, and anything that people deem "useful" can go somewhere else like Wikibooks. In any case, I don't believe hosting this content on Wikipedia is appropriate. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be clear, I think there probably exists a healthy amount of sources that describe what the WHERE clause does. My concerns have less to do with inadequate sourcing and more to do with whether this material is suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia in the first place. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE, WP:NOTDICT. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vigraharaja IV's first war against the Ghazanvids

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

Regardless of the notability of the event (which I cannot check definitively, partly due to my lack of expertise in history in general, and partly due to some of the sources about this being books I do not have access to), it is clear that this article is almost wholly the output of an AI chatbot and therefore in dire need of WP:TNT. I am surprised that an obviously AI-written article has slipped below the radar for so long. Java Hurricane 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, India, and Rajasthan. Java Hurricane 19:47, 18 January 2025 (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/2025 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is poorly notable, and once I questioned about the existance of the battle by its name (earlier name of the article), the creator changed its name by thier own synthesis. There is no way anyone can create articles as such "X's war aganist Y", in MILHIST topic area, as it opens ways for many such poorly notable military conflicts. Also, the article lacks in-depth coverage in reliable sources, and existing sources found to be lack reliability as it is built on many assumptions, like "thr ruler might have fought..." etc. Additionally we can see the creator used much offensive terms in the article itself (obviously targetting a community). --Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:48, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
note to the closer : Please check the background and edit history of the voters, as meatpuppetry and sock puppetry is common in this TA.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:52, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CJK Unified Ideographs Extension B

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a WP: DICTIONARY. This article was deleted in 2007 but recreated for reasons that aren't clear to me. I don't believe this article can be expanded beyond the definition of the ideographs based on a search for sources, and even if it can, I don't believe the hosting of these massive tables is appropriate for an encyclopedia. HyperAccelerated (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Computing. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Although it's a technical article, the information about the proposals and history of this Unicode block round it out to be a complete article. DRMcCreedy (talk) 20:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Horrible rationale. I never said this was an “incomplete” article. None of this is responsive to anything I said above. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I misunderstood "I don't believe this article can be expanded ..." to be a criticism of the completeness of the article. I remain opposed as it's part of a complete set of Category:Unicode blocks. Probably another horrible rationale on my part. DRMcCreedy (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Rigamonti

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

This person does not meet notability guidelines and is directly connected to an old hoax that they are attempting to use. Part of it (before edits) reads as though they wrote it themselves. Apologies if I'm missing some things for this, as it's my first time doing it.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ra (Cyrillic)

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

After a WP:BEFORE check, this seems like WP:ONEDAY: "what if the Latin letter R was also its own letter in the Cyrillic alphabet? At the very least, it seems wholly like original research. Remsense ‥ 论 19:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Mongolia, Belarus, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Russia, Serbia, and Ukraine. Remsense ‥ 论 19:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my letter I'm making up but planing to propose some time we should keep this article BodhiHarp (talk) 19:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't make any more articles for things you are making up, it is a massive waste of others' time. See the link above, please. Remsense ‥ 论 19:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What does it take to improve this article to be able to include this suggested letter as original research? BodhiHarp (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot have an article for something you made up. See the link above. Remsense ‥ 论 19:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made up letter. Fulmard (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a letter that doesn't currently exist in the Cyrillic alphabet, but deserves a place there. Cyrillic has an obvious hole in it, where this letter can, and should, belong. Cyrillic doesn't include any letter that can express the r sound (like in the word "red") that many from English speaking countries know. So this is an addition to fill that gap. Right now, this letter is being submitted to Unicode for official adoption. BodhiHarp (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do not make another article until you understand our notability guideline, please. Every time you make an article like this, it requires the time and effort of a handful of other editors to delete it. Remsense ‥ 论 20:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - topic was made up by the article creator Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BodhiHarp. Yes, per the arguments of BodhiHarp which makes it abundantly clear that the page fails WP:NOT. Geschichte (talk) 20:50, 18 January 2025 (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.

CAMI Music

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

Does not seem to pass WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Companies, Management, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of Hearthstone

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

This is the same scope as Hearthstone, which already covers the gameplay, including its development and reception. This fork re-uses many of the same sources, and writes a worse article that focuses more on material that violates WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. There is a consensus at the Video Games WikiProject that we shouldn't create this type of WP:REDUNDANTFORK, since there is nothing here that isn't covered at Hearthstone, or some of the details about competition in Hearthstone in esports. I understand that a game with this much esport competition will naturally have more people discussing the finer points of gameplay, but this violates WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE. I would consider a redirect (or even an alternate way to split the main Hearthstone article), but I don't see material that would be suitable for a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep , but refocus the page to be about the expansions to Hearthstone; that section, at least from what I last worked on it, was using third-party sources to discuss each expansion and what it added in broad terms. I agree the gameplay is mostly repetitive of what's in the main article, but if this were refocused to cover only the expansions and those details about them, it would be more routine of the type of article about DLC/expansion content for a living game. And if kept in that fashion, I'd move the table that's on the main Hearthstone page to that, since that's weighing the main page of Hearthstone down a lot. --Masem (t) 19:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on what other editors say, I would consider a rename and rewrite around Expansions of Hearthstone. I maintain that Gameplay of Hearthstone is redundant. But it's normal for there to be Wikipedia articles about notable game expansions, and there doesn't seem to be a Hearthstone article like this, yet. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep expansion content and move to List of Hearthstone expansions / Expansions of Hearthstone, which seems to be the genuinely notable topic here. I would advocate to Redirect the current title to Hearthstone as a plausible search term and subtopic. Masem's reasoning seems sound. ~ A412 ^talk! 03:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alaric Naudé

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

Does not meet WP:NOTABILITY requirements as a WP:SCHOLAR. RSN discussion showed low citations of his academic work, an effort to skirt around WP:SPS, and concluded a clear consensus the subject was a WP:FRINGE scholar. (link to RSN discussion) These and other issues issues were raised on the draft page prior to the article being moved from draft space to main space. Relm (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, and South Korea. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh joy, more Yasuke drama. Anyway, "president of the City University of Paris" for an academic based in Asia and an institution without an article raises all sorts of red flags. Also since other sites seem to claim that someone else named Agnés Horry has been president since this organization was founded in 2023. His Google Scholar profile [14] shows no pass of WP:PROF, so we don't need to determine whether his scholarship is fringe; it does not provide notability regardless. I could not find any reviews of his books, which also makes it irrelevant that they appear to be self-published, as the lack of reviews prevents WP:AUTHOR notability regardless. That leaves only WP:GNG, for which we have none of the in-depth reliable independent sources required. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: In my opinion, the only argument that can save the permanence of this article is the criterion 6. On the other hand, Naudé is too young a scholar for his influence, if any, to be felt. In addition, Naudé has generated discussion, so it would seem to be a matter of attention. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
An organization that was apparently founded only two years ago, can barely be documented to exist at all, shows no sign other than in name of being an actual university, for which we have only primary sources, for which those primary sources disagree on whether he is actually president, and which is not even mentioned on his own home page [15], is very far from being the kind of highest-level post at a "major academic institution" demanded by #C6. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources about his presidency: click to Executive Leadership, [16], [17]. [18], [19], [20], etc., so the fact that the presidency is not mentioned on Naudé's website is irrelevant.

By "major academic institution" should be understood academic major. As far as "high level post" is concerned, it is worth noting that it has many graduates. In criterion 6 I do not read a hurdle with the minimum age level of a University, except that it is accredited, which completes the CityU Paris. Jairon Levid Abimael Caál Orozco (talk) 16:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Total failure to pass WP:Prof or anything else. Is this a hoax BLP? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment: I have been notified of this deletion discussion by the nominator. I have a firm personal policy of steadfast neutrality at articles I accepted at AFC. I follow the guidance that a draft must, in my view, have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. This is an immediate deletion process and I await the community's view. If kept, I will be pleased. If deleted, I will correct anything I feel needs to be corrected in my reviewing. Reviewers get better when their work is sent to AfD, which allows the community to decide as opposed to a single reviewer. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 22:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein's post above. I indepedently tried to find third-party news coverage and couldn't find any either.

Also the POV in the article was really blatant; I just deleted almost all of a paragraph that was basically cited only to Naudé himself. It presented subjective analysis of things as definite in Wikipedia's voice. seefooddiet (talk) 08:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Church, Cheslyn Hay

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

Likely not notable under WP:NCHURCH.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Cremastra
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
www.cannockchasemethodists.org.uk				✘ No
The South Staffordshire Local List				✘ No
Dunphy Church Heating				✘ No
Express & Star				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Cremastra (u — c) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, History, Christianity, and England. Cremastra (u — c) 18:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cheslyn Hay under a header along the lines of ==Landmarks==. Noteworthy in context, but not necessarily independently notable. BD2412 T 19:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable. Cremastra (u — c) 19:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have reapplied {{subst:afd2}} due to malformed formatting. No opinion at this time. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cheslyn Hay. In addition to the sources listed in the article, it's likely there's content on the church in Cheslyn Hay - The Golden Years and The Bygone Days of Cheslyn Hay (both listed on a well known website). They're picture & caption books, but unable to determine amount of coverage. The church building also comes under WP:NBUILDING and WP:GNG so I believe the WP:SIGCOV requirement can be met by adding together reliable, independent sources, whereas WP:NCHURCH evaluates each source separately for significant coverage. Nonetheless, insufficient verified coverage to make more than a stub. Agree with the previous contributor's merge appraisal. Rupples (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cheslyn Hay, which currently uses an image of the church but doesn't otherwise mention it, let alone source it. Relevant categories can be attached to the redirect, if sourced in the target article. PamD 11:16, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Liberty Nuban

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

Fails WP:SPORTSBASIC and WP:GNG. Only coverage I found of Nuban is routine and this was the closest I could get for any significant, in-depth coverage to estabilish notability of him. ~ Tails Wx 18:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, and Indonesia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foxtails (band)

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:NBAND. Going through the 6 sources, the first is their personal bandcamp, the second is an article I don't have access to but it seems connected to the band, the third is "foxtails interview", fourth is "new album out now", fifth is a review of one of their albums (no significant coverage about the band), and sixth is an interview about a new EP release. My external searches give me little more than what is here already. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 17:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slaveco.

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

A MySpace band that never released an album. Had several notable members that were in SNFU, but Slaveco. is only mentioned in sources as a minor, failed side-step to that project. There are literally no sources that focus on the band as an independent, notable entity. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With apologies for repeating myself from last edit summary, the band is discussed in multiple WP:RSes -- including two books and a documentary, cited in the article -- and hence seems to pass criterion #1 of WP:BAND. Given this, the information is noteworthy; and it furthermore does not belong in the SNFU article, since this would bloat that article; hence, I submit that it needs its own article. Relatedly, I'm not convinced that the term "MySpace band" means very much or is as damning as I take the usage to imply, since numerous bands great and small from the aughts had MySpace accounts. But I understand the editor's concerns and maybe we can see what others think. In any case, I vote keep. CCS81 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two books by the same author and a documentary that all mention it briefly as one of Ken Chinn's small projects (along with The Wongs and Little Joe that also don't have articles). MySpace band refers to the fact that when I found the article, it still had a MySpace link (which relates to the essay WP:MYSPACEBAND). Why? I Ask (talk) 20:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand, but the "WP:MYSPACEBAND" joke article seems to imply that this term refers primarily to self-generated content, e.g., about one's own non-noteworthy garage band, as evidenced by the proliferation of the term "your" throughout the joke article. There is no such content in the Slaveco. article. Hence, I don't see the relevance of WP:MYSPACEBAND to the Slaveco. article, deleted dead MySpace link not withstanding. Better would be to defer to WP:BAND and the criteria for notability described there. CCS81 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Let me lay this out for all our sakes. Here are the statements in favor of deletion, as far as I can tell, and my responses:

Slaveco. is a WP:MYSPACEBAND. This, I think, is false, since the article seems to imply that this term is for band articles with self-generated content, which is not the case for Slaveco.
Slaveco. never released a record. This is true but insufficient for deletion, because WP:BAND specifies criteria for inclusion other than releasing albums.
Slaveco. is only minimally treated in the WP:RSes. This seems to be what is worth discussing. Slaveco. is the subject of one ten-page chapter (Chapter 12, pages 196-206) of Walter 2020, which is a 17-chapter book. There is further discussion in Walter 2024, but it only spans about five pages. The editor in favor of deletion seems to suggest that this is insufficient for C1 of WP:BAND, whereas my argument is that it is significant coverage that is independently noteworthy and would be too bulky to fold into the SNFU article or articles about any of the individual members. On this, I think, the discussion should be focused. I hope this is helpful. CCS81 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Canada. Why? I Ask (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existing sources in the article, particularly the chapter Chris Walter's book, plus the following, are enough to establish notability per WP:GNG.

"Slaveco prepared to slay 'em". Nelson Daily News. 2004-04-22. p. 3. ProQuest 357444111.
PD (2004-04-15). "Mr. Pig stuff". Vue Weekly (443): 23.
Williams, Rob (2004-04-15). "Pig business: SNFU chief Chi branches out in Slaveco enterprise". The Winnipeg Sun. p. 61.

Jfire (talk) 01:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for finding these sources. I personally am still in favor of deletion because of WP:SUSTAINED. A few concert announcements from the same month don't do it for me. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can this not just be redirected/merged to a section under SNFU or Ken Chinn? I doubt anyone is going to care about a band that simply toured for a year outside of its relationship to those two. Why? I Ask (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two other notable members with their own articles, so I don't think it's right to imply that no one else is going to care other than those reading about Chinn or SNFU. I'm also not sure what the rationale for deletion is given that it passes WP:GNG. I see lots of "subjective" language ("I doubt...", "don't do it for me",) but can't see the rationale from the perspective of guidelines for inclusion in Wikipedia. Maybe others have thoughts. CCS81 (talk) 23:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:44, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Local band that never released an album, nor did much of anything else required for notability here. No charted singles, no TV appearances, nor much media coverage beyond the local level. Oaktree b (talk) 22:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Türk Telecom İzmir Cup

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

When I click the reference it says ‘This request was blocked by our security service’ even though I am in Turkey. The Turkish article is also tagged as uncited and their external link also does not work. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was a big tennis event in Turkey for many years. Just because the links are broken now doesn't mean they were at the time. The 2016 event is still archived right here. The ATP talks about the 2017 version. What this needs is better sourcing not deleting. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Slight keep, I don't speak Turkish but it does seem like it could pass WP:GNG based on a Google News Search. Also, a source being blocked by one's ISP is not valid reason for deletion. ✶Qux yz ✶ 17:02, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Brar

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

Unable to satisfy WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage. B-Factor (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Entertainment, and India. B-Factor (talk) 14:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable singer, going viral isn't the level of notability we need. [21] is an interview. Source 3 in the article is a list of many people, not mostly about this person. I don't see enough for notability at this time. Oaktree b (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
going viral is a context, hitting the charts across multiple countries is notability as defined by the notability guidenlines for Wikipedia Music pages. Wikpedia Music Guidelines notability also defines the release by a major record label as the current case is. There are more sources added by other users as well. G4gurpreet (talk) 09:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't guarantee notability, it's a sign the person could be notable. The Spotify charts aren't ones we use for notability and there is no other sourcing for any sort of charting... We can't use any of these. Oaktree b (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I found a source from The Times of India, but I'm not sure if it helps. Aona1212 (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

7mm Remington Short Action Ultra Magnum

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

Tagged for notability, sounds a bit promotional. -- Beland (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
like a lot of these you have tagged [Beland] - it's a reference article taken from the manufacturer published data - often with these there is no other reference material - taking them off Wikipedia will just make this info even harder to find for enthusiasts and researchers 147.161.216.202 (talk) 20:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Removing non-notable information makes notable information easier to find in the encyclopedia, so the question is it notable enough to include, or should we ask those people to search other databases? I have no particular opinion, other than that if kept the article be neutralized and affixed with a different tag. -- Beland (talk) 05:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither of these are valid deletion reasons. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English Australia

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

This article is supposedly about an industry association for English language schools in Australia, but contains almost no information about the actual association. Instead, almost the entire article reads as an unsourced advert/guide for how to apply to English language courses in Australia. I wasn't able to find anything to suggest that the organisation itself would meet WP:GNG - their media releases are sometimes quoted in specialist publications, but there doesn't seem to be any secondary SIGCOV. The title could potentially be turned into a redirect for either English Australians or Australian English? MCE89 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. MCE89 (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I replaced the questionable unsourced content with new content and secondary sources. It now meets notability and has adequate sources for a stub class article. Rublamb (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a massive, massive improvement, thank you for that! I've had a look at the new sources, but I'm not really convinced that they're sufficient to demonstrate notability. Of the new sources, the only secondary sources that go beyond very brief mentions of English Australia/the ELICOS Association are the articles in The Koala and The PIE News, both of which are pretty niche publications on international education. The PIE News one is solid, but The Koala essentially repeats the content of an appeal that English Australia sent to its members and ends with "The Koala wishes English Australia well in the running of its campaign", so I'm unsure of whether this really counts as significant coverage from an outlet independent of the subject, or to what extent The Koala is a reliable source. So of the new sources the only one that seems to me like it can be counted towards notability is the article in PIE, which wouldn't be enough to meet GNG. MCE89 (talk) 23:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this would help, but there seems to be significant coverage of the institution from The Canberra Times, located here [22] 2024 is Underway (talk) 07:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean this article [23]? There are a couple of other Canberra Times articles but they seem to just quote an ELICOS Association spokesperson. It's definitely something, but the coverage is still very, very thin IMO - we've got an article from 1992 that spends a couple of paragraphs saying the organisation exists and is unhappy about a policy, and an article from 2023 in a relatively obscure publication saying that it's celebrating its 40th anniversary. Possibly it scrapes by on those two sources, but I'm not 100% convinced by the Canberra Times article - the article is mostly about the policy issue and all it really says about the ELICOS Association is that it isn't happy about it, so I'm not really sure it qualifies as SIGCOV of the ELICOS Association. MCE89 (talk) 08:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You make a compelling point, but I did manage to find this [24]. The organisation seemed to have an annual conference in the 1990s, which they documented heavily, with each year having a book that is over 200 pages. And they seemed to have reports from other companies made for them [25], [26]. I believe the contents of these reports could lead to notability. 2024 is Underway (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can consider those towards notability - they're reports that English Australia/the ELICOS Association commissioned or published, so they don't qualify as secondary sources independent of the subject. Unless there's secondary coverage of their conferences or conference proceedings in reliable sources, which I wasn't able to find on Trove, I don't think it gets us any closer to WP:GNG unfortunately. MCE89 (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While I strongly suggest that this article be kept due to be coverage it provides on Education for overseas students, it could be merged into Education in Australia under a new sub section named something along the lines of "Overseas students" because it is "designed for students who need to learn English before commencing formal studies in Australia" which would be significant to the articles subject. But it would be better to remain as a separate article. 2024 is Underway (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 16:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is more coverage in newspapers in the 1980s and 90s (apart from The Canberra Times, coverage on Trove stops at about 1950, however, Newspapers.com has other digitised newspapers like The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age up to 2002. I will add more sources and info (and probably a section on Controversies, as some coverage refers to "the ELICOS crisis of 1989-90"). RebeccaGreen (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no sufficient coverage. Drushrush (talk) 05:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Coppen

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Albums and songs, and Indonesia. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 15:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nominator. Does not show enough Notability to be included in mainspace. Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 16:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:41, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep sent it to draftspace days back but I've seen alot of improvement source-wise and contentwise, passes WP:GNG at it's current state but still doubtful on WP:NACTOR. ANU^writes 04:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes NACTOR through roles in Romeo & Juminten and Best Friends Forever. Also appears to pass GNG. Somebodyidkfkdt (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:22, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheslyn Hay South

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

Is there anything that gives this orphan stub about a Staffordshire ward Notability? The sourcing looks very weak. If needed at all, can it not be merged into Cheslyn Hay? KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 15:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough of these have been kept. Many US place articles were created with similar content from the census. The article could be expanded with information about elections. I removed the reference that failed verification - the other sources were enough. Peter James (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see you again. KJP1 (talk) 18:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Cheslyn Hay South ward for elections to South Staffordshire District Council appears to have been abolished. The South Staffordshire Council website list of 2023 election results doesn't include this ward name.[27] and it is not listed on the current Ordnance Survey Election Maps boundaries. There is now a single ward covering Cheslyn Hay, named Cheslyn Hay Village. Rupples (talk) 23:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful, thanks. If it doesn’t even exist as a separate political ward any more, that seems to make the merge case even stronger. KJP1 (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is Category:Former wards of the United Kingdom. Cheslyn Hay South existed 2003-2023, and the wards that existed before the 2023 elections are possibly the most recent for which statistics are available. Peter James (talk) 16:30, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wards may meet WP:GEOLAND as legally recognized places but I'm not sure what the consensus is on that. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to List of electoral wards in Staffordshire). As an abolished ward that only lasted 10 years, the article will never grow into anything useful. Contextless statistics about ephemeral areas that only existed for administrative purposes and don't correspond to common usage are not useful. Joe D (t) 17:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gonerby Hill Foot

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

Is there anything making this Lincolnshire suburb notable? To me the sourcing looks extremely weak. KJP1 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Grantham - it's a neighbourhood which doesn't quite meet GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1885 Kelly's describes this as a hamlet. I think we're at a point where if this passes WP:GEOLAND it's a keep and if it needs to pass WP:GNG as a neighbourhood I don't think it's quite there yet. (There was a "shocking suicide" there in 1903.) The vast majority of newspaper archives are advertisements for real estate. SportingFlyer T·C 23:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source: 100 page book The History of Gonerby Hill Foot and its School by Ruth Crook and Barbara Jefferies, 2008 (though it could be self-published). Not a lot else. Rupples (talk) 02:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak merge into Grantham. This suburb is real and has its own identity, as well as amenities like a primary school. However, it has no distinct legal/administrative status and is mostly a large 1970s/1980s housing development. There is a fair amount of material on its layout and character here [28] and probably quite a lot that could be pieced together about its history from historic newspapers at the British Newspaper Archive. My understanding is that Crook and Jeffries 2008 is self-published so not RS. I think the topic it is best treated in Grantham at least for now. I've already included mention of it in the Geography section there, and the school can be mentioned in the Education section. If better sourcing becomes available, then of course a standalone article can be created. —Noswall59 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Evidence strongly indicates Gonerby Hill Foot was 'absorbed' into Grantham in 1930 (Vision of Britain website and snippets from news articles). Oppose deletion, but unsure whether the content should be (i) kept as a separate article, (ii) merged/redirected to a new subheading in Grantham, such as "areas of Grantham", (iii) used to expand Grantham#urban area in which Gonerby Hill Foot is mentioned or (iv) merged into Arnoldfield - the relevant ward. The listed building Gonerby House is in the vicinity but not mentioned anywhere AFAICS. Rupples (talk) 12:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep having just spent too much time on cleaning it up: yes, it's mentioned as a hamlet in 1885 Kelly's, with 3 tradesmen and a postbox; it's marked on OS maps; the local Civic Society source is probably pretty reliable; and the grade II listed Gonerby House is barely worth its own article but deserves a home in the encyclopedia and this hamlet/suburb seems the right place (unlike most of the country this isn't - yet? - covered by one of the splendid "Listed buildings in ..." lists: it's unparished and there are Grade I listed buildings in South Kesteven and Grade II* listed buildings in South Kesteven but Grade II listed buildings in South Kesteven would be a massive undertaking.) I've removed a couple of useless sources. PamD 16:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely scope for a Listed buildings in Grantham, like Listed buildings in Sleaford which I recently brought to FA. I may create that one day. There's a case for Gonerby Hill Foot's history being part of the Great Gonerby article as I believe Gonerby Hill Foot was part of the parish until recently (most of it was within the GG boundaries in c. 1929 [29]). —Noswall59 (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Having dug out another source about the milestone, and more on the history from the Civic Soc, I'm strengthening my "Keep". PamD 16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Grantham is now parished but anyway a list of listed buildings could be created even if it was still unparished given the unparished area is easy to define unlike some like in County Durham or Hertfordshire where parts of a pre 1974 district are now parished. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Didn't think there was quite enough to pass the GNG but with recent additions I now think it does. The content is adequately sourced, tidied up and is in much better shape. It's now of sufficient length and substance to stand alone. Rupples (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC) Gonerby Hill Foot may have presumed notability under WP:NPLACE, more likely during its tenure as a hamlet outside of Grantham, but it's uncertain. Oppose merging the content into Grantham. Firstly, I suspect most readers of the Grantham article will not be particularly interested in Gonerby Hill Foot; the few that are being best served by the existing mention and wikilink to this article. Secondly, including the content in Grantham would give Gonerby Hill Foot WP:undue weight (depth of detail) compared with other outlying areas of the town. Rupples (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edmund Burke School shooting

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

Hmm, fails WP:LASTING. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 14:40, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ WP:NOTNEWS, not a hugely significant event (no fatalities bar the shooter) & does not seem to have generated any lasting coverage.TheLongTone (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing opinion to merge as suggested below.TheLongTone (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Schools. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Edmund Burke School. This article is more suitable for the history section of the school itself rather than being a standalone as it’s probably more important for that specific location rather than the rest of the country. The coverage of the event also appears to be relatively routine.

YatesTucker00090 (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If not notable, haven’t checked for sources, merge to the school article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edmund Burke School#2022 shooting. There isn't nothing and some of the coverage is quite in depth but this is a good target and the coverage isn't enough as to warrant more than that. This actually was a redirect until last month. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: While this isn't a huge event, it did happen. It should be merged into the Edmund Burke School page. OhNoKaren (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - Notable, but not enough for its own article. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the Edmund Burke School article. A section on this topic already exists within the page. The two references cited in this AfD nomination are also included in that section ([30], [31]). QEnigma talk 05:56, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.375 Winchester

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

Tagged for notability for almost 2 years. -- Beland (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - useful reference page for the calibre with the relevant standards and load data referenced - limited use outside of a specialist community but still valuable data to retain as the ammo and rifles remain in use. 147.161.216.202 (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not apparent and too much uncited content. Spideog (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per the same opinion I stated on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/.348 Winchester. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as for the others. This is not a valid reason for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 17:20, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ceremonial roll call at the 2024 Democratic National Convention

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

Trivial event with only routine coverage. I T B F 📢 17:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I T B F 📢 17:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was not a trivial event. It was well-covered beyond routine coverage, in large part because it diverted from the standard roll call practices by featuring a DJ and even a cameo performance mid-roll call. Before this, in-person conventions had roll calls that looked like this. It was an innovation in convention production having the 2024 DNC bring out a DJ to play a theme song for each state.

It was also unique from all major party convention roll calls except the 2020 DNC roll call in being ceremonial rather than official. The article can be usefully expanded to explain the circumstances of why Harris was nominated in advance of the convention (initially was brought the threat of certain states to deny the Democratic nominee ballot access if they waited until the convention to nominate her, due to refusal to extend ballot deadlines). (The official roll can in advance of the convention was also unique as this was the first nomination in generations where nearly all delegates unbound. Biden's withdrawal meant that delegates were free to vote however they wished. Ultimately, Harris sewed up enough support in advance of the convention quick enough to dissuade any other candidates from seeking the nom) SecretName101 (talk) 17:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That all sounds like it can be included in the main DNC 2024 article in about three sentences. I T B F 📢 17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not without erasing and easy way for readers to (without going off-side) answer the question of "what states chose what songs" and other info. SecretName101 (talk) 17:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Events, United States of America, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The list of songs falls under WP:NOTDB and the rest of it can go in 2024 Democratic National Convention. Astaire (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2024 Democratic National Convention. Trivial and can be sufficiently covered there. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the overall DNC article, doesn't have notability of its own. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Gopan Swami

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

Not encyclopedic. Just a sensational news in Malayalam media, see WP:RECENTISM. Lacks long-term notability and fails WP:EVENTCRIT. also refer WP:NOTNP. The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Hinduism, Spirituality, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it's far too soon to decide if anything noteworthy has actually happened here, or whether events develop and go on being discussed in future years. So far it looks much as nom suggests, not encyclopedic material. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cian Cowley

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

With Fightmatrix ranking #464 Welterweight, and insufficient general notability, doesn't meet WP:NMMA (expecting 'top 10'). Klbrain (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Ireland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems pretty straightforward that this subject doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NMMA. Velayinosu (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

British Airways Flight 268

AfDs for this article:

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

Based on run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, engine failures became a widespread cause for aviation incidents and accidents, including ones that resulted in diversions and emergency landings. While the aircraft was substantially damaged, the cause of this accident is run-of-the-mill. Additionally, there were no injuries or fatalities. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 16:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United Kingdom and United States of America. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 16:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, Transportation, England, and California. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this incident changed rules on engine-out situations and had lasting coverage over a period of years, so it passes WP:GNG and doesn't fail WP:NOTNEWS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akintunde Babatunde

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

Fail WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristoffer von Hassel

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a pretty clear example of WP:BLP1E. The sources all say the same thing with very little variation in the information they provide, and several of them are clearly re-hashed versions of the same report or press release. None of the sources says anything about von Hassel himself, which is very natural as he was 5 years old at the time, but a WP:BEFORE search doesn't yield anything more current, or more in-depth. I thought this might be a good source, since it was published a couple of years later – but it only repeats the same info in new packaging (adding the dubious claim that he "has his own Wikipedia page"). Other than that, there's just the flurry of short press reports from April 2014 to support this entire article. The "world's youngest hacker" claim was clearly unverifiable and pretty weak to begin with, since it redefines what a "hacker" is – so what is the claim to notability here, really? bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. WP:BLP1E without any WP:LASTING coverage. Jfire (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. A fun little story that surely helps websites get clicks, but absolutely not enough to support a BLP article on the person in the story. Not opposed to a brief mention somewhere in an Xbox article where it could make sense. Sergecross73 msg me 19:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adedayo Olawuyi

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

The sources fail Wikipedia notability guidelines and a WP:BEFORE did not show that the subject is notable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Nigeria, and Uganda. Ibjaja055 (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reiner Kümmel

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

A case of evidence versus opinion. Theoretical physicist who moved into econophysics, h-factor WOS 25, GS 26, no major awards. Physics work is solid but does not pass WP:NPROF#C1 -- nobody has argued it does. Originators argues that economics work is notable, despite lack of cites. As noted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics, econophysics is not mainstream economics so is not well cited. Notability tag (not by nom) and PROD (by nom). Editors responded with arguments in talk pages of why he is notable in their opinion, and added WP:Opinion to text. Both notability tag & PROD were removed with the argument "passes WP:NPROF#C1 on cites". I believe we always require evidence. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy ping of @Xxanthippe, Gunnar.Kaestle, Sniffadog, Moriwen, Ulubatli Hasan, and Closed Limelike Curves: Ldm1954 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - here are my arguments why his work is notable:

The Solow Growth Model is notable.
Also the Solow residual is notable, indicating that the model is not complete. (Figure 6.4).
Finding a solution by identifying a third production factor energy as the missing link is notable as well.

Gunnar (talk) 16:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"After a detailed discussion of the scientific elements of energy and entropy, Kümmel comes to his main concern, the improvement of economic theory, and introduces energy as a new variable in economics on the basis of scientific results. The result is a model in which the economic production function depends on the factors capital, labor, energy and creativity. Kümmel tests the model using economic data from Germany, the USA and Japan. He concludes his book with the hope for a society that builds its future on reason and general ethical values. “The Second Law of Economics” is very convincing and it is to be hoped that it will help to bridge the deep rifts between the natural and social sciences." Book Review for The Second Law of Economics [32] Gunnar (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone who works on a notable model is notable themselves. Writing one book, even one notable book, is not enough to meet our notability standards for authors. XOR'easter (talk) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayres, Robert U.; Warr, Benjamin (2009). "Chapter 6 The production function approach". The Economic Growth Engine – How Energy and Work Drive Material Prosperity. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. p. 190. ISBN 978-1-84844-182-8. Retrieved 2025-01-16. Another approach (first demonstrated by Kümmel) is to choose the next-simplest non-trivial solution of the growth equation and integrability equations (Kümmel 1980; Kümmel et al. 1985). [..] Hence, such a model is not ideal for forecasting. What is interesting, however, is the resulting calculated time-dependent productivities, which show a significant increase in exergy productivity and a decline in labor productivity, over time.

At least he has priority in finding a pretty good solution to the known problem. If this was a patent, the early bird would be notable. Gunnar (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. At least 10 publications on GS with > 100 cites. Passes WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. All these papers are in ecological economics which is a high citation field, please see this link Ldm1954 (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work."

"Citation measures such as the h-index, g-index, etc., are of limited usefulness in evaluating whether Criterion 1 is satisfied."

"Thus, the absence of references in Google Scholar should not be used as proof of non-notability."

These caveats may be there to prevent identifying only cargo-cult science as notable. Thus, my suggestion is to have a closer look on the improved theory of economic growth with energy as third production factor. It is a tiny, focused subject but without doubt notable. "Growth theory, like much else in macroeconomics, was a product of the depression of the 1930s and of the war that finally ended it." Similarly, Kümmel's work started with the observations during the oil crises in the 70s. Gunnar (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir Nicolas Reardon-Smith, 5th Baronet

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

Unremarkable person who happens to be in Debrett's TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no coverage in reliable secondary sources besides a passing mention in his father's obit. Most of the citations fail verification because they contain zero information about this person. Joe D (t) 17:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: lack of notability. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 00:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Economics film

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

To start, I want to outline the history of this article.

Initially, it was completely unsourced from August 29, 2016 until February 11, 2022.
Editor Casualorangejuicefan (no longer active) started expanding the article, leading to this in May 2022. They had a sandbox page here that shows that their article work was intended as a school paper. While the May 2022 draft seems good at first glance, closer scrutiny shows that it is actually original research that uses reliable sources (vast majority never actually detailing "economics film" as a film genre) to make the case for the topic.
I put list of economics films up for AFD here at first and did not recognize at the time that economics film also existed. When I found it, I came to the conclusion explained above and started a teardown of it (like a dismantling variation of WP:TNT). I did not follow through because I felt like the whole page was essentially unencyclopedic. My research into reliable sources did not show "economics film" as a genre.
Instead, based on sources I did find, I decided to go ahead and create economics in film, which should be considered distinct from this genre focus whose page history has nothing salvageable, being OR-driven.

I do not think there is anything to save here. I'd rather delete outright and redirect to economics in film. Redirecting without deleting can be fine, but honestly I don't think we should keep any version of this article which has only had unsourced and OR phases. EDIT: Another way to think of it is that it makes more sense to have emotion in film as opposed to emotional film, which would be unreasonably high-level classification. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Economics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Economics in film. I am at a loss to understand why the sourced content in the current article would not stand within that broader topic. BD2412 T 19:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be WP:OR in the scope of just economics, which is a very high-level topic. This article, which is really a student essay, pieced together disparate points that never was about economics films. Like this does not actually support the text in the Wikipedia article. "Economic" is mentioned in passing twice in that source, and the quote in the Wikipedia article was in response to the interviewer asking Moore if he wanted to "agitate a mass audience". So these sources are not touching on economics films or about economics in film. It is WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to state or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Economics in film has two referenced books that match the scope exactly, plus one more that could be accessed. Piecemeal claims of economics films (or economics in film) are inappropriate OR and also completely unnecessary. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To make even more sure, I checked this referenced in the first paragraph under "Mainstream economics film", and it says nothing about economics. The paragraph says that The Wolf of Wall Street "is the prime example of the glorification of excess and gluttony displayed in economics films", but the source says nothing at all about that, and the student took more liberties describing the film than the source has. You can view the source yourself via WP:LIBRARY. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Economics in film without merging. I read some of the article and briefly checked some of the sources. I couldn't find anything that mentions economics as a genre and I don't think I've ever heard the term before. In my mind, "Economics film" would be an educational film, which is a genre, but "Microbiology film" isn't a genre, so the topic of an educational film doesn't necessarily make that topic the genre. The non-educational examples given in the article are just "economics/finance is an element of this movie", e.g. The Wolf of Wall Street, which is described by its Wikipedia article as a "biographical black comedy-drama", which are actual genre terms. Velayinosu (talk) 01:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Russell Curry

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

Fails WP:NACTOR--Соловьиная Роща (talk) 14:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bourbon County Schools

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral return to Draft, so we are at AfD. Schools and school districts are no longer inherently notable. Fails WP:NORG as presented here. Suggesting Draftify pending further work. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, and Kentucky. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge I would say merge with Bourbon County, Kentucky. Not notable enough for its own page. ContentEditman (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - school districts were not covered by the discussion that removed the presumption of notability from secondary schools. School districts were then, and are now considered as a unit of government, at least in the United States. They still carry a strong presumption of notability per the gazateer purpose of Wikipedia. . 4.37.252.50 (talk) 04:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Bourbon County, Kentucky (and trim down). Article is sourced entirely to statistics; there is no significant secondary coverage as needed by WP:NSCHOOL. The fact that it's a school district, not a school, seems beside the point. There are thousands of school districts in the US, and for most of them there is no information available beyond statistics; they don't need articles. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.348 Winchester

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

Tagged for notability for 2.5 years. -- Beland (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Drive-by 'notability' tagging by an editor with no other involvement in the article is no reason to delete an article on a clear topic with multiple sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
perhaps the editor who tagged it for deletion should try to find some references for the item listed instead of flagging for deletion. .348 WINCHESTER is still produced and used. As such, it would be wrong to delete this article. 63.210.244.190 (talk) 16:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have no interest in improving firearms articles. My purpose is simply to either drop the notability tag or drop the article, to clear out the decision queue. If we keep, it can be retagged as needing more sources. -- Beland (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep,info on somewhat obscure calibers needs all the reference one can find. 184.13.199.40 (talk) 23:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to a new article on Winchester cartridges. Anything notable enough to have its own article can be linked, maybe with a brief description. Anything else can have its unsourced material removed, or limited to a mention of the cartridge. I am interested in this subject enough to create the article and add this (and .375 Winchester), but I am not sure if I can maintain it significantly past that. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 13:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about merging the .308 Winchester as well? The whole of Category:Winchester Repeating Arms Company cartridges ? This seems an odd selection criterion, as the cartridges (there are many, 50 in that category) have little in common other than their manufacturer. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley

No. I am proposing creating a larger article on the topic, but notable articles such as .308 win will remain;

Anything notable enough to have its own article can be linked, maybe with a brief description

That means that the cartridges will be mentioned, as they are relevant, but anything not important enough to have an article will mostly be merged into the article, with extraneous detail removed. Cmrc23 ʕ•ᴥ•ʔ 23:01, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the topic, "List of non-notable Winchester cartridges"? Seems like a good scope to get the whole lot deleted 5 minutes after you write it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burkina Faso–Iran relations

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

its not notable enough to warrant an article of its own; maybe it can be included as part of Foreign relations of Burkina Faso. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Social science. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Actually seems to be a much more significant relationship than I would have guessed. There have been a number of state visits, and they've signed several agreements and MoUs ([33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] - not saying these are all necessarily RS for the purposes of assessing notability, just useful for getting a sense of whether a meaningful bilateral relationship exists between the two countries). There also seems to be a growing trade relationship. Not the most notable relationship between a pair of countries, sure, but I think it's more than enough. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Africa, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The remark "not the most notable pair of countries" is dismissive of two nation states. They may not matter to the previous commenter, User:Spiderone (even if s/he decided to Keep), but they are notable to both populations, and this article is part of a series of similar articles for other nations. If the article did not exist, it would need to be created. Spideog (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if that came off as dismissive, that was not my intention at all! All I meant was that even though the relationship between Burkina Faso and Iran is obviously not as extensive or widely covered as, say, China–United States relations, it is still very much deserving of an article — on which we seem to be in agreement. I'll edit my vote to make that clearer. MCE89 (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Sir, so my intention was not to desregard it completely but to rather merge it with Foreign relations of Burkina Faso. I also don't really believe its notable to iran. But, in case its actually more notable, then i feel like maybe the article must be expanded and if that is the case i'll be happy to help. ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 06:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nana Akosua Frimpomaa

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

The subject of the article fails WP:NPOL. Simply being a flag bearer of a political party in an election does not inherently establish notability. I proposed a deletion few days ago, but the tag was removed by the author of the article. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and Ghana. Idoghor Melody (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Idoghor Melody I was the one who created the article and I did not remove the tag for deletion. Check your facts right before making an accusation. daSupremo

18:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DaSupremo, I'm really sorry about that mix up. Idoghor Melody (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine daSupremo

22:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Describing her merely as a "flagbearer" (a vague, unrevealing term) obscures her significance as described in the article. She was the National Chairperson of the Convention People's Party. She won a Presidential Primary. She was also named Female Politician of the Year in Ghana. Her notability appears much clearer than this misleading nomination reveals. Spideog (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Spideog for your input daSupremo

19:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hello Idoghor Melody, I removed the tag because the subject clearly meets notability guidelines, and I second what Spideog has stated in support of keeping this article. Describing the subject merely as a "flagbearer" significantly downplays her notability, as Spideog rightly pointed out.

I find it surprising that the nomination suggests the subject fails WP:NPOL. The guideline clearly states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" are notable. While it’s true that "just being an elected local official or an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability", this individual exceeds those basic criteria, given her prominent leadership roles and national recognition, including her election as National Chairperson of a political party and being named Female Politician of the Year.

I would kindly advise the nominator to review the relevant notability guidelines again. This article demonstrably satisfies both the specific (WP:NPOL) and general (WP:GNG) notability standards. Repeated nominations for deletion without fully considering these criteria risk discouraging valuable contributions to Wikipedia. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 01:47, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: All what I am seeing here is WP:BLP1E. 98 percent of the Sources provided in the article are about her campaign as the flag bearer of a party to participate in an election that she did not win. 99 percent of the sources lack WP:SIGCOV and cannot be used as WP:GNG sources. Only this vaguely discusses other aspects of her life which is also tied to being a flag bearer. Also, if she had won the highest National Award of Ghana, I know this article wouldn't be in AfD. She won a non notable award, given to her by her political party. I tried to check for process of the award and could not find anything on the internet. From the above, it is very clear that this subject fails WP:NPOL and the sources cannot establish WP:SIGCOV Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055

I’m surprised by how you reviewed this article according to WP:NPOL and WP:SIGCOV. If 98% of the sources truly lack significant coverage, I wonder whether you conducted an independent review beyond the sources already provided in the article to assess the subject’s overall notability.

Additionally, I find the repeated misinterpretation of WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV concerning articles that clearly meet the criteria quite concerning. The subject may not have won an election, but WP:NPOL explicitly states that "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage" can be notable. It also clarifies that "just being an elected local official or an unelected candidate for political office does not guarantee notability", but individuals in such roles can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline. This subject, with significant coverage and recognition in Ghana, meets these standards.

I’m genuinely curious as to how your reviews are being conducted because the criteria seem to be applied inconsistently, leading to confusion and frustration.

To conclude, I believe the notability criteria in this case have been misinterpreted, and these types of reviews are discouraging and potentially misleading.—- Robertjamal12 ~🔔 11:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12 can you list three references that significantly covered the subject? Almost all her coverage both listed here or online are either about her ambition to become the president or receiving non notable awards. However, I came across a source that would have shown something better though seems like her CV with this statement According to her curriculum vitae... Yet only this cannot convince me to vote a keep. Ibjaja055 (talk) 13:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055, I’m not trying to convince you, and I won’t attempt to convince you to vote "keep." As I stated earlier, I’m genuinely curious about how your reviews are being conducted. I would kindly advise you, as a reviewer, to carefully revisit the relevant notability guidelines, specifically WP:NPOL, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Thank you. — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 13:36, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12 I think you are the one mixing things up here. You don't have to shift the post, provide the three references that meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV if you truly understand the guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ibjaja055, I am neither mandated nor obligated to provide the three references you’ve requested to prove my understanding of the guidelines. I’ve already shared my submission and reasoning for why the article should be kept.

As I mentioned earlier, I’m genuinely curious about how you review articles based on these criteria, and I’ve offered my advice accordingly. — Robertjamal12 ~🔔 14:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Robertjamal12, you are not mandated nor obligated to provide the three references that @Ibjaja055 requested, but you can express concerns about their !vote on this discussion. Nice one! Idoghor Melody (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Firstly, it would be very unnecessary to reply to my !vote, especially if you're going to be saying what you already said above. The more often you express the same ideas in a discussion, the less persuasive you become. Please don't BLUDGEON this process. Discussions are for building consensus, not for confronting everyone who disagrees with you.

NPOL#1 says that only when a politician or judge has been elected to hold an international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office or when the politician is a member of the legislative bodies of these levels, whether they have assumed the office or not, would they be presumed notable. Not when the person was only a candidate of the election, the person has to win the election. This does not include winning a political party's primary elections. Even though leaders of registered political parties at the national level are sometimes considered notable despite their party's lack of electoral success, they are subject to the same content policies as any other article and this subject fails the general notability guideline (see a detailed source analysis below).

NPOL#2 says that Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage (emphasis mine) can be presumed notable, and that means that the politician must have been written about, in-depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists, now, I don't see any of that in the coverages Nana Akosua has received so far, most of these sources are either routine coverages or cookie cutters. Below is a detailed source analysis of why Nana Akosua obviously fails the general notability guideline too.

EDIT: Also, the "Female Politician of the Year" award is a non-notable award.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.gbcghanaonline.com/news/politics/farmer-frimpomaa/2024/	~ This is Ghana's Broadcasting Corporation, a national news corporation. Would it be independent of a presidential election? Of course not. And besides, this piece is a WP:DOGBITESMAN.		This is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Provides no useful information on the subject.	✘ No
https://www.modernghana.com/news/1344146/cpp-flagbearer-promises-government-for-your-doors.html	I will initiate a..., ... she stated, For us in the CPP..., ... she added. It is also evident that this is a WP:DOGBITESMAN.	I don't see a reason to think a site that anyone can register on to post news (UGC) is a reliable source of information for English Wikipedia.	Again, this is a WP:DOGBITESMAN. Provides no useful information on the subject.	✘ No
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/NewsArchive/Why-Nana-Akosua-Frimpomaa-of-the-CPP-wants-to-become-Ghana-rsquo-s-first-female-president-1782539	Speaking with Etsey Atisu on GhanaWeb TV's Election Desk, Nana Akosua, who is also the National Chairperson of the CPP, stressed that...	This piece lacks a byline and that is very unprofessional of a news org.	Another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	✘ No
https://3news.com/elections/	Unaccessed, this is only a database.	No clear editorial oversight].	This is only a database.	✘ No
https://www.bbc.com/pidgin/articles/c1jdgrx6550o			This is another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	✘ No
https://mx24online.com/presidential-candidates/nana-akosua-frimpomaa-convention-peoples-party-cpp/		No clear editorial oversight.		✘ No
https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/politics/ghana-news-cpp-flag-bearer-election-nana-frimpomaa-onsy-nkrumah-submit-forms-promise-economic-revolution-restoration.html		~ There was no consensus on whether the paper is reliable in itself, the last time it was discussed. And even though there is a Board of Directors of the company that owns this paper, there is not clear editorial oversight of the website itself.	Obviously, not of substantial coverage about the subject here.	✘ No
https://www.graphic.com.gh/news/politics/ghana-news-rally-behind-cpp-to-break-duopoly-nana-frimpomaa-urges-electorate.html	Another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	~ Ditto	The single-sentence about her is insufficient substantial coverage.	✘ No
https://www.myjoyonline.com/refund-monies-collected-from-job-applicants-at-state-agencies-cpp-to-government/	Addressing the media at the party’s headquarters in Accra, the Chairperson of the Party, Nana Akosua Frimpomaa said... This piece is entirely dependent on the subject.	But of course, a WP:DOGBITESMAN.		✘ No
https://3news.com/news/politics/cpp-is-the-only-party-that-did-not-fail-ghanaians-chair/	Ditto	Ditto	Nothing like a substantial coverage on the subject here.	✘ No
https://www.asaaseradio.com/election-2024-nana-frimpomaa-sarpong-kumankuma-declared-cpp-flagbearer/			A political party's primary election result, another WP:DOGBITESMAN.	✘ No
https://www.myjoyonline.com/election-2024-its-no-1-for-npp-no-8-for-ndc-on-ballot-paper/			Ditto	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to respectfully raise a potential concern regarding WP:CANVASS. While appropriate notification aimed at improving participation is encouraged, WP:CANVASS warns against selectively notifying users in a way that might influence the outcome of a discussion. In this case, I’ve noticed that several editors have joined the discussion with similar reasoning and viewpoints in quick succession. This has raised questions in my mind about whether notifications were issued in a manner fully compliant with WP:APPNOTE, which requires neutrality and transparency when notifying users. I’m not making an accusation, and I recognize that notifying editors of discussions can be helpful when done correctly. However, to ensure a fair process, I would appreciate it if participants could clarify whether any notifications were issued and, if so, ensure they complied with WP:CANVASS guidelines.

Thank you. Robertjamal12 ~🔔 18:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:This subject passes the basic WP:NPOL criteria and the general English Notability criteria. Owula kpakpo (talk) 18:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Frimpomaa was an unsuccessful candidate, and the only coverage I can find of her is of her as a candidate. We do not keep these articles, but we are allowed to cover her candidacy on the election page, and a redirect there would make sense. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Oumar Dia

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

Fails WP:EVENTCRIT. It's a sad incident but many murders happen every year in the United States, and this one does not demonstrate lasting significance as required by our policies.4meter4 (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This murder is significant because of the barefaced and admitted racism motive. The murderer said he "saw the black guy and thought he didn't belong where he was at" (at a bus stop). He continued, ""How easy it would be to take him out right there, ... Didn't seem like much to me" and "In a war, anybody wearing the enemy's uniform [black skin] is an enemy and should be taken out, ... I guess I was kind of thinking about him because he was black". Also, the article describes "Protests occurred in the Denver area following the killing", conferring wider community significance. The attack also left a bystander paralysed. Spideog (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Discrimination, Events, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spideog How is racism a significant motive under WP:EVENTCRIT? The hate crimes statistics at the United States Department of Justice and the Southern Poverty Law Center indicate shockingly large numbers of racist motivated attacks. This is not an unusual motivation, sadly, for murder. Further brief protests without WP:SUSTAINED or wide coverage are not unusual. We need to see WP:DIVERSE sourcing across time to indicate notability.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep SIGCOV in several academic works, re-analyzing the events even past the initial breaking news period, passing at least #1 and #2 of EVENTCRIT (very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards). See [40] [41] [42], probably more. There was also a full article in Esquire magazine a year after the murder about it, which I think is pretty solid [43] and a retrospective magazine article [44] from 5280. The coverage at the time was also pretty extensive. While the motive itself does not make it notable, the motive tends to lead to more in depth coverage. There was also a bunch of other coverage in 2010s, this altogether demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED and WP:INDEPTH coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the two vote comments above. Notability comprehensively established with the wide coverage of the event. Mekomo (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rudra Shiva (statue)

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

Fails WP:GNG: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Current sources include two travel blogs, Tumblr, a Tripadvisor-like website, three websites promoting tourism in the area, and one news article. Suggest redirecting to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Travel and tourism, Mythology, Hinduism, India, and Chhattisgarh. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect: There does seem to be a book written about the statue which contains articles/chapters written by several scholars including Michael W. Meister and Hans T. Bakker. However, I cannot access this source presently, and the article in its current form doesn't really say anything that isn't already mentioned in the article about the temples, and I suspect parts of it were written using ChatGPT. -AmateurHi$torian (talk) 15:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex. RangersRus (talk) 15:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title of this article is actually not specific to the statue at this temple complex - Rudra is a name of Shiva / Siva (see Shiva, Rudra, and also [45], and there could be (probably are) many statues of Shiva in the form of Rudra. If anyone was searching for this particular statue, they would be likely to include a place name - and indeed, the book found by AmateurHi$torian and an article I found on Google Scholar [46] refer to it as the Tala Icon or the Tala Siva. (Both of those sources are already included as references in the article Devrani Jethani Temple Complex, though not in this article.) So I don't think it's an appropriate redirect. I think it might be more appropriate to include a photo of this statue and a link to Devrani Jethani Temple Complex in the Rudra article - or a list within that article of notable statues of Rudra - and certainly better to delete this, it doesn't add anything to what's already in the Devrani Jethani Temple Complex article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:57, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northwest Airlines Flight 188

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable aviation incident; fails Wikipedia:AIRCRASH as it did not result in aircraft damages, injuries, or fatalities. THISGUYtalk 13:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. THISGUYtalk 13:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The incident satisfies the third point under "Aircraft articles" in that essay, as well as WP:GNG. XabqEfdg (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. THISGUYtalk 13:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. THISGUYtalk 13:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The incident resulted in changes to policy/procedures in the United States, which makes it notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This event appears to meet WP:LASTING with coverage at [[47]], [[48]], [[49]], in addition to certain legislation which was sparked at least in part due to this incident. Let'srun (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dante Henderson

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

As per WP:NRSNVNA. Fails Verifiability and i couldn’t find any coverage of him. Apart from a very old Washington post mentioning him, there is no recent coverage whatsoever. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Dance. Pizza on Pineapple ^{(Let's eat🍕)} 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Missouri. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Approov

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

Fails WP:NCORP. References are routine startup news, funding and PR scope_creep^Talk 12:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will go through the first block of references in a couple of days. Written by a paid editor by the company. Promo piece. scope_creep^Talk 14:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and Scotland. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Birbhum (1743)

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

This article relies heavily on works like "Seir Mutaqherin Or View of Modern Times" and "Hooghly: The Global History of a River," which are not widely cited or considered credible in scholarly discussions on the topic, violating WP:V and WP:RS. The article contains original research, especially in its narrative of Alivardi Khan’s strategy, which is not backed by verifiable sources, thus breaching WP:NOR. The battle is portrayed in a simplistic and historically inaccurate manner, failing to provide a balanced and comprehensive view of the Maratha-Bengal conflict, and the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources makes the event non-notable, violating WP:N. CelesteQuill (talk) 12:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A book published by OUP is hardly unreliable. Content disputes should be sorted out on the talkpage, not on AfDs. LucrativeOffer (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:12, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination, no significant coverage about this battle. - Ratnahastin (talk) 05:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Minor military engagement, found no in-depth coverage in any reliable sources. Furthermore, Battle of Birbhum by name, doesn't exist as a battle by itself.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 09:43, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths of Kenny McCormick

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

This whole list is just WP:FANCRUFT, I don't think this list satisfy WP:LISTCRIT (the article is mainly supported by a fandom source) and WP:LISTPURP. This feels like a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets CSC point 2, RS coverage for the phenomenon is in the Kenny McCormick article, verification for each death is uncontroversially sourced to the relative primary source i.e., the episode listed. Jclemens (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That Kenny died repeatedly is well recognized as part of the character and of the show itself. However, documenting every single death is absolutely inappropriate for WP without secondary sources showing that the manners of death are just as important. Using only primary sourcing as the primary supporting information for the list is a violation of WP:NLIST as well as WP:V. --Masem (t) 19:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Masem. Wikipedia is not a directory, and we cover topics based on what secondary sources say about them, ideally in prose. This lacks the quality of sources to meet WP:NLIST, let alone WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Masem. The running gag of Kenny dying is a notable part of his character, and is covered in a large section of his article. That does not automatically mean that a list detailing every example of it happening is an appropriate spinout. This is essentially just a list of trivia that runs afoul of WP:NOT. Rorshacma (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comparable to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time The Simpsons characters. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTTVTROPES or some meme site. At best this could be merged to Kenny McCormick, but there are limits to listicles on Wikipedia, or at least - there should be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a functional and understandable list (and please don't degradate its usage by portraying essays as anything but an essay) the meme of Kenny's death and resurrections has been a vital part of the long-running series. Nominated just hours after its creation, this excellently presented list is about a topic known to all fans of South Park. Such lists are essential to the full coverage of both an iconic character and long-running show (I see above it took three attempts to remove the couch gags, no article should be nominated for deletion three times, or be criticized-to-extinction by citing essays). As a compact one-subject list it does not "run afoul" of WP:NOT. And per both Jclemens above and commonsense definable characteristics of major characters. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, The page "List of Deaths of Kenny McCormick" serves as an integral and well-established part of the South Park series' cultural legacy Thats why i made it in the first place. Kenny McCormick's recurring deaths are a defining characteristic of his character, and the page dedicated to cataloging these deaths plays a vital role in understanding both the show and its influence on popular culture. Deleting this page would not only disregard a significant aspect of South Park's history but also diminish the cultural relevance it holds in various discussions surrounding the show.LuanLoud 15:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a collection of fancruft that violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It frankly is trivial to list every individual episode and way this character died. The main Kenny McCormick page already provides a decent summary of the gag, which is more appropriate than needlessly splitting off the deaths into their own list. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juboraj Shamim

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

Fails WP:DIRECTOR. Debut director, all coverage about Adim only. Film might be notable, but the director isn't yet. Not eligible now, but could be in the future with more notable work, awards, or recognition. Junbeesh (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Bangladesh. Junbeesh (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Um Natal Rastônico

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No reviews, no awards, and insufficient secondary sources to demonstrate notability. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Brazil, and United States of America. Junbeesh (talk) 11:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack secondary sources or reviews and the cast do not appear to be notable actors. It fails WP:NFILM. Mekomo (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The film has a significant online engagement following on YouTube and Brasil Paralelo's streaming platform (considered the 2nd biggest in Brazil). The main star (Rasta) is a famous comedian in Brazil. About "insufficient secondary sources", Wikipedia’s guidelines allow for the use of reliable non-traditional sources. Local coverage by producer companies can - as it has in similar articles - bolster the case. I agree that there are not too many sources, but leaving the short film stub seems more than enough for this matter, as it has done in many previous articles of films (some of them with little to no online engagement at all). Examples: De la coupe aux lèvres, Lel Chamel, Khouya, Cake Day, Charlie Ve'hetzi, Une Visite, En rachâchant, Keep_Not_Silent, and many others. And it's okay, because niche films and artistic projects are often retained if they contribute to a specific cultural or artistic discourse, or if they had a relevant online presence. So even if this film doesn’t meet WP:NFILM fully, it does meet the broader standards for WP:NOTABILITY. Daniel Ben Levi (talk) 01:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marco Villanueva

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

Doesn't appear to meet the general notability guideline. Coverage is limited to database sources, apparently as a footballer made 2 substitute appearances in 2012/13 and nothing since. C 679 11:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Mexico. C 679 11:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 11:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:Notability, no question for me. Footballnerd2007 • talk ⚽ 11:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? Giant Snowman 11:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as with any proffesional footballer, there's plenty of routine, database type entries - but I'm not seeing any substantial coverage in newspapers or anywhere else. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, less notable than a person who joined an amateur theatre troupe and appeared in one play in the next town over, 20 years ago. Geschichte (talk) 12:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vinhere railway station

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

Is not notable. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JNN - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Konkan Railways. A quick google search only brought up info about the train timetable at the station, no other sources. TNM101 (chat) 08:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Maharashtra. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no explanation or justification for the claim that this station is not notable. Doesnt appear to be any WP:BEFORE research. Please come back with a better nomination statement. Garuda3 (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:08, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Koshuri Sultan (talk) 17:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guntramsdorf-Thallern railway station

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

Does not seem to be notable. No content other then it's location. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 08:02, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

İzmir–Denizli Regional

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

Tagged 5 years ago as uncited and I cannot find it on https://www.tcddtasimacilik.gov.tr/tr/ana_hat_trenleri Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sponsler, Indiana

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

A rail point, one gathers to serve the once-neighboring mine. Get hits on the name but not on the place. Mangoe (talk) 15:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Reference 4, the only reference to provide any information beyond name and coordinates, plainly says it's a rail stop. Not notable. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 17:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Not a community inn the sense required by GEOLAND. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:00, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Iqubal

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

Not a notable entrepreneur. Possible WP:BLP1E (Participation in Shark Tank India). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Bihar. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: from what I understand he's joined Shark Tank as one of the Sharks, which isn't One Event - and he appeared in a Forbes 30/30 list years before then - so the coverage is WP:SUSTAINED. I would suggest that this individual is more wikinotable than the company he founded. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC. The coverage is only about being appointed as Shark Tank judge and nothing of that announcement present him as a notable entrepreneur. In fact, all sources related to the Shark Tank have same format starting from the headline or title of those pieces through the body of those articles. The other few sources are just passing mention. The Forbes article is not significant enough to demonstrate his notability. Mekomo (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Abrams (criminal)

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

Tagged for sourcing issues since 2017. Not clear the subject meet WP:GNG or is compliant with WP:CRIMINAL.4meter4 (talk) 09:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability not established. No inline citations whatsoever. Spideog (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (?) I never know how to write these mobster articles, but he is described as a significant mobster in several books on the topic, including topical crime encyclopedias. [50] [51] [52]. I will add sources later PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the article was in those two books. Could probably be expanded further he's covered a decent amount but it at least verifies now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civionics

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

Invented discipline which is very uncommon and does not pass any notability tests. Most GS hits are for a company with this name, very little secondary sourcing. It was AfD'd in 2008 and retained them based upon the argument that it was a "nascent discipline" and had a few sources. 16 years later it can no longer be considered nascent, it is a failed neologism. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This minor (attempted?) neologism doesn't appear to have taken significant hold of the public imagination. At best, it might merit inclusion as a minor, restricted jargon in Wiktionary? But I'm not even convinced of that. Spideog (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep like a diamond for a retirement fund. I really have to ask Spideog if he did searches of the term on Google Books and Google Scholar, as those settle the case for keeping an article on this in stone. Google Scholar provides you no shortage of pieces entirely on the discipline (with its name in the headlines of these many articles), and several books, all WP:ACADEMIC from as early as 2004 all the way to 2022 have dedicated at least a page talking about this concept in detail. Some examples: A 2007 book I found dedicated an entire section about a case study of civionics. A CRC Press book from 2020 covered the usage of a civionics system on a bridge in Winnipeg, so clearly this is being incorporated into the real world. This definitely indicates a frequently-encountered subject in the world of engineering and technology. Even a normal Google search should've started giving you this coverage by the third page. Granted, all of the coverage is in academic journals, but since Wikipedia holds a crown to those above any others, and the sources for this topic are plentiful, that's really not a point against it. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 04:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abu al-Qusur

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

Does not look like it is notable, no content other than it's location and population. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Location and population meets WP:NPLACE. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 12:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems to be a census settlement. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly populated place, appears to be a census settlement which passes WP:GEOLAND. SportingFlyer T·C 03:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Bhutala

AfDs for this article:

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

Literally for all the reasons of the last delete.

Theres so much speculation (from the year it happened, to if there was even a battle...) on this page/little information that brings WP:GNG into account because there's very little coverage/accurate information on it. Noorullah (talk) 07:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The last AfD had limited participation and was based on an underdeveloped, poorly written article. However, that is not the case now. The nominator's rationale is unclear on how it fails SIGCOV and GNG when the sources have dedicated at least two pages to the event [53][54] (excluding background and aftermath). Garuda ^Talk! 12:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Garudam My view is from the significant coverage guideline;

""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." -- While the topic is covered (by the few books cited on the page), the speculation on whether a battle even happened, the years difference is alarming. I think there's just not enough information on the topic. Noorullah (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How are the two pages of coverage considered trivial mentions? Moreover, the speculation is not even about whether the battle occurred or not. All I see are speculations about the dates, which have already been addressed in a separate subsection. This should not be a reason for deletion. Garuda ^Talk! 17:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natività della Vergine, Thiene

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

No sources to establish notability per: WP:N. See talk page for more info. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion and Italy. Sheriff U3 | Talk | Con 07:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Christianity. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Ferreira

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

No significant and independent coverage, far from meeting WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Geschichte (talk) 06:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Singapore, and Brazil. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, as you can see [55]. Svartner (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the above database link was correct and the player only played seven games in Singapore in his entire career, then I struggle to even work out how the page creator found the player to make an article in the first place. His own coaching profile claims that Ferreira played in Spain's Segunda División B for the reasonably sized CP Cacereño, [56] but there is no record on the highly comprehensive BDFutbol, so even that modest claim is doubtful. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT) criteria. Non-notable career ([57]) with only 7 matches for 518 minutes playing time. QEnigma talk 05:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Otumfuo Educational Fund

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

Fails WP:NCORP and Wikipedia general notability guidelines. Almost all the sources are either primary or press releases. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Ghana, and United Kingdom. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2022–23 Moldovan Youth League

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

Youth football season with no indication of notability. Pretty much every yearly edition of this article is sourced only to primary sources. I don't see a possible redirect target, either, as no article for the youth league itself exists. JTtheOG (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 06:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG, as all other articles of the Moldovan Youth League seasons. Svartner (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joelle Forte

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and New York. Bgsu98 (Talk) 06:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is an interesting one. Forte received a couple paragraphs of coverage in the New York Times when she was 11 in an article discussing junior skaters [[58]] (although it does not pass WP:YOUNGATH, it still provides additional context to the subject). The subject also enough coverage at [[59]], [[60]], [[61]] and [[62]] to meet the WP:GNG Let'srun (talk) 15:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As per Let's run there is much more coverage on this one than the majority of AfD skating articles.Canary757 (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:23, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:48, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jayant Kashyap

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

Non-notable individual. A lot of the sources are unreliable or primary. Doesn't meet WP:NBASIC and the creator of the article appears to have a COI. Frost 00:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Poetry, and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Do credible peer-reviewed sources (or those managed by editors) over a period of time (at least since 2017) like The Poetry Society (UK), The Bombay Literary Magazine, Poetry Magazine, etc. count? As it is, one of his poems has been handed out in schools in the UK as part of a UK Dept for Education project. The same poem was presented at COP26, the United Nations Climate Conference, in 2021. His work is also known in the UK, with his forthcoming pamphlet having created somewhat of a buzz. Through The Poetry Society's partnership with the University of Hertfordshire to support their MA Animation students in producing animated films, one of Kashyap's poems was made into a short film. Several other videos of his poetry readings have also appeared on YouTube through different organisations. I'm curious—would any of this not count?

Jayant KA$HYAP (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! To clarify, things like "created a buzz" can't really be measured objectively – while it is a bi counter-intuitive, what we call "notability" is closer to "whether there is enough independent material to write an article" than to "how famous the person is". However, peer-reviewed sources commenting on him or his body of work would definitely count for notability. I haven't looked at them individually, but that is indeed very promising. The poetry readings aren't necessarily useful, as they would still be primary sources and wouldn't give more information than "X read this person's poem", except if there is significant commentary/analysis on the poems. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 16:56, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! As mentioned before, I've made sure to use statements from different websites, such as where work is reviewed and not just published, with comments from editors of journals, or people who review his work. I suppose this will increase once Kashyap's new pamphlet is out (probably around May) but until then, there are a considerable amount of sources, including news articles and press releases, that have made a mention.

Also, since it is not an autobiography, nor am I connected to the subject of the article, I'm removing the autobiography tag from the top of the page. I removed one other tag, which mentioned a lack of backlinks(?) to this page –- this I did after finding links (for this page) to several other pages. Please do let me know if there's been an issue! Also, I intend to add more discussion about the subject from a few more sources I've found. Could you please review in, say 24 hours, with the point in mind that there'll still be some material to add? Thank you!

GreenBlast4 (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see notability yet. Two pamphlets and a zine, published by small non-notable presses, that's not enough for notability. In addition, much of the content (as the nominator and others saw) lacks proper sourcing. Like, this is supposed to verify that one of the subject's poems was nominated for an award--but this is a website that publishes one of the subject's poems, and the note about the nomination no doubt came from the author, before we even get to the notability of the award, "Sundress Publication’s Best of the Net", there's the question of a. why isn't there better sourcing and b. is a nomination for this worth mentioning in the first place. And that can be repeated for many of the factoids and instances of namedropping in the article. So, "His third pamphlet, Notes on Burials, won the Poetry Business New Poets Prize in 2024, judged by the poet Holly Hopkins"--yes, but who is Holly Hopkins, and how is that Poetry Business Award (the author's writing of the article notwithstanding) a notable award contributing to notability? Drmies (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From what I understand, being nominated for both the Pushcart Prize and the Best of the Net is something big in the poetry world. People like Amitav Ghosh have won Pushcart Prizes, and there are more than a few famous poets I've read (and could name) who've been included in the BotN anthology. I remember seeing a blog post mentioning the same, and tried retrieving it best as I could – however, since you mentioned, here's a twitter/x link (from a different journal) nominated Kashyap's name: https://x.com/AtlasAndAlice/status/1707414323545493536. And oh, the magazine you noted: https://x.com/Briefly_Zine/status/1576968035248009217. As for the Poetry Business award, here's the Poetry Business article you could take a look at – I understand they're a big name in the UK, and the current UK Poet Laureate and the previous one were both first published by the said press. Friend, I understand you're making efforts to keep Wikipedia as reliable as one can, and I thank you for asking the right questions, and I understand the bit about notability. I'm still curious though that while many pages/articles with much less information are kept up, how is this one not good enough compared to those? Thanks again! GreenBlast4 (talk) 20:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lack of Wp:SIGCOV in Wp:RS. And the creator’s username indicates possible COI. Zuck28 (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 06:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per above reasoning. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I've already made efforts to explain that there is no COI, and I'd request you to believe that. This may be supported by the fact that I tend to add to pages in this area extensively. While I do not imply that I cannot be wrong at any point since the creation of the page, and during the editing process (following which edits have been made – truth is this was my first article for Wikipedia that I've written from scratch, and it took me a while learning) I do wish to assure you that I've taken steps to add details extensively and without bias. I've written about other people whose focus is the same topic as Kashyap's, and I've done my best to be as objective as possible there too. In all of the cases, I rely heavily on extensively published sources, and cross-check all of my added data to ensure a lack of errors. For example, very recently, he's been shortlisted for the TFA Awards CWE which is a competition of repute in India, with coverage by The Hindu, etc. and I've checked all links available to add the same. After the final list is released, I'll be updating the same with improved/correct citations. GreenBlast4 (talk) 21:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Develop Africa

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

Fails WP:NCORP and Wikipedia General Notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Africa, Cameroon, and Sierra Leone. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: could not find any coverage apart from primary FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eli Jae

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and Wikipedia general notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Cited sources are the usual promotional music releases and public relations, nothing we can use to write an encyclopedic entry. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It appears the subject does not have enough valid secondary sourcing to confirm notability under WP:GNG. Source #10 also says that it's from GQ South Africa, but this is a lie, it's from "Music in Africa.Net". m a MANÍ¹⁹⁹⁰ 🌵 ^{(talk | contribs)} 13:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraman Mebius (character)

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

Zero WP:SIGCOV per WP:BEFORE. Fails WP:GNG. Most of the sources is just a minimal interview (not really a reception) + a listicles/trivia content. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultraman Mebius since he is the star of that show. Zero stylinx (talk) 04:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is agreement on Redirection and the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Zero stylinx. There is a valid redirect target with a logical search term, but not enough WP:SIGCOV for its own article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ultraseven (character)

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

I tried to do a semi WP:BEFORE, but most of the sources were about the film. The sources that are currently used were mostly about listicles/rankings/top or popular lists, while the reception is an interview? mixed with merchandise. Merchandise doesn't help notability either, thus failing WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Ultraseven page, since he is the star of that show, as well as the possibility to access the page's old history log if some articles and sources are worth salvaging. And no, Greenish Pickle, don't redirect it to Ultraman franchise page or that 1966 TV show. Zero stylinx (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for a Redirect and agreement on the target article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Zero stylinx. There is a valid redirect target with a logical search term, but not enough WP:SIGCOV for its own article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amzy B

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Almost all the sources are either promotional pieces or unreliable. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable musical artist, fails WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 06:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to meet WP:GNG (WP:MUSICBIO) category. User generated social media content available. No sufficient material to establish WP:N. QEnigma talk 05:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Beat

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

I have marked this article for deletion. While I'm a big fan of Mr. Beat's work, and would ideally like this article kept, I don't think that he passes WP:GNG right now. All of the non-social media sources are local sources, or not reliable at all, indicating that he has little to no national significance. Beat is a WP:RUNOFTHEMILL content creator; achieving 1 million subscribers is a much less notable feat than it was even 10 years ago. I completed a WP:BEFORE search but I couldn't find anything meaningful that wasn't already in the article. I don't see a WP:NAUTHOR pass either, since he's released only two books, and each only has one local review. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:4D29:6661:1D4E:6058 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, History, Politics, Economics, Geography, Kansas, and Nebraska. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have little to add beyond the nominator's honest and thorough rationale. The article appears to have a lot of sources but most point toward the guy's own posts. He has a little notice from local newspapers but not enough to support an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG yet, but the BEFORE search is hard since it's all of his videos. SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. WP:SNOW keep. Nomination is withdrawn and there is a lack of delete !vote. Best, (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 22:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MonoMono

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

Cannot find any significant coverage for this band which only existed for about five years, according to the article.

Article does not make any of the claims for notability found in WP:BAND. Book/print sources seem to just be brief, in-passing mentions from what I can tell. A couple other mentions exist [63] but are again slight passing mentions. The dead pop matters source covers the band slightly in-depth but is the only one I can find; WP:BAND requires multiple. archived

It seems as if Joni Haastrup, lead member of the band, may be notable in and of himself and deserving of an article but this project band does not seem to be.

~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 04:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A quick search identified WP:RSMUSIC critical reviews:[64], [65], and coverage in Pitchfork: [66] stating one of their songs was a "prime example of the melting pot that West African popular music was in the 70s". Monomono appears to be a culturally significant band with multiple sources available; and given the time period we can presume there are further offline. ResonantDis_tortion 14:05, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Further independent sourcing of this band: Austin Chronicle, Exclaim!, and there is a blog post in the LA Times. ResonantDis_tortion 14:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per ResonantDistortion. The article requires minor cleanup though but the band is definitely notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - In addition to the sources found by Res.Dis. above, I will add that via a Google Books search, one will find that this band is mentioned in every existing book about 1970s Nigerian rock music, many books about Nigerian music history in general, and many biographies of their more famous associate Fela Kuti. The article needs to be cleaned up and reinforced with better sources, but there is plenty of support for the band's notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 16:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw: With the evidence presented in the above Keeps which I had missed in my own research, I withdraw my nomination. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 20:56, 18 January 2025 (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.

List of Indian Premier League awards

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

All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics - similar to every other cricket leagues. Also, this page is just WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's unusual that I simply say, per nom, but in this case that applies. A redirect might be possible and might just stop this article getting re-created Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because the IPL takes every stat is can think of an then sells someone sponsorship for an "award" for it, that doesn't mean we need this awards article. All sufficiently covered in the stats article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The closest analog is Women's Big Bash League, the longest-standing women's T20 franchise league. Women's Big Bash League#Season summaries has a table listing the recipients of the "Most runs", "Most wickets", "Player of the Tournament", and "Young Gun" awards for each season, essentially the same as IPL's "Orange Cap", "Purple Cap", "Most Valuable Player", and "Emerging Player" awards covered in this article. IPL's Orange and Purple Caps have also received significant independent coverage in major cricket news websites, such as ESPNcricinfo. The merge target proposed by @Vestrian24Bio, List of Indian Premier League records and statistics has a different scope, focusing on all-time records, analogous to Women's Big Bash League#Statistics and records. Finally, merging to Indian Premier League#Awards is not an option here as the main IPL article is 173,624 bytes (almost twice the size of the corresponding WBBL article). I would support the removal of sections covering sponsored awards of negligible importance — I would be surprised if the Visit Saudi beyond the boundary longest six award has received much independent coverage — but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Preimage (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Preimage: Not sure how this is relevant to WBBL, but even WBBL doesn't have separate articles for this... And also ESPNcricinfo isn't a news website but a WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Vestrian24Bio, you stated similar to every other cricket [league] — which is manifestly not the case. ESPNcricinfo (together with The Cricket Monthly, its longform magazine) is widely considered to be one of the top non-paywalled websites covering cricket. Even Wisden's weighted in here — admittedly, the first hit I found was an article on how cricket's long-standing focus on aggregate runs is statistically illiterate and should be replaced with Moneyball-style advanced metrics — but the point is that these awards are considered to be conventionally important. I'd support a merge into Indian Premier League if we could combine the 4/5 most important awards into a single table as the WBBL article manages to do. Merging into the records and statistics article isn't really an option though, its scope is just too different. Preimage (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Awards like Orange Cap, Purple Cap and MVP are all noteworthy and covered widely not only in India but outside India too: [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73]. In India, any changes to the holders of these caps and leaderboards receive extensive coverage throughout the season: [74] [75] [76] [77]. In fact, the caps are physically worn on the field by their current holders over the course of the tournament, so these are actual awards with significance and not just stats. As such, merging this article with the proposed target would not be appropriate. A like-for-like comparison would be the FIFA World Cup awards article which covers awards such as Golden Ball, Golden Boot and Golden Glove. The delete voters sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Yuvaank (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AGF, my vote is based on this being a WP:CFORK of the stats article. I know what all these "awards" are. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except it isn't a WP:CFORK of the stats article and are actual notable awards as can be seen with the sources I presented. Your usage of double quotes for the word awards just goes to illustrate WP:IDONTKNOWIT unfortunately. Yuvaank (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FIFA World Cup awards won't even be a proper comparison as it's an international competition as opposed to IPL which is a domestic competition. Vestrian24Bio 03:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it is a domestic competition or international is besides the point. The basic premise of your nomination is that these awards are not notable and are merely stats. I presented sources from 6 different countries that prove that these are indeed awards–notable ones at that–which have received sustained coverage globally over the years. FWIW, here are some awards from domestic competitions: La Liga Awards, Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, Bundesliga Awards. You also invoked WP:CONSISTENT in your nomination statement, which is a policy on article titles. Yuvaank (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT, individual coverage of Orange Cap and Purple Cap wouldn't make the list notable. Vestrian24Bio 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay and not a guideline/policy set in stone. The notability of the list itself is established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. It is seems individual articles on Indian Premier League Orange Cap and Indian Premier League Purple Cap, which were created by @Magentic Manifestations back in 2015, were merged into this list by @Vin09. I can see the reasoning behind the merge, although these two awards are likely to be notable in their own right. Yuvaank (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - People arguing for this topic being notable are arguing on the basis of individual items listed in it being notable, but notability is not inherited. Neither can an sub-topic inherit the notability of an over-arching topic, nor can an over-arching topic inherit the notability of sub-topics within it. Fails WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. IPL's yearly awards are presented as part of the post-match ceremony at the end of each IPL final. They are covered as a group each year in regular news coverage of the final (e.g. [78]), as well as in post-season articles like [79] (comparing ESPNcricinfo's own set of awards to the official IPL 2023 Orange Cap, Purple Cap, Player of the Final, and Player of the Tournament awards). Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I'd appreciate it if you could also comment on the merge suggestions: the original nominator's comment All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics sounds like a proposed merge (to be posted at WP:PM) rather than an AfD nomination to me. If you do consider a merge appropriate, I'd argue that Indian Premier League#Awards would be the best target (as this list was a WP:SUBARTICLE split off for reasons of length), but I'm open to other suggestions: you clearly have more policy expertise in this space than I do. Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with a redirect/merge - it's verifiable content. Not sure about those sources: the first seems to be about the ceremony, the second about Cricinfo's stats. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: sourcing, I'm working off WP:SIGCOV, which states "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, ... [it] is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The topic of the article we are looking at is 'who won the IPL awards each season?'

The first source is titled IPL 2024 final awards and prize money: Complete list of winners including Orange Cap, Purple Cap and more. It's a beat report to inform readers 'who won stuff last night?', which starts by covering the events of the final, before switching to the award winners. It has a paragraph covering (what it presumably considers to be) the three most important awards, the Orange Cap, Purple Cap, and Emerging Player of the Season, then provides a full list of winners. While the article doesn't go into a huge amount of detail on each award besides listing its monetary value, the list of award winners shares primary-topic status with the winners of the final.

The second source is an ESPNCricinfo post-season analytics article discussing who they consider to be the most impactful players from the 2023 season. It closely references the major IPL award-winners, starting with its opening phrase: Faf du Plessis, and not Shubman Gill, is the most valuable player of the IPL 2023. It reminds readers that Shubman Gill won the MVP and Orange Cap awards two paragraphs later: The Player-of-the-Tournament and the Orange Cap winner Gill was part of a team that had more batters who took up the slack, before noting the Emerging Player of the Season, Yashasvi Jaiswal, was 3rd in their ranking. After more batting discussion, it switches to the bowlers: Mohammed Shami - the Purple Cap winner - came second to Siraj in terms of Bowling Impact per match. While the IPL awards are only a secondary topic of this article, it discusses the four most important/prestigious season-length player award-winners in detail, alongside comparisons to the players their analytics suggest were statistically the best. Preimage (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ESPNcricinfo sources fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The ESPNcricinfo article we've been discussing here is clearly an in-depth news/analytics article (WP:INDEPTH), rather than WP:ROUTINE event coverage. To quote @Black Kite from the latest (2023) WP:RSN discussion in which Cricinfo/ESPNcricinfo is mentioned, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Reliability of cricket databases:
You're assuming that both sites are purely databases. They aren't. They're actually some of the highest quality sources for cricket, regardless of the fact that their websites also include databases.

Preimage (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay though, not a policy or guideline. The list's notability can be established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. Yuvaank (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion on what should happen with this article continues up to today. There doesn't seem to be much debate about sourcing but about whether or not this article is a FORK and whether the content are just stats or notable subjects in their own right. And in the past day, participants have brought up the possibility of a Merge which I think is due more consideration. But if participants could just refer to policies, not essays, and give fuller arguments than just a Keep or Delete and consider other options, it will make closing this discussion in a few days easier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naf War

AfDs for this article:

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

This war is at best a clash with RS attesting it as a event that fails WP:MILNG with routine coverage only. I performed a search and went through sources used on the article and found the following:

van Schendel (in English) does not mention this clash. I added this source to the article because:
van Schendel (translated in 2017) mentions this clash in passing as happening in 2001
Ahmed (Jago News) explicitly discusses how the Naf War was exaggerated by Major General Fazlur Rahman on a talk show.
Tehran Times - article I was able to find through a google search, not the most reliable but is mostly routine coverage from 13 Januray 2001
BBC - article I restored from the 1st deletion, which also describes a short clash on 8 January 2001 and was absent from this article was re-created.
Mahbub Miah (alo.com.bd) describes the War as starting in January 1 2000 and has questionable neutrality and is the lone standout
Online Bangla News- source is peacocking and is the only source that uses January 8 2000

At the very least, the last two sources disagree with other sources I could find and with each other. If we discard those two as unreliable sources, there is not enough coverage for a standalone article. This article should be deleted or at least dratified until a narrative can be ascertained from reliable sources.

For context, this article was deleted before for the same reason as a soft delete due to minimal participation. Editor recreated the article from scratch instead of undeleting. Please do note that I attempted to improve the article as I review and found sources, which is the reason for the directly contradictory information currently present. Prior to my edits, the narrative followed the Mahbub Miah source but with the dates from the Online Bangla News source. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 04:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument for the removal of this article is not valid. Sufficient references have been provided here, which detail the incident comprehensively. Claiming that the sources are unreliable does not seem appropriate, as the diversity of sources still represents a significant event.
Furthermore, various documents have been incorporated into the article, making the content more credible and informative. An article enriched with references and documents should not be deleted solely due to discrepancies among sources. Instead, such articles should be further improved through discussion and coordination to ensure accuracy. Therefore, I oppose the proposal to delete this article and believe it should be retained. Tanvir Rahat (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
New sources added:
Eshomoy article has the same issues as the Online Bangla News article- using several peacocking terms like "The infinite heroism of the Border Guard Bangladesh" and contradiction the Mahbub Miah article by saying that "It is worth mentioning here that the Bangladesh Army did not participate in this war."

Justice.gov article does not mention any clash that occured in 2000.

Imran Choudhury article is a blog, and is not a reliable source as it is a WP:USERGENERATED source
Thank you for improving the article with more sources, but we now have three sources supporting that there was anything more than a minor skirmish- two that agree on key details and one that doesn't. These three then contradict three other sources, including reliable sources from 2001.

The question here is in part, WP:SIGCOV for an event that goes beyond routine coverage in reliable sources. However, my nominiaton is mostly about verifiability (deletion reason 7). Attempts to find reliable sources to verify the claims in the Alo and Eshomoy articles have failed. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 13:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the sources and citations given in the Bengali Language Wikipedia which still states 600 killed and most of the citations were self-blog pages uploaded back in 2021-2022. For reference heres the bengali wikipedia নাফ যুদ্ধ. And self blog pages like [80], [81] . None of the official Bangladesh media like BBC Bangla or Prothom Alo states 600 Myanmar army were killed, instead it was just a clash. Also, it's not accurate to refer to it as a "war." It should be termed "Clashes in the Naf River". Next adding to that, I haven't been able to find any coverage of this war from Western media either. That said, I believe this article is unnecessary and I strongly request its deletion. Tuwintuwin (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ribu

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

Not apparently notable. Sourcing seems largely to a book or websites by Daniel Quinn. No evidence of wider sigcov or notability Golikom (talk) 03:40, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Geography, and Indonesia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Ribu classification system offers a valuable framework for identifying and studying prominent peaks worldwide, particularly in regions where topographic prominence has been underexplored. The concept has gained recognition in the mountaineering community and is referenced on platforms such as Peakbagger and the Relative Hills Society. Similar classification systems, such as Ultras, are widely regarded as notable due to their influence on geography and outdoor activities.

According to the Ribus media and article page, the Ribu concept has received coverage in newspapers, magazines, and online media across multiple countries, including the UK, US, Indonesia, and Austria, with references dating back to 2009 and as recently as this month. This international attention demonstrates sustained interest and relevance. Additionally, recent research has improved mountain infoboxes on Wikipedia, particularly in terms of prominence and listings, addressing gaps in geographical data.

Given the concept’s role in fostering exploration, environmental awareness, and its documented coverage over many years, the Ribu classification meets Wikipedia's general notability guidelines for significant, reliable, and independent coverage. Urlatherrke (talk) 18:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete GBook and GScholar come up with essentially nothing relevant. People do estash a class of first-class peaks by height, but this isn't it. Mangoe (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well of course it isn't a list of 'first-class peaks by height'. It is about topographic prominence rather than height, and defined wholly by the figure of 1000 metres rather than subjective concerns such as whether or not a given mountain might be 'first-class'. Urlatherrke (talk) 22:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George de Meo

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

Tagged for notability and sourcing since 2017. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
del no evidence of notability. --Altenmann >talk 04:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Crime, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ quite a bit of coverage here [82] [83] [84] [85], for his weapons dealing was "the single most important source of weapons" of The Troubles, quite the claim to notability as evidenced by sigcov. That is without looking into newsy/other book sources (if you are unsatisfied by the sources I have provided or want me to incorporate them into the article, please ping me I will attempt to find more). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also several pages of coverage in A Secret History of the IRA (though that might be moreso on Harrison). PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:41, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA Thank you for finding these. Anything you are willing to do to improve the article is much appreciated.4meter4 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Changing vote since, while notable, everything he is notable for is summed up at Provisional Irish Republican Army arms importation. ATM I do not see the content for a split, and since his notability is tied up in so many other people I think this is best for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:39, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Celts (1978 TV series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. All citations are just scripts and schedules DonaldD23 talk to me 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, United Kingdom, and Wales. DonaldD23 talk to me 03:27, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Davies, Bernard (1975-06-09). "One Man's Television". Broadcast. No. 814. p. 19. ProQuest 1776921097.
  The review provides about 589 words of coverage about the subject. The review notes: "Last week's 'Chronicle' programme, The Celts (BBC 2, Wednesday), seemed to me to adorn its topic rather more than to explain it. Indeed, although it was packed full of information, and although the Heavy Brigade of archaeology—Professor Stuart Piggott and others—moved through it in echelon of squadrons, the programme was, as it were, inefficiently informative; the information was, no doubt, all there, but it did not come across. At least, here is one viewer—anxious to be informed, eager for enlightenment—who found at the end of the program-me that he had learned little new."
  The review notes: "Not, then, a documentary in the educational nuts-and-bolts style of, say, an Open University programme on topology (whatever that is), but a sort of reflective essay in the style of Montaigne or—more appropriately—Haz-litt, in which the author explores a theme from a personal standpoint; a theme which he adorns rather than explains. 'The Celts' conveyed a sense of enthusiasm for its subject which, surely, is a legitimate and important function of documentary. One may criticise it, unfairly, because it did not approach its subject in the style of a school or university textbook; one may criticise it, less unfairly, because the manner sometimes got in the way of the matter; one must, however, acknowledge the rare pleasure conferred by 'The Celts' as a creative programme, and the remarkable way in which it re-sensitised one's somewhat atrophied taste-buds to the achievements of Celtic peoples."
2. Brayfield, Celia (1975-05-28). "Programme guide compiled by Celia Brayfield". Evening Standard. ProQuest 2712585962. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "The Celts. After Saturday's soccer international we in London hardly need to ask "Who were the Celts?" But this series is almost invariably fascinating and this piece of archaeological detective work should be well worth overcoming our prejudices to see. David Parry-Jones finds the Celts a vain lot—inclined to do battle with the Romans without helmets for fear of spoiling their coiffures. They were also, it seems, widespread throughout Europe notorious drunks, addicted to human sacrifice, ruled by wild-eyed Druids and capable of producing the finest art forms of any early European people."
3. Day-Lewis, Sean (1975-05-29). "Television: Girl of compassion in Vietnam war". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2025-01-18. Retrieved 2025-01-18 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Commentary is unavoidable in television archaeology, but why David Parry-Jones had to compete with a battery of symphony orchestras and at least one choir in the sound track of J. Mervyn Williams's history of The Celts (BBC-2) I cannot imagine. In truth this was not among best-organised issues of "Chronicle." It was untidy in minor matters like the identification of speakers and left the major issue of where the Celts originated in a kind of Celtic twilight somewhere the plains of Hungary. The principal achievement was to reinforce the prejudices of those who dislike the Celts. One Anne Ross declared that they had lost Maiden Castle in Dorset to the Romans through drink and because they were better at making a noise than fighting. The script of Emyr Humphreys was a bit free with its generalisations."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow The Celts to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Either this series was not made in 1978, or the three reviews found by Cunard are not about this series. I'm going to take some time to work out which it is, and if, whenever it was made and wherever it was shown, it is notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @DonaldD23: - The scripts were apparently deemed notable enough by the National Library of Wales to have been archived by them in the first place. Ubcule (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israelis in China

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

Does not seem to really pass GNG for a article by itself on the basis of a claim that at one randomly cited year (2005) 150 Israelis happened to be in China. That is such a trivially small number. A few bus loads of people that happen to be in a country is not notable. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, 130 people... even lower. Iljhgtn (talk) 03:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: China and Israel. Heart ^(talk) 03:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Terrible reason for nomination: I'm sorry, but articles about veterans that are citizens of Western countries alive today should be deleted by like this logic, as they usually make up 1% of the population. I'll admit to having trouble finding coverage about China citizens that are Israeli immigrants, as it seems to be significantly overshadowed by relations between the states of Israel and China, but I am absolutely sick of seeing invalid AFDs like this as of late. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 03:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll admit to having trouble finding coverage about China citizens that are Israeli immigrants – Hi HumanxAnthro (talk · contribs). I've found some sources that I've listed below. Cunard (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Cunard kicking ass again with a Judaism-related AFD. You go! User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 17:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously fails GNG. A mere handful of non-notable people, that's all, nothing else. Close to a million people who are not Chinese citizens live in China. One sentence in China–Israel relations would cover this topic adequately. Zero^talk 04:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect to History of the Jews in China. --Altenmann >talk 04:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a good option. Zero^talk 05:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to China–Israel relations, there is no reason for a seperate article. Esolo5002 (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Shai, Aron (2019). China and Israel: Chinese, Jews; Beijing, Jerusalem (1890–2018). Jewish Identities in Post-Modern Society. Boston: Academic Studies Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctv209xmn8. ISBN 978-1-618118-94-3. JSTOR j.ctv209xmn8. Retrieved 2025-01-11 – via Google Books.
  The book notes on page 239: "This book covers three axes: historical-political, economic-trade, and personal-communal (the Jews and Israelis in China)."
  The book notes on page 128: "Shaul Eisenberg’s extensive experience in China paved the way for other Israeli businesspeople, both directly and indirectly—but where Eisenberg met with enormous success, many others experienced only failure." The book notes on page 129: "Bruno Landesberg, controlling owner and former chairman of Sano-Bruno Enterprises Ltd., a major Israeli cleaning products company, was first drawn to the Chinese market after a Chinese delegation that visited Israel in the 1980s expressed interest in his products. Delegation members proposed that they establish a similar factory in China. Landesberg was excited by the idea and began to act. Along the way he was enchanted by the Chinese culture and people. He set himself the goal of putting down stakes in China. First he consulted with Shaul Eisenberg, and the two began to work together in the early 1990s."
  The book notes on page 137: "Amos Yudan, one of the first Israelis to develop business relations with China, had a definitive opinion on the fates of Sano and Osem there.240 In the case of Sano, he believed that the main error was in the company’s structure."
2. Medzini, Meron (2019-07-10). "The sixth wave - Israeli communities in East and South East Asia". International Journal of Business and Globalisation. Vol. 23, no. 1. pp. 153–165. doi:10.1504/IJBG.2019.100840.
  The article notes: "One study has shown that at least 70% of small businesses started by Israelis in China have failed (Medzini, 2016b). They could not deal with the local language, culture, laws and regulations and legal system. They do not have the stamina it takes to build a business in Asia, nor do they have the time ..."
3. Menahem, Sarit (2010-02-05). "'Land of Challenging Opportunities': Israeli businesses have a lot to offer China, and are appreciated by their counterparts there. But they still have some basic lessons to learn if they want to succeed in its highly competitive climate". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.
  The article notes: "Paztal and other Israeli businessmen constitute a small business community in China, most of which is concentrated in Beijing and Shanghai; in the former, there are an estimated 400-500 Israeli families. "Based on data gathered by the consulate, it is hard to say just how many Israelis are here, because not all of them are registered. There is a small group of veterans that has been here for over a decade. At consulate events you see a lot of new faces," explains Arie Schreier, vice president of PTL Group, who has lived in China for the past six years. The population of Israelis in China's large cities is composed mainly of independent business owners, who have succeeded in establishing small- to medium-sized firms. These businesses deal in the export of Chinese goods, high-tech, Internet, security and food products, as well as real estate. ... An impressive number of Israelis arrive via employee relocation by large Israeli companies or multinationals operating in China. These include Nice, Israel Chemicals, ECI, Intel, John Bryce and HP."
4. Gurău, Călin; Dana, Leo-Paul; Katz-Volovelsky, Erez (August 2020). "Spanning transnational boundaries in industrial markets: A study of Israeli entrepreneurs in China". Industrial Marketing Management. 89: 389–401. doi:10.1016/j.indmarman.2020.01.008.
  The abstract notes: "This study investigates Israeli transnational entrepreneurs who provide B2B intermediation services in China. To understand the dynamic evolution of their profile and activity, we apply an interpretative framework that combines practice theory and boundary spanning models to analyze six case studies of Israeli transnational entrepreneurs in China. The findings indicate a gradual evolution of their personal and professional profile, determined by a dynamic interdependence between various forms of capital, entrepreneurial habitus, and circumstantial factors. They mobilize a combination of social, cultural, economic and symbolic capital to span organizational, country, cultural and stage boundaries between Israeli and Chinese individuals and organizations."
5. Hellman, Ziv (2010-10-11). "Setting up shop in China". The Jerusalem Report. p. 30. ProQuest 845443912.
  The article notes: "Israelis seeking to do business in China, however, face several hurdles, mostly due to significant cultural differences that make relating to the Chinese market a greater challenge than selling to Europeans or Americans. Organizations devoted to introducing China to Israelis have emerged in recent years to answer this need. ... Sitting in IsCham's offices in a high-rise office building overlooking a major motorway in eastern Beijing, Tzur looks completely comfortable working in China, effortlessly explaining to a Beijing taxi driver how to find the office tower over the phone in his native language. Tzur has been the executive director of IsCham's Beijing chapter for two years, since its inception, and was an obvious choice given her background. ... Tzur has led tours of Israelis in China and immersed herself in the study of the Chinese language at the university in Beijing.The work at IsCham might seem a detour in what could be a budding diplomatic career in China, but Tzur says she is very pleased with what she has accomplished there. "We have only had two years of existence," she points out, "and I have already seen how much we have managed to assist Israelis trying to get a start in business here. We have also signed cooperation agreements with 20 other national chambers of commerce operating in Beijing and Shanghai."
6. Less significant coverage:
  1. "Israeli visa curbs ended after meeting". South China Morning Post. 2001-11-06. p. 9. ProQuest 2420383595. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.
    The article notes: "Terrorism-related visa restrictions threatening the business of about 300 Israeli companies with offices in China were lifted a day after last month's Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (Apec) meeting in Shanghai, a Western diplomat said yesterday. ... Israeli business people said at the time it was unfair to be lumped in with terrorists and forced to cancel visits to clients. ... Israelis in China considered postponing trips home for fear their return would be barred. Israeli building security firm ICD Ltd chief executive Ron Efron said he might have laid people off had the restrictions persisted, because two key people stuck outside China forced the firm to forgo business."
  2. Wagner, Mattew (2007-06-03). "Chinese TV airs Elyashiv's opposition to organ harvesting: Conference at Beilinson to discuss Israeli exploitation of Chinese organ trafficking". The Jerusalem Post. Archived from the original on 2025-01-11. Retrieved 2025-01-11.
    The article notes: "Some private insurance companies still fund Chinese organ transplants. Dr. Jacob Levee, director of the heart transplant unit at Sheba Medical Center, put the figure since 2004 at 200-300 kidney transplants performed on Israelis in China, 20 heart transplants and 10 liver transplants."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Israelis in China to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The topic Israelis in China meets Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I considered whether Israelis in China should be covered in a standalone article or in History of the Jews in China. I think many of the sources I listed here call the subjects Israelis (and many don't say whether the subjects are also Jews). So it would be original research and possibly inaccurate to assume all the Israelis discussed in those sources are Jews and to cover the topics in History of the Jews in China. I also considered whether to merge this article to China–Israel relations. The sources focus on the Israeli businesspeople who live in China and not as much on the relations between China and Israel, so the material from these sources probably doesn't all fit in the relations article. I concluded that it's probably best to have a standalone article for Israelis in China. Cunard (talk) 11:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and procedural keep. Keep, as the article meets the WP:GNG based on the sources provided by Cunard. Procedural keep, due to the lack of a coherent rationale for deletion. If a single person can be deemed notable, why can't a group of 130 be notable by definition? Arguments such as there can't be sources, there can't be notability, there must be sources, there must be notability reflect a misunderstanding of our central policies. We assess articles based on criteria such as WP:NEXIST, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NOT. Given this, I conclude that both "keep" and "procedural keep" are warranted and can be expressed together, as they lead to the same outcome through different avenues. gidonb (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources provided by Cunard are sufficient to meet GNG. Jumpytoo Talk 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am really puzzled about this idea above of holding Israelis equal or near-equal to Jews. What is the basis for that? gidonb (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, the idea of redirecting this to History of the Jews in China does not make sense to me either. I've met one Israeli in China, and he was Druze, not Jewish. In any case, the sources found by Cunard are enough to keep. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input and support. I am personally very big on mergers. I believe our encyclopedia is way too fragmented. However, mergers (and redirects) need to make sense! gidonb (talk) 14:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus right now and at least one participant who objects to equating Israelis with Jews so that makes one Merge/Redirect target article unacceptable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Society for the Defence of Palestinian Nation

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

Organization is not notable. Page is also poorly translated and extremely antisemitic, peddling the Zionist Occupied Government conspiracy theory as fact, among other things Pyramids09 (talk) 02:09, 18 January 2025 (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/2025 January 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, Iran, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, this organization is likely notable, I've been able to find significant coverage, a quick search can lead to [86] and [87] in addition, it appears the organization is rather significant in Iranian politics, since both Hossein Amirabdollahian and Zahra Mostafavi Khomeini seem to have had affiliation with the organization. There's probably sources that aren't in English that could be used as well. The main issue of the article is how it is written, this article certainly does have brazen WP:NPOV issues, but that is something that can and should be fixed. I think maybe we could Draftify the article until these issues are fixed if necessary. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The propaganda of the Iranian medieval regime is well-known and does not need promotion on Wikipedia. If spreading chaos in the Middle East is considered defending the Palestinian cause, then indeed, the Palestinians might need it! Valorthal77 (talk) 19:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a notable organization, from a quick search seems to be a fairly major organization in Iran, organizing mass protests, international conferences, running a publishing house, etc.. The WP:IDONTLIKEIT argumentation in this AfD debate don't hold up. --Soman (talk) 01:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karnaval (song)

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

Karnaval is not in and of itself more notable than any of the 29 other FiK 63 losers. Its article consists of: some basic information about the release, identical to that of other FiK entries that were commercially released; a short review section, using only one source that reviews many non-notable songs; information about Festivali i Këngës, which could equally apply to any other FiK entry; credits and personnel, track listing and release history, which are not independently notable. This *could* count as a reasonably detailed article but not more so than that of many other entries that are not given articles because it's understood that they are not notable. It hasn't been ranked on a chart, it hasn't won an award (second place is not an award, otherwise I'd like to see an article for Evita which actually won FiK), it hasn't been independently released by several notable artists, etc. Maybe deserving of an article had it won FiK and progressed to Eurovision, but it didn't. Toffeenix (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Albania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:06, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elvana Gjata, because duh. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 03:30, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. "because duh" is not an adequate explanation for any outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elvana Gjata The song along does not meet WP:NSONG. SallyRenee (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonah Herscu

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage of this assistant basketball coach to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was coverage from his days as a high school basketball player (1), which I think would fail WP:YOUNGATH anyways. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, Illinois, and Massachusetts. JTtheOG (talk) 02:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Herscu gets quoted a lot, but is not the subject of news articles. Does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC SallyRenee (talk) 03:19, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1901)

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

Local club without significant, non-routine coverage. All we have are match reports, mostly from very local sources, which are primary sources, not the required secondary sources needed to meet WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Football, and England. Fram (talk) 11:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: am biased as I created it, but helps to avoid confusion with other Cleethorpses, and they did get quite deep in the FA qualifying rounds.

Unfortunately am stuck with local sources because the British Newspaper Archive is no longer available to editors. There are long-standing stub pages extant for clubs of a similar stamp who did not have such good Cup runs. We probably need a definition of Notable for football, but note that the current Cleethorpes Town has not lasted as long a period as this one, plays at a lower level, and has been less successful in the FA Cup. Would it not be recency bias to have the current one but not a predecessor? In Vitrio (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Fram (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's relevant in this case - other stuff is evidence that a long run of FA Cup qualifying appearances has long been considered Notable and it does not seem to have been controversial. Especially as the club's run in 1919–20 made them one of the last 90 clubs in the competition, i.e. equivalent of Second Round Proper nowadays. There is not a page for the 1919–20 Qualifying Rounds yet, but in the 1920–21 FA Cup qualifying rounds page, every club reaching that particular stage has its own entry, so if notable in 1920, why not 1919? In Vitrio (talk) 14:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Having an article doesn't necessarily mean being notable, just that perhaps no one has checked thoroughly. That's what "otherstuffexists" basically means, you are arguing that other articles are notable or that other similar articles about less notable subjects exist, but you aren't arguing how you will resolve the lack of secondary sources which means that this topic doesn't meet WP:GNG. We judge articles on AfD based on policies and guidelines, not on other articles. Fram (talk) 14:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that in EVERY other instance, for a decade, teams which have reached this stage have either been accepted as Notable or nobody has even thought to challenge their notability. Hence all their pages are still standing. I don't get why the exception for this one side. That I cannot find more sources is more down to my access than anything else, and given a start I'd think others could find more. In Vitrio (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It has three local newspapers in addition to at least two books of specialized literature covering the content. Considering the club existed until the late 1940s, isn't that enough? Svartner (talk) 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The books are about Grimsby Town FC, not about Cleethorpes FC. Fram (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't really see any problem with the sourcing as a quick search of the British Newspaper Archives brings up more than just local coverage and merging this into one of the other Cleethorpes Town articles doesn't really make sense, but at worst merge to the Cleethorpes Town F.C. (1884) article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you add some of the non-local coverage please? Giant Snowman 08:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive apart from the search. Just trying to confirm it's notable, not improve it. SportingFlyer T·C 23:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:31, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep—If additional sources, as described above can be added to the article, I'll support keeping it more wholeheartedly. Anwegmann (talk) 02:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We seem to be operating on the vibes of notability more than the kinds of keep !votes that would establish consensus with this level of participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Fram. Could you describe the content to me in the first two sources: "Sport & play" and "The football field". I'm not expecting much from the first, as this looks like it would be nothing more than an announcement, but otherwise I'd be surprised if the second source, citing the club's change of name, hasn't included some coverage of the past few years of the club's history. You have explicitly stated there is only match reports, so which matches are these first two sources reporting on? Could you also explain to me how these WP:TIER3 sources are primary, rather than secondary sources that lack independence from the subject? If these are indeed secondary sources, what is the involvement with the subject, based on the content, that excludes them from SIGCOV? I'm otherwise torn on this, at present in the article there is almost certainly not enough for GNG (although, unable to verify this), and from searching through some books there was only passing coverage. I'd expect a lot more coverage from a club in involved in the early history of English football, but I also don't have access to BNA either. CNC (talk) 13:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watts Water Technologies

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

OK, lets see what the references here suggest.

Reference 1 is from GlobalData, which would at first glace appear to be a reliable source. That said, it would seem verify that a company of this name simply exists, and does not support its notability as a corporate entity
Reference 2 simply asserts that this company is a subsidiary of Emerson Swan, an article that I can see has never been created. While not in any determinative, this would appear that a notional WP:REDIRECT from subsidiary to parent company would have negligible chance of passing a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Reference 3 is from that respected broadsheet Foster's Daily Democrat. That said, the lack of a byline and the text "Webster Valve, Inc" suggests that it may possibly be paid content rather than journalistic content
reference 4 is a Home Depot link that I am unable to access.
reference 5 is a product page from Lowe's
reference 6 is an assertion on Yahoo Finance that Watts Water Technologies is listed (as "WTS") on the New York Stock Exchange

It would appear to me that this more complex than a simple WP:A7 about a historical manufacturer of plumbing fixtures and a local company in Franklin, New Hampshire. As always, please do let me do know if you disagree, revert without an edit summary, or whatever you chose otherwise. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Watts is a component of the S&P 400. That alone makes it notable. KMaster888 (talk) 12:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not a subsidiary. KMaster888 (talk) 12:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on @KMaster888's argument

Taksoh17 (talk) 14:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would counter that being listed on a stock exchange does not make a company notable, as per WP:LISTED. Coverage by independent sources is still required to meet notability. SallyRenee (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment: looking back over this, it might appear to an independent observer that is an instance of the AFD process being used to basically repair an article, rather than assess it on its merits, and lacked an initial policy-based deletion rationale. Those should have included WP:CORP, WP:GNG and any number of other policies and guidelines. Heck, it looks like this to me, and I am the nominator. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 10:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Think this could do with more eyes.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Not a lot of in-depth news coverage but there are analyst reports available and thus this passes WP:NCORP per WP:LISTED. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:44, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable independent sources are available, thus meets WP:CORP, i.e.:
- It doesn't mix with oil, and the market is drinking it up (2005). . New York: New York Times Company. Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/blogs-podcasts-websites/doesnt-mix-with-oil-market-is-drinking-up/docview/2227109456/se-2
- Water-products firm's profits boost stock: [1 edition]. (2006, Nov 02). Boston Globe Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/water-products-firms-profits-boost-stock/docview/405041058/se-2
- WATTS WATER: [THIRD EDITION]. (2006, Aug 03). Boston Globe Retrieved from https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/watts-water/docview/405029416/se-2
- New foundry will produce lead-free plumbing products. (2013, Jun 24). The Union Leader Retrieved from url=https://www.proquest.com/newspapers/new-foundry-will-produce-lead-free-plumbing/docview/1374230277/se-2 SallyRenee (talk) 02:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with Dclemens above, there are analyst reports (beyond reports that simply regurgitate share price movement and the company's financial reports) available on this company and these sources meet the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francois Dubrulle

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

Cited sources are not enough to establish notability, and I can't see anything better. I'd redirect to the company of which he is CEO, but there is no such article TheLongTone (talk) 15:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The personality of note had a professional career in aerospace industry before starting multiple aerospace ventures. The first part: cited a research paper which has one of his works. His business ventures: bios from the internet has this mention on former ventures; current venture: there are multiple stories around VC funding of his venture, awards etc. Scenecontra (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Scenecontra (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

--> Since there are enough citations already, I request to keep this article. I will add more links as soon as I find them. Scenecontra (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the number of cites, it's their quality.TheLongTone (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, but aren't sources like Deal Street Asia, Asia Business Outlook, SAE.org, Bloomberg quality websites? And since all of these talk of the subject, I hope they can be considered as sources with quality. Scenecontra (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Spaceflight, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Scenecontra, no, none of those "quality" websites cited are secondary sources, nor are they reliable. Bloomberg has become, to be blunt, deprecated. "It is deception." Bearian (talk) 02:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's harsh, @Bearian.

Deal Street Asia is a publication that had gotten funding from Nikkei, FT's sister-concern: https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Business-deals/Nikkei-buys-majority-stake-in-DealStreetAsia It is a credible news website in this part of the world.

Bloomberg is not reliable? Bloomberg L.P. Scenecontra (talk) 03:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for biting. Bloomberg hasn't been reliable since at least 2020. It's filled with user-purchased content and interviews. Bearian (talk) 03:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, but Deal Street Asia is a reputed business news site from this part of the world. The subject has a company and it got funded, per various sources cited. Also, he's an authority in his domain. Here's a book he wrote and I stumbled upon: https://www.amazon.fr/Calcul-Structures-M%C3%A9thode-%C3%89l%C3%A9ments-Finis/dp/2364939070/ Scenecontra (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to highlight his domain authority, sharing this link, where he was a panelist at an event: https://space.org.sg/gstce/gstc-2024-programme/ Scenecontra (talk) 12:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could not see his name there and in any case this would not serve to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://imgur.com/a/UQEjHzq You can see his photo on the right https://space.org.sg/gstce/gstc-2024-speakers/ Being a speaker at a major space event in APAC doesn't merit notability? Scenecontra (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another link, and this one's Techcrunch on the funding and mentions the subject (founder) https://techcrunch.com/2023/10/23/singapore-based-qosmosys-closes-100m-seed-round-to-develop-tech-for-the-moon/ Scenecontra (talk) 04:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:06, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Hyman

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

Unreferenced BLP. Tagged for sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear the subject passes WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

- Amendement to original rationale: Also should be deleted under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON as an unsourced BLP which is external to notability policies including SNGs. Fails our policy on verification at WP:BLP. 4meter4 (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment. Footnotes to sources raised in the AfD have been added, so this is no longer an unsourced BLP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that the subject is unlikely to pass WP:GNG, but I think they probably pass WP:AUTHOR for their book The Reluctant Metrosexual: Dispatches from an Almost Hip Life. I found reviews in the New York Times [88] and the Washington Post [89], and there are several other usable reviews referenced here [90] although frustratingly I wasn't able to find any of those originals from 2004. Their book is also cited or mentioned in probably a dozen academic books and journal articles, although admittedly not in any great detail. Together I think that's probably enough for a WP:AUTHOR pass. MCE89 (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there is a pass of WP:AUTHOR per MCE89 with multiple full-length reviews of his book in reliable, independent sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Dclemens1971 and MCE89 I would feel a lot better about this if those sources had biographical content but they don't other than perfunctory coverage. The sources are about the book rather than the author. Fundamentally we don't have materials supporting a biography page. Given that it is only a single work, wouldn't this be better repurposed into an article on that one book? This would seem to be a better approach per the spirit of WP:Verifiability. We could always recreate a page on the author if and when a second notable work is created by the subject. We really can only create articles based on the available sources. Otherwise we are fundamentally allowing an unsourced BLP article page which I thought was a big no no on wikipedia.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCREATIVE is clear that "Such a person is notable if:... The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews..." There's no requirement for biographical content in such reviews. Biographical content can be added from other sources, but the test of notability is met by what MCE89 identified. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dclemens1971 I get that, but that is not the cogent policy here. WP:BLPSOURCES external to notability policy but equally important is at play here. We could literally blank the page at present because its unsourced under WP:BURDEN and WP:BLPSOURCES policy. That's a problem relevant to AFD that goes beyond notability criteria. At some level we have to consider the practical application of all of our policies. Not just WP:SNG language. Policies don't exist in a vacuum.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and blank the page in that case; that's a content issue. AfD isn't for content issues, it's for notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dclemens1971 To do so in the middle of an AFD would be WP:DISRUPTIVE editing and WP:POINTY. Further, this is a BLP policy issue which falls under criteria 9 of WP:DEL-REASON so your assertion that notability policy is the only relevant policy at AFD is false. Deleting under a WP:BLPSOURCES failure rationale is perfectly acceptable under criteria 9. One can meet an SNG but still be deleted if it fails a WP:DEL-REASON criteria external to a notability issue.4meter4 (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The book is notable, but the author isn't since one needs multiple notable works to demonstrate NCREATIVE, but since this information would be on said article anyway, I could convert it into an article on the book if that is what people wish. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please show where NCREATIVE requires multiple notable works? Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted for further discussion on possibility of converting to an article on the book
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanger Outlets Cookstown

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

Semi-advertorialized article about a shopping mall, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for shopping malls. As always, shopping malls are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass defined inclusion criteria supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing about them -- but the most substantive attempts at notability claims here are promotional fluff like "Tanger Outlets Cookstown contributes to the local economy through job creation, sales tax revenue, and attracting tourists" and "The outlet hosts a wide range of stores and also provides seasonal events and promotions for additional savings", which are par for the course for shopping malls rather than evidence of distinction, and the sourcing consists of a directory entry on a tourist information website (a primary source that is not support for notability at all) and just one piece of run of the mill local coverage in a community hyperlocal, which is not enough coverage to singlehandedly satisfy GNG all by itself.
Simple existence is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt a shopping mall from having to have more substance and better sourcing for it than this. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 01:00, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not seeing WP:SIGCOV in Google News, which is where I'd expect to see it if the subject were notable. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Spanish Open (table tennis)

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

I am struggling to find any WP:SIGCOV for this table tennis competition after using various search terms in English and Spanish. I suggest a redirect or merge to 2019 ITTF Challenge Series unless better sourcing can be located. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Spain. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if other editors support a Redirect or Merge here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:56, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 North American Open (table tennis)

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

I am struggling to find enough in-depth coverage of this competition to meet WP:GNG. There is this piece from ButterflyOnline, a Japanese table tennis equipment distributor, but not much else other than a few photo galleries (1, 2, 3). I suggest a redirect or merge to 2019 ITTF Challenge Series. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Canada. JTtheOG (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more opinions on whether or not this article should be Redirected or Merged.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Junction Shopping Centre

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

Article about a smalltown strip mall, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria for shopping facilities. As always, every mall that exists in the world is not automatically notable enough for a Wikipedia article just because it exists, and must show some evidence of significance supported by WP:GNG-worthy reliable sourcing -- but this is referenced almost entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability, except for a few hits of purely run of the mill local coverage of things that happened at the mall -- but "person stabbed near (not at) mall" and "drunk drivers do wheelies in parking lot at mall" are not significant notability claims, and there's basically nothing that constitutes coverage about the mall itself.
It also warrants note that this was first created in draftspace last year and rejected by an WP:AFC reviewer, but was then moved by its own creator into mainspace last week without a new AFC review, which is not the proper process for getting an article created.
Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt the mall from having to have more GNG-worthy coverage about it (which is not the same thing as "about insignificant things happening near it") than this. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Shopping malls and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, run of the mill institution with some possible promotional language, ("where people can eat, shop, or browse at."), fails WP:GNG -Samoht27 (talk) 15:33, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fuller Road

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

Non notable road, Cannot find any evidence of any notability, Fails GEOROAD and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 00:35, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am seeing three sources about it:

Begum, Ayesha (2016) [2012]. "ফুলার রোড" [Fuller Road]. Encyclopedia of Dhaka (in Bengali). Dhaka: Asiatic Society of Bangladesh. pp. 262–263. ISBN 9789845120197.
ফুলার রোডকে প্রেম চত্বর মনে করেন বহিরাগতরা
ফুলার রোডে নিয়ম করে চলে বাইক রেস-স্ট্যান্ট, দুর্ঘটনার আশঙ্কা

The first source is from an encyclopedia which is notable and important for Dhaka-related topics. In this sense, the subject is notable and doesn’t fail. Mehedi Abedin 11:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are pretty much LOCALCOVERAGE and TRIVIAL pieces, Unable to view the book so unable to comment on this, imho still fails GNG –Davey2010^Talk 18:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We need to come to some conclusion on whether or not these sources are sufficient.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn‎. Needs further investigation (non-admin closure) Cremastra (u — c) 01:09, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Qazanchi

My WP:BEFORE was unable to verify anything and I couldn't find any similar events that happened on this date. Furthermore, I couldn't very much find evidence of a town named Gazanchi or Qazanchi in Agham. This mentions a church named Gazanchi in Shusha, as does this and this mentions a village of that name. This (which I can't view beyond a snippet) is somewhat more promising but still doesn't indicate a real "event", let alone verify the claims here. If this isn't a hoax, then it still doesn't mean WP:NEVENT. Cremastra (u — c) 00:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC) Wait, I just saw there's like 20 more ways to spell this. Putting on hold, might withdraw. Cremastra (u — c) 00:26, 18 January 2025 (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.