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 09	January 11 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Gibson Bros.

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

Band does not meet the notability criteria. GTrang (talk) 23:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 01:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprises in the Soviet Union

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

Nuke the unreferenced text I wrote out of my head in 2006 and since then it became even messier. --Altenmann >talk 23:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Business, and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kirill Goryunov

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

Entrepreneur still fails WP:NBIO despite being un-BLAR'ed three months ago. GTrang (talk) 23:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Russia. Shellwood (talk) 01:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

English International School Moscow

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

No significant coverage. Northern Moonlight 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete no independent coverage. --Altenmann >talk 23:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Article created by an editor with the same name of the owner of the school. Northern Moonlight 01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poodle (insult)

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

Article describing one time Tony Blair was criticized for going along with US policy. I think a sentence in the article about the incident is enough, and there's nothing here to suggest that this insult has been used on anyone but him. Not the same as attack poodle, from what I can tell, though I see no reason for an article about the latter either. Mangoe (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete nonnotable dicdef. --Altenmann >talk 23:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTDICTIONARY (Usage, slang, or idiom guides). Not sure even why this seems to be UK in origin, but the image used is an American president and his dog. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SLUBStick

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

No indication of notability. Could be merged elsewhere. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even know where this article could be merged. Linux kernel#Security does not seem like a good fit and there does not appear to be a Security of the Linux Kernel themed article. Brandon (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant vulnerability that will very likely see further developments in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dujo (talk • contribs) on 2024-01-08 at 15:31:10 (UTC)
That's a pretty bold claim. If this technique was being received as significant I'd expect to see _some_ response that just never materialized. The references are all just repackaging the researcher's press briefing. Is there any material from the Linux community, vendors or other academics? I was unable to find any. Brandon (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
SLUBStick is not a security vulnerability in itself, it is a technique that makes exploitation of other vulnerabilities easier. There is an official response from the SUSE Linux vendor: https://www.suse.com/support/kb/doc/?id=000021529. Dujo (talk) 04:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument makes no sense. Based on what you have provided, it may manifest to greater depths in the future. Alas, we can't keep articles on the bet that it will gain notability in the future. That'd be like if we created an article for Windows 13 betting that there would be a Windows 13 in the future (we don't know if there will be, and would be some pretty serious CRYSTALBALL violations). We only decide to keep or delete an article based on the current notability, not what we predict will be there in the future.

As such, I don't think your vote is necessarily justified. Even if SUSE released something about it (as you mentioned in your comment), doesn't mean it is notable. Per GNG, we need reliable sources. A support article isn't really reliable.

Why don't we analyze the sources, including the ones you added (based on this revision):

1. "Linux kernel impacted by new SLUBStick cross-cache attack"
Reliability: medium to good

In-depth: yes

Independent: yes

2. SUSE source
Reliability: ok; support article isn't the best given only a few sources

In-depth: no, just lists a brief about what it is and what to do to avert it, nothing more

Independent: interpretations vary. Independent of Linux? No. Independent of parties tied to the exploit? Yes?

3. USENIX source
Reliability: I don't know here, it seems like a research paper so I'll say yes.

In-depth: heck yeah. It's a 19 page research paper.

Independent: Probably yes

4. SecurityWeek source
Reliability: I might be wrong, but doesn't seem that well-established. So I'll say probably no.

In-depth: 2 paragraphs is less than enough to be in-depth/

Independent: yes

For this article to pass GNG, you would generally need 3+ sources which pass all three criteria. None of the sources fully pass.

Since this appears to only be your 3rd AFD, I recommend you put some thoughts into your votes before participating in your next AFD. Please also reconsider adding sources for the sake of an argument also, it never helps as you can see. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I agree with you that predicting the future with certainty is impossible. I joined this discussion after noticing the community portal link and thought it would be a good opportunity to collaborate. However, I soon encountered what I felt like a push to delete valuable pages and information, which compelled me to speak up in defense of others’ work and effort.

That said, I do not wish to engage in sterile and endless debates between inclusionists and deletionists. Therefore, I’ve decided to take a break from contributing to Wikipedia while I look for a more welcoming and inclusive online community where I can invest my time and energy. Dujo (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Fullerton plane crash

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

Fails WP:AIRCRASH and WP:GNG. Just because it was the first accident in 2025, doesn’t mean it’s notable. (Update: It isn’t even [first 2025 crash) Protoeus (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention this is a general aviation accident. Those kind of accidents are rarely notable. (see WP:AIRCRASH) ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 23:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep although a normal small aircraft crash, it crashed into a warehouse with over 200 people inside. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TG-article. See this. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 16:55, 9 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 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 23:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Small plane crashes like this happen almost everyday and, although tragic, it is unnotable and routine. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention it isn't even the deadliest plane crash of 2025 now... (it's been surpassed by another plane crash that killed three people)^[1] ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 12:21, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep seems somewhat notable per the amount of injuries and possible failure onboard the plane, as we saw with Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 minor accidents like this may expose major problems, i would hold off from deleting this until a preliminary report is released to level out if this is notable or not. Lolzer3k 07:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems somewhat notable, I mean considering the casualties and response Thehistorianisaac (talk) 12:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s pretty routine to have its own article, we don’t have articles on every crash that only killed 1/2 people. Protoeus (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per Thehistorianisaac TYPEINFO (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Protoeus (talk) 15:03, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We need to know why this article should be kept, because you didn't give a reason. (talking to TypeInfo) ThisGuy (talk to me // contributions) 15:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note Speedy keep in particular only applies in a narrow set of circumstances, and appears not to apply here, so this appears to be invalid. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per AIRCRASH and WP:NOTNEWS. Routine kit plane accident with no indication that it might lead to policy changes. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Looking through Google I see 5 articles from reputable sources for "Fullerton Plane Crash". Meets WP:GNG. guninvalid (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:AIRCRASH specifically says that it should not be used for discussion in AfD. guninvalid (talk) 07:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jay D. Easy (t) 12:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: general aviation / light aircraft accidents almost always fail WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. This one is no different: there's no reason to expect any WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, nor any WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep General aviation incidents often aren't notable, and this was probably created too soon, but the manner of the accident (crashing into a populated warehouse in a major population centre) suggests this could receive indeed receive WP:LASTING coverage. I'd also much prefer draftification to deletion, since the only thing this is lacking at the moment is WP:LASTING coverage, which could come at any time. SportingFlyer T·C 18:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The major problem with citing WP:LASTING is we don't have a WP:CRYSTALBALL. While I do slightly favor keeping, I'm okay with moving this to Drafts until lasting coverage can be established. guninvalid (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this is simply a classic "is this a news item or is this enough for an article" AfD and right now it's just not yet clear. SportingFlyer T·C 20:55, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These kinds of articles should probably go through AfC first as I see it. But it is how it is. guninvalid (talk) 21:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, small airplane crash, not notable even if crashed in a bulding. Not even victims on the ground.--Paolo9999 (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be a routine airplane crash, I don't see much notability beyond current news reports. Oaktree b (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Henderson

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

Almost no information is provided on this actress. For a list of credits, readers can go to IMDb. Henderson had minor roles in a few movies. In one B movie, The Gorbals Story, she received third billing. She might have been the female lead alongside someone not mentioned in the top three, or perhaps the other two billed actors were the true leads. In either case, this article, in its current state, provides data and virtually no context, making it fail NOTDIR #1. Henderson seems to fail NACTOR as well. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Scotland. gidonb (talk) 21:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles (not lead) in notable productions (The Gorbals Story and The 39 Steps, for example). It is a stub in its current state but stubs are meant to be improved rather than deleted. -Mushy Yank. 09:53, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet is her role in The 39 Steps really significant? IMDb and we have her billed 13th, this database has her listed 12th. All towards the end. It appears that her only significant role was in a B movie. PER NACTOR: Such a person may be considered notable if: 1. The person has had significant roles in MULTIPLE notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions; or 2. The person has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. Also, how is the GNG satisfied? The caps in the quote are mine. gidonb (talk) 17:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV - I looked, and found a few passing references like this book. She has a very common name, so finding anything like that is looking for a needle in a haystack, pardon the cliché. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need additional input to find consensus on GNG/NACTOR.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sag & Tre

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

Record labels are notoriously difficult; often the case the artists and the music are notable, and sourcing notability for the label is more tricky. In this case, neither the music nor the artists appear notable, yet we have a page for the label. In a WP:BEFORE I am unable to find sufficient coverage of this record label to meet WP:GNG, and that is before going anywhere near WP:NORG. I'd be happy to be proven wrong - but deletion is now proposed as Sag & Tre does not appear to meet any WP criteria for a standalone page. ResonantDis_tortion 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Organizations, United Kingdom, and England. ResonantDis_tortion 20:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I think the article meets WP:GNG but nowhere near WP:NORG, nor does it need to meet WP:NORG. Resources for the label are scarce. Soybean46 (talk) 22:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am the owner of Sag & Tre :) Soybean46 (talk) 22:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:05, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't qualify as one of the more important indie labels as suggested by WP:MUSIC; has no notable artists as far as I can tell. No cultural impact sufficient to justify an article. Chubbles (talk) 03:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have to fight my corner here, don't I, as a small label owner :) Despite Wikipedia's policies on WP:MUSIC, which I comprehend, are thorough. Please also check my contribution history. Someone has rejected my edits on the grounds of WP:GNG for the Draft:Paavo Siljamaki article, which probably by that policy, would be acceptable to remove.

Except, there isn't many sources available for the "organic house" genre. Should we now be deleting all WP:MUSIC articles based on that? Because Jono Grant (DJ) article doesn't meet WP:GNG again, but nobody has flagged it. When I edited other articles in the gaming section, someone argued that me arguing edits in other articles is unacceptable. Soybean46 (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, because I am closely connected to the Above & Beyond (band) article, not by association, but by choice, I have to argue that I selected the wrong article, and instead meant to select Tony McGuinness, which doesn't meet WP:GNG but another Wikipedia conflicting, by the way, rule, stipulates that no other articles should be mentioned. What gives? Check my Euro Truck Simulator 2 edits. Soybean46 (talk) 00:01, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a little education is in order. Soybean46 (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like someone else, less connected to the topic should have an input. I would argue that the article has a cultural impact, but what Wikipedia rule does that cover? Soybean46 (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Manifold

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

I'm not sure if Jack Manifold meets notability guidelines on his own. The refs are mostly about other streamers rather than him and a WP:BEFORE didn't turn up much that's useful. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Internet. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not impressed with the sourcing. This [1] isn't a RS, but devotes much space to the individual. I just don't think this person has hit the mainstream media enough to warrant an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BitMart

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

Most of the sources used as refs appear to be from crypto-related sites instead of reliable sources. The only reliable sources are WP:TECHCRUNCH and a CNBC ranking of the top 200 fintech companies, neither of which seem like enough to meet GNG. A WP:BEFORE also turns up mostly cryptospam. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Companies. BuySomeApples (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: More crypto spam, sourcing is iffy, I can only find PR items or crypto blogs. Nothing for notability, appears PROMO. Oaktree b (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Oaktree b. Andre🚐 02:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of World of Warcraft

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

This is the same scope as World of Warcraft, 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 World of Warcraft, or the Warcraft franchise article that goes into more detail about the characters and setting. I would consider a redirect, but I don't see material that would be suitable for a merge. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to World of Warcraft. Per my comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Dragon Quest: I don't think articles like these are needed, independently notable or not, period. WP:MERGEREASON, WP:GAMECRUFT and WP:GAMEGUIDE. λ NegativeMP1 21:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect. IIRC, WoW's gameplay was evolutionary, not revolutionary, for the MMO genre and the gameplay does not rise to the level of notability independent from the game itself. I see the vast majority of topics covered in the gameplay article already covered well in the main article and what remains is/can be covered in individual expansion articles as needed. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to World of Warcraft#Gameplay. I don't think a "Gameplay of X" article is a viable concept, sourcing or not, for a similar reason to why a "plot of X" article for a book or movie wouldn't work. It simply does not work as a separate concept. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Hill Memorial Park

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

Fails WP:GNG. Apparently WP:SYNTH and based on unreliable sources: a self-published site ([2] and a WP:USERGENERATED site ([3]), plus a brief local news mention that retails a false claim about this site being the location of the first Catholic Mass in present-day US, and an academic source that does not mention this place. BEFORE search turns up no WP:SIGCOV of this park. Contested PROD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Asteramellus (talk) 02:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cayden Lee

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage of this college football player to meet WP:GNG. There is this routine story on his college choice and a couple mentions here. Both are by the same author from The Clarion-Ledger, so they would count as one source even if they were SIGCOV. There are also pieces from team-specific blogs written by non-notable sportswriters such as this piece by a writing intern from Ole Miss Rebels on SI, this piece by a longtime team blogger from The Ole Miss Spirit, or this piece by an Ole Miss senior from The Rebel Walk. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Georgia (U.S. state), and Mississippi. JTtheOG (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I kind of expected more coverage, since he seems to have had decent stats so far for Ole Miss (a big program). However, he is still young (only a sophomore) and it seems he's poised to be Ole Miss's top receiver next year (per this, albeit a FanSided blog), so there will almost certainly be more coverage of him in the near future. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. 57 catches for almost 900 yards and two tuddys is not a bad year at all, especially in the SEC. I was surprised as well. JTtheOG (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's modern sports journalism for you. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Horizons Book Award

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

Fails the wp:gng. The links to the council website are both dead and not on the internet archive. The only sources, I can find, are 2 articles in the Dorset Echo (a local newspaper), blogs and social media. Rolluik (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Museums and libraries, Awards, Events, United Kingdom, and England. Rolluik (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears defunct, and probably was active only a year or two with minor local coverage. -- GreenC 21:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Dorset Echo counts as one source for notability qualifying, so this is a GNG failure. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sven Pichal

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

This person is convicted of ~~accused of and on trial for~~ (revolting) charges but does not appear to be independently notable (I can't find any WP:GNG-qualifying coverage prior to his arrest) from what he's been charged with. Per WP:CRIMINAL and WP:BLP1E, we shouldn't have a biography of this individual~~, at least not until the trial has concluded with a verdict~~. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Crime, and Belgium. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I agree with the nominator that he does not pass NCRIMINAL, but looking at the sourcing on the nl.wiki page nl:Sven Pichal, I do think he passes NBASIC as a TV personality, with articles about him in major publications. Haven't searched too much though, but he is not BLP1E. Also, from what I can tell he was convicted in December 2024. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, missed that in the sources. Can you share the coverage you saw that you think clears the WP:SIGCOV bar separate from the crime? Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: PARAKANYAA, thanks for referring to the NL page. The subject clearly passes GNG and WP:CRIMINAL. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain how he meets the CRIMINAL requirements? (The victim of the crime is a renowned national or international figure, including, but not limited to, politicians or celebrities; or [t]he motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. I don't think either applies. The question is whether there are enough sources outside the crime to warrant a GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Szerlip

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

A WP:PROMO bio for a non-notable osteopath. I don't see a pass on WP:GNG since I can't find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. I don't see a pass on WP:NACADEMIC as his papers are not heavily cited. I don't see a pass on WP:NAUTHOR since I can't find any reviews for his book. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Medicine, and Texas. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, when your first hit is pr.com [4], we have issues. Rest of the sourcing is pretty much PR items. I find no book reviews, this is PROMO, virtually a linkedin bio. Neither of which is appropriate for wikipedia. Oaktree b (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political suicide

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

A hyperbolic figure of speech whose meaning is obvious and which is already tagged as a WP:DICTDEF. I see no need for elaboration of this. Mangoe (talk) 19:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capitals–Rangers rivalry

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

A WP:BEFORE yielded only their multiple series matchups as well as the Tom Wilson fight from 2021. There is also Bleacher Report article that may or not be reliable. No mention of a rivalry nor team series overview. Note that I am the original author of this article, but since there have been several additions to this article, I am proceeding with this route. If not delete, then trim and merge to List of NHL rivalries#New York Rangers vs. Washington Capitals Conyo14 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Ice hockey, New York, and Washington, D.C.. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List of NHL rivalries#New York Rangers vs. Washington Capitals per nom.
Delete - These types of articles are too trivial. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 19:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. मल्ल (talk) 21:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eitaa Messenger

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

Reason: the app is never mentioned throughly independent of the other apps outside Iranian state sponsored sites Baratiiman (talk) 19:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Software and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 19:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am writing to oppose the deletion of the Eitaa Messenger article. Below, I address the claims made in the nomination and demonstrate the article's alignment with Wikipedia’s standards for neutrality, verifiability, and notability.

---

1. Addressing the Claim that All Websites Mentioning Eitaa are State-Owned

The assertion that every website mentioning Eitaa Messenger is state-owned is an extraordinary claim requiring substantial evidence. Such a broad statement demands:

Proof for each individual site: The nominator must provide reliable references to show that all websites discussing Eitaa are indeed state-owned.

Reputable third-party verification: Without such evidence, the claim remains speculative and does not justify deletion.

The article itself does not rely exclusively—or even primarily—on Persian or Iranian state-affiliated sources.

Many western even American even American state owned websites have mentioned eitaa specifically, except you want to excuse them to for being Iranina sponsored like for tens or hundreds of sites you did now. Here are a few for instance:

The Open Technology Fund for its security audits (www.opentech.fund/security-safety-audits/iranian-messaging-apps-security-audit).

Academic studies published internationally, such as on PubMed Central (www.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558972).

This diversity of sources underscores the article’s neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia’s standards.

---

2.

Before the article was created, Eitaa Messenger already had an entry on Wikidata. This demonstrates the platform’s recognized notability and importance within the digital communication ecosystem. The existence of a Wikidata entry reinforces the need for a detailed and well-referenced Wikipedia page.

---

3.

Widely Used Platform in Iran

Eitaa Messenger is one of the most used instant messaging platforms in Iran, making it a crucial part of the country’s digital infrastructure.

Comparison with Smaller Platforms:Other smaller Iranian platforms, such as Soroush, Bale, Rubika, and iGap, have dedicated Wikipedia pages despite having smaller user bases or less impact. Deleting Eitaa’s article while keeping these others would create an inconsistency and unfair precedent on Wikipedia.

---

4.

The article on Eitaa Messenger provides a balanced perspective, presenting both its features and criticisms.

Neutrality: The article refrains from promoting Eitaa and relies on credible references from diverse sources, ensuring adherence to Wikipedia’s neutrality policy.

If there are specific issues in the article, they should be addressed through constructive edits, not deletion.

---

5.

I think if a user doesn't like an articles content if shouldn't demand the deletion of the whole thing (first without a request and discussion and redirecting to a new self made previewed poorly referenced article (names Iranian applications and after being declined for two times the adding a request for delete) but try to improve it.

---

The Eitaa Messenger article is well-referenced, neutral, and meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria. The claim that all websites mentioning Eitaa are state-owned is unfounded and requires evidence for each source. Furthermore, the article’s pre-existing Wikidata entry and Eitaa’s status as one of Iran’s most used messaging platforms reinforce its importance.

If the nominator has concerns, they should propose edits to improve the article rather than advocate for its deletion. Removing the page would disregard its significance and undermine Wikipedia’s mission of providing a comprehensive knowledge base.

I strongly urge the community to retain this article and support collaborative efforts to enhance it if needed.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely 93.71.57.57 (talk) 19:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

93.71.57.57, please cut your argument down to a readable length. I don't think many editors will read your entire post here. Two short paragraphs would be more effective. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison with Smaller Platforms:Other smaller Iranian platforms, such as Soroush, Bale, Rubika, and iGap, have dedicated Wikipedia pages despite having smaller user bases or less impact. Deleting Eitaa’s article while keeping these others would create an inconsistency and unfair precedent on Wikipedia. and Before the article was created, Eitaa Messenger already had an entry on Wikidata. This demonstrates the platform’s recognized notability and importance within the digital communication ecosystem. The existence of a Wikidata entry reinforces the need for a detailed and well-referenced Wikipedia page.

Addressing the Claim that All Websites Mentioning Eitaa are State-Owned

The assertion that every website mentioning Eitaa Messenger is state-owned is an extraordinary claim requiring substantial evidence. Such a broad statement demands:

Proof for each individual site: The nominator must provide reliable references to show that all websites discussing Eitaa are indeed state-owned.

Reputable third-party verification: Without such evidence, the claim remains speculative and does not justify deletion.

The article itself does not rely exclusively—or even primarily—on Persian or Iranian state-affiliated sources.

Many western even American even American state owned websites have mentioned eitaa specifically, except you want to excuse them to for being Iranian sponsored like for tens or hundreds of sites you did now. Here are a few for instance:

The Open Technology Fund for its security audits (www.opentech.fund/security-safety-audits/iranian-messaging-apps-security-audit).

Academic studies published internationally, such as on PubMed Central (www.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11558972).

This diversity of sources underscores the article’s neutrality and adherence to Wikipedia’s standards. 93.71.57.57 (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz: His response has an 87% chance of being AI-generated, per GPTZero. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Mentioned by VoA as "one of the three domestic messaging apps in Iran". It is reported by Tjaratnews that the Iranian Communications Minister said that it had 19 million users as of December 2023 (whether that's true is not really relevant to notability, the fact that it's being pushed by the Iranian govt in this sort of way is itself notable); Discussed in detail by the BBC here. Furius (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte ^👸♥ 19:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Liz, I'd like to appreciate you, but firstly Wikipedia is no place for AI to thrive. we editors strive to provide evidence backed research and articles for the benefit of the public, however, I'd like you to understand that the long content generated by User:93.71.57.57 is purely AI and as such, I believe there should be some sort of warning to the user. And secondly, the app passes GNG and should not be deleted as there's valid mentions of it by the government of the associated country in notable sources. The article should be improved instead of deleted.

Dave Farina

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

Not notable; no serious sources — Moriwen (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. — Moriwen (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See the AfD from October about the same individual, under the name of his YouTube channel. XOR'easter (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Biology, Mathematics, Internet, and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete since nothing appears to have changed re notability or sources since Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Professor Dave Explains. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 22:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 South American U-15 Championship squads

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

Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Football, and South America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – In the case of South American football in particular, I see WP:SIGCOV with all articles being widely referenced. The notability of under-15 players is obviously not immediate, but the call-up list as a complement in itself is relevant. Svartner (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Herbert Armstrong

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

No indication of meeting WP:NACADEMIC. — Moriwen (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — Moriwen (talk) 19:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't seem to meet wp:n Qrstw (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Washington, and Wisconsin. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pablo Picasso in Fontainebleau

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

This three-sentence stub that is fully encompassed and addressed at Pablo Picasso fails the WP:GNG test for a standalone page. However, the page creator contested a WP:BOLD merge so I am seeking AfD consensus for a redirect to Pablo Picasso. (A merge is unnecessary since the content was already merged.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, History, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/speedy redirect What a bafflingly pointless page. CyberTheTiger, why did you create this and why would you object to a merge? Absurd to think a separate page is needed for a couple sentences and then to demand an AFD for this non-article when the content goes in the main article just fine. Reywas92^Talk 20:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A redirect to Pablo Picasso is unnecessary but also fine. Asparagusstar (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, as nominator I am fine with delete since I don't think this will be common search term. Just did the merge to spare the community some process and yet here we are. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes, he lived there... This isn't needing an article. One sentence is enough in the main article. Everyone has to be from somewhere. Oaktree b (talk) 01:37, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:55, 11 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 per WP:G7‎. Fathoms Below (talk) 22:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nash Jocic

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

Does not meet WP:NACADEMIC, fascinating as a bodybuilding philosopher is. — Moriwen (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Bodybuilding, and England. — Moriwen (talk) 18:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All sources are unreliable and self published. there's no significant coverage about the subject and the article itself lacks structure. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:00, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cameremote. KOLANO12 3 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Health and fitness. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:36, 10 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.

Traveen Mathew

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

Non-notable cricketer, who fails WP:GNG. Has only played in T10 cricket, not any FC, List A or T20 competition which can often help increase significant coverage. This article was moved to draftspace and then moved back despite minimal insufficient improvements, which is why this AFD is necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played two First Class matches, 12 List A matches and four T20 matches. He also represented Sri Lanka at the Under-19s Asian Cup. I have added more information and sources including two from The Papare which focus heavily on him. Lookslikely (Talk 18:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i have added further information and another reference which features him as the main focus and in the article title. From my reading of the GNG rules this addition, along with the ones I previously made and are mentioned above, mean this article definitely passes the required SIG COV specification. Lookslikely (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the improvements, but I'm still not convinced he is notable, so I wish to continue this AFD to get consensus. Of the sources, [5], [6] are passing mentions in tournament squad lists, [7] is one paragraph of basic stats, [8] is from SLC so not independent coverage (and so does not contribute to WP:GNG, [9] is a match report with a bit of basic information about him. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I tried. Lookslikely (talk) 18:45, 6 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!} 17:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is an encyclopedia and not a profile page where anybody can get to feature himself without any major achievements. The subject clearly fails GNG, yet the original editor is still trying to defend. Lookslikely, if you're paid to edit, kindly disclose conflict of interest. To the closing admin, this articles fails all criteria. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 01:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cameremote, your comment makes me wonder if you even examined this article. If you looked at the page history, you'd quickly see that that the article creator is Janeesh 22, not Lookslikely. Secondly, do not cast aspersions, like accusing an editor of working for pay while undeclosed, you better have evidence to support those accusations or you could be facing a block yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to above: I am not the original editor of this page. I just saw it on this list, Googled the guy and added some stuff to his page. I am not paid to edit on Wikipedia and couldn't give two hoots if it's deleted or not. Oh and before accusing people of things, at least have the courage to sign your username (Cameremote) chum. Lookslikely (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Out of boredom, I’m willing to save this page out of boredom if it has enough sources. Reader of Information (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I will start working on it tomorrow if this is okay with y’all because honestly, it’s getting late lol. Reader of Information (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, clearly fails the notability criteria. And thanks for bringing to my attention the signing issue, I'm using mobile, and I assume it auto signs. Thanks for that. I say again, please disclose COI if you're directly or indirectly associated to the subject, because the way you're defending an article that fails GNG is alarming. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place

As I said, Cameremote, either provide proof of your allegations or stop making them. There is nothing inherently COI about defending an article from being deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to point out to the editor that the way he's defending the article is somehow. He should purely suggest that the article be moved back to draft, for further improvement rather than over-defending an article. Note: I'm not alleging anyone, and if there's any offense taken, my absolute apolgies. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emma Curtis

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

Semi-advertorialized WP:BLP of a politician, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL. The primary notability claim here is that she serves on a county council, which is the local level of office and thus has to pass NPOL #2 (where the test hinges on depth of coverage, not just existence) -- and "first member of an underrepresented minority group to do an otherwise non-notable thing" is not an instant notability freebie in and of itself, so she isn't exempted from having to pass NPOL #2 just because she's transgender.
But three of the five footnotes here are primary sources that aren't support for notability at all, and the two sources that do represent reliable third-party coverage in real media are just local media covering the election itself, a type and volume of coverage that every single county councillor who exists at all can always show.
As always, the key to making a county councillor notable enough for a Wikipedia article isn't to simply verify that she exists -- it's to write a substantive and well-sourced article detailing the impact of her work in politics (specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, specific effects her work had on the development of the county, etc.) But since she only just assumed the office four days ago, the only content here that's even attempting to address the impact of her work is generic advertorial fluff about her feelings about being an inspiration and role model, rather than documentation of any concrete achievements in office.
No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she's been in office for long enough to actually have a quantifiable record of achievement to write about, and a substantial volume of sourcing to support that -- but a county councillor needs a lot more than just two hits of run of the mill local coverage on election night itself to become permanently notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Sexuality and gender, and Kentucky. Bearcat (talk) 17:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Yes I agree to the deletion as the subject fails in-depth notability as per GNG. Wikipedia is not a place to be used as a profile, rather, an encyclopedia. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 20:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LGBTQ rights in Northern Nigeria

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

This page is basically a straight copy/paste of this page: LGBTQ rights in Nigeria. All the main topics already covered in the main Nigeria page. All other similar pages go by country, not regions of countries. Mamani1990 (talk) 16:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Sexuality and gender, and Nigeria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with LGBTQ rights in Nigeria: and redirect. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to LGBTQ rights in Nigeria per Vanderwaalforces. An unnecessary WP:SPLIT. Conyo14 (talk) 18:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saffiyah Khan

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

No lasting coverage, the most recent I can find is the slow slow drip of The Specials-related stuff (e.g. https://www.nme.com/features/music-features/terry-hall-the-specials-obituary-3370063 from 2022) Jay Cubby 16:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and United Kingdom. Jay Cubby 16:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not quite sure what the deletion rationale is...BLP1E? But she's clearly notable for more than just the viral photo. As the nominator noted, a few years after the photo she collaborated with the Specials. She toured with them, and they wrote a song about her. Notability is not temporary. pburka (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Politics, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blanket policy

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

A WP:DICTDEF and nothing more; only cite is to Webster's. Mangoe (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom - just a quote for definition from Webster Asteramellus (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Orsini

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

A classic case of WP:BIO1E. A tragic case of a young journalist suddenly dying that attracted widespread news coverage primarily because the death was announced on air and the deceased was herself a member of the broadcast news media that reported her death. There is no evidence that she passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO for anything she did during her life; the coverage of her was triggered solely by her unexpected death and thus it's a 1E situation. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, News media, and Colorado. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arizona, Oregon, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing notable about her career, rather brief to be honest. Death is nothing notable, a natural death. I don't see GNG here. Oaktree b (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contus Tech

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

Can't see any improvement on significant coverage since its creation. Hardly to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, India, and Tamil Nadu. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graphical timeline from the Big Bang to the heat death of the universe

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

An image description pages, not an article, too difficult for editors to maintain as an encyclopedic article. One source, but content selection is original research. If these images were in mediawiki, it would not have been included in articles due to rendering issues, so it makes no sense as an article. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, (1) it's not an image in the sense of a thing in Commons that cannot be edited, it's a visual effect created in the mark-up language used throughout Wikipedia, and therefore editable by competent Wikipedia editors. It's not as easy as text, but we're here to present information in the way that's best for the user, not best for the unskilled editor. (2) The subject of how the universe came to be, and how it will end, is clearly notable and widely discussed. This particular timeline may be only one view, it may not be representative of all views, etc., but if so, the concept of a timeline remains notable, we just have to choose what timeline(s) we want to portray; (3) it's not original research to take information from a source and summarise it graphically, any more than it is original research to summarise it in words, or in a table, as it is in Chronology of the universe#Tabular summary. In fact, graphical summaries are very common in encyclopedic tertiary sources. Rather than deletion, I'd suggest taking this to talk-pages and sorting out how best to portray theories of the origin and fate of the universe. Elemimele (talk) 17:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I guess I should have noted:
- We discussed renaming this article on its Talk page but several editors suggested that the article is duplicate and has many issues.
- The content duplicates Chronology of the universe#Tabular summary. The table has no sources but should be much easier to fix.
- This is not a proposal to ban graphical timelines.
Johnjbarton (talk) 17:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is, at best, an image description page, not an encyclopedia article. More than that, it's an essentially abandoned bit of cruft from how Wikipedia operated two decades ago. Picking out which events to include and omit, how to label the "eras", what numerical value to give the hypothetical proton half-life, etc., is all original research. We came here from the Talk page, because a rename/move discussion can't conclude with a decision to delete. There are way, way too many "timeline of the universe" pages; if we are to get this corner of the encyclopedia organized at all, we need to start cruft removal. XOR'easter (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not worthy of its own standalone page. I'm not opposed to including a graphical view in some form at a timeline of the universe page, but it would need to be akin to Template:Nature timeline rather than in its current form. Sgubaldo (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the fact that it has two cases "If protons decay" and the converse immediately brands it as speculative, and hence non-encyclopaedic (i.e. it is something created by a WP editor, not something that would be found in mainstream sources). The high level of redundancy with related articles, the non-article format and the rather expanded diagrams also make it unsuitable as a WP article. —Quondum 23:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agreed with the serious concerns raised by XOReaster. 21 Andromedae (talk) 00:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayato Nishinoue

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

Falls short of WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Only played 2 minutes in Japan's third league, which is very far from notable. Article has been expanded but I don't believe the coverage meets WP:SIGCOV, which I will outline here. Source assessment:

The longest, but I believe it is not secondary. It has wording like ""During my university days, I worked part-time"
Primary source
Primary source
Primary source
Very short, not significant
Literally one sentence, not significant
Don't think this is very significant either, describes the game on an amateur level
Not about him, WP:PASSING
Database
Database
Database Geschichte (talk) 15:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, Japan, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Re your own source assessment. The first source is a LONG profile on him, and is definitely a secondary source, the “I” in the automatic translation is reported speech from inside quotes given to the journalist as part of the article (which is not an interview either, those are specific quotations, not part of a longer question and answer session/transcript). The seventh source is likewise a two page profile specifically on him (not sure if you noticed that was page 2 of two, separated by hyperlinks at the bottom of the page), whether you think the intellectual standard of the analysis in the article is up to snuff, the article itself is inarguably a SIGCOV worthy source, being an independent secondary source focused solely on the subject of the article. This[10] source looks likely to be significant too, being billed as a serialised special feature on those three players specifically… though I can’t get through the paywall to be 100% sure. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:11, 10 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]

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]

Kemal Baysak (Tram İzmir)

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

Not notable. Cremastra (u — c) 15:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Turkey. Cremastra (u — c) 15:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:JNN. That said, Redirect to Tram İzmir, which could have been done as a WP:BOLD action. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I believe the page about the Kemal Baysak Tramvay Station is valuable for several reasons. First, it is part of the broader transportation network in Izmir, and as with all tram stations in the city, it provides essential details that can be beneficial to travelers and people interested in urban transit. Additionally, every tram station in Izmir, including the others, has a dedicated page on Wikipedia, which makes the existence of this article consistent with the established practice of documenting transport infrastructure in Izmir. I have been working on adding more detailed and updated information to the page, and I am committed to improving it further. The station holds significance as part of the city's public transportation system, and I believe it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines as part of the infrastructure that serves a significant portion of the population. Therefore, I would like to respectfully request that the article be kept. Erdem Ozturk 2021 (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, via WP:NTRAINSTATION this does not meet WP:GNG based on my WP:BEFORE check. Cremastra (u — c) 19:07, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to T3 (Tram İzmir), based on independent notability not being established and based on the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/İAOSB Müdürlüğü (Tram İzmir). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:59, 10 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]

Anuj Vihar

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

No single reference in support of the article. Gauravs 51 (talk) 15:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delhi-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Skynxnex (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Although some websites advertise to rent in this as a neighborhood, it's an army barracks. That's it. Bearian (talk) 02:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft-deletion as a contested prod. Relisting for further input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 European Cricket League

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

Don't need separate season articles for this minor cricket tournament, all of the reasons for merge and redirecting 2023 and 2024 seasons (2023 AFD and 2024 AFD) apply to the 2019 and 2022 seasons as well. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Spain. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as both do have WP:SIGCOV from a number of international sources for them. They also fulfil WP:GNG therefore should not be deleted. Furthermore the rationales for the other seasons being deleted are not relevant to these two as 2024's ruling was on the grounds of no RS's (which the two here have loads of) and 2023's was on the grounds of a lack of SIGCOV (which both here have several demonstratively) and for being poorly source (see above for why that's not relevant here as both are well sourced). As an aside as well, AFD is the wrong forum to be proposing a merge. That's what WP:PM is for. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: no need for stand-alone season articles. Vestrian24Bio 01:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathis Touré

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

Non-notable footballer and former child actor. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT with maybe only a single piece of WP:SIGCOV, a blog/commentary piece in a Corsican paper. The rest is routine transfer coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR with only one role that could be described as significant (the coverage of it is all trivial mentions). Please ping me if I missed anything. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Sportspeople, Football, and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- soft delete The person doesn't appear notable. Agree with nominators notices.
Taksoh17 (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Corse-Matin is an established daily newspaper founded in 1944. Are regional newspapers insufficient sources anywhere in the world or only in certain regions? Also, there is only one article that could be described as transfer-related, not multiple as the phrasing might suggest. ash (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's made the French U19 team (sport) and his film role (acting) was as one of two principal characters around which the story is centered in a popular French comedy. While each career individually might not meet the strictest interpretation of WP:NSPORT or WP:NACTOR, his combined achievements demonstrate impact across multiple fields of public life. ash (talk) 02:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 16:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Political insult

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

A listcicle disguised as a definition which nobody needs. Maybe someone might want to move the contents to a list of notable political insults article, though I have my doubts about such a list generally ignoring notability. In any case, we don't need to define what a political insult is. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE - WP:NOTDICTIONARY (Usage, slang, or idiom guides). Anybody old enough to read or see the news already has a good grasp of what a political insult is. — Maile (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 10 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]

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]

Radio Otago

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

Fails WP:GNG. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge/Redirect to MediaWorks_New_Zealand#Radio as subject is not notable on its own merits, but is part of the history of a more notable entity. Espatie (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M. V. Mani

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

Not notable, entirely unsourced, praising the subject. Another coincidence is that the username of the creator of the article matches the subject's middle name. I thank @Espresso Addict for giving me the go ahead. SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: first off, this is one of the most vandalized articles I've ever seen here. There is one citation from a source that was reliable at the time it was written. There are more sources online. First, if I were still a sysop, I'd semi-protect the page. Then I might consider Draftify. Then responsible editors could work on sourcing. Bearian (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1) Thanks for the review

2) There do seem to be sources about him appearing in films and etc and there are sources, thoughh written in bracket which can be converted to real citations.

3) My main issue is that I can't find anything about his freedom fighting history or him being a "true gandhian". Plus, it may very well be true since the person who wrote the article (he wrote and Rewrote it a couple times) seems to have a COI as his username is the same as the subject's middle name. All his contributions are towards the article.

4) The vandalism is crazy

My conclusion is that we draftify it and entirely rewrite it because at least 90% of the content of this article seems to be some sort of information only known to the creator, and if so it's not notable. Thank you sir ☢️SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 11:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Essential COSTA RICA

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

The references are either primary, or related to Costa Rica only/majorly. An alternative might be to merge/redirect to Costa Rica DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Costa Rica-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DoctorWhoFan91; I have read WP:PRIMARY and it's pretty similar to the one we have at es.wikipedia, where primary sources are allowed under a series of circunstances, which I think I followed in the redaction of the article. I also read WP:DEL-REASON and don't find the reasons you have claimed to delete the article listed (even though is not a limited-list), specially the one stating that the sources are costarrican-related. Finally, I would object to redirecting to the Costa Rica article because the nation brand is way different than the country themselves. I will try to find additional, no-costarrican sources to complement the article. Thanks for your imput! LuchoCR (talk) 19:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge select content to Tourism in Costa Rica A lot of this is just corporate information when the focus to the general reader should be on tourism rather than minutia about how Panasonic is the country's official Blu-ray player and consultant awards. Nate • (chatter) 23:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 15:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. This is mostly PR guff, I cant see that much is of any real interest.TheLongTone (talk) 15:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Attack poodle

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

Another supposed political term that in fact is used all over the place for the obvious dissonance of "poodle" (presumably they are thinking of toy poodles since a full sized one is in fact a perfectly good hunting dog) and "attack". I'm not seeing any traction for as a term and the phrase in context is obvious; GBook hits in particular are overwhelmed by hits in fiction. The cite support is all "someone used the phrase," not that there's much. Mangoe (talk) 15:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Seems essentially redundant with Poodle (insult); we don't need a seperate article for the attack modifier. Rusalkii (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've also nominated the latter. In any case I don't think these were meant to insult the subjects along the same lines. Mangoe (talk) 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Trading Figure Game

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

This subject is very non-notable. It was a very short lived product with very little actual information covering it. There are two 2007 press releases from NWR and ANN, as well as one interview from IGN, but there are no actual reviews or commentary of this subject, nor is there any indication this game made an impact beyond existing. There's some trivial mentions in coverage of Pokémon Duel mentioning how they had similar gameplay, but notability of the TFG is not inherited from Duel, since Duel is a notable subject while the TFG is only trivially mentioned. Books and Scholar yield nothing bar mentions of the game's release. Admittedly unsure on an AtD, since this isn't a video game and thus not listed at that article bar being mentioned in Duel's summary, and it's not included anywhere else that isn't just a trivial mention of its existence. Unopposed to a redirect, but I'm not sure if a valid target exists for this anywhere. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Games, Toys, and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 15:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd consider the NWR source non-PR coverage. ~ A412 ^talk! 00:44, 11 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 deleted‎ by Ponyo (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "G5: Creation by a blocked or banned user in violation of block or ban: Mass deletion of pages added by GRAPN MAN". (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Work Shop Recordings

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

No evidence of notability. Doesn't meet WP:NCORP. Frost 15:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Heart ^(talk) 15:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:31, 10 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.

Pushpa Sahu

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

Only selected for training camp before AFC Women’s Futsal Asian Cup 2025. I didn’t found any sources which discuss the subject and this player hasn’t won any medal at international level. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:SPORTS TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, India, and Assam. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom no notability shown. Cooldudeseven7 _{join in on the tea talk} 15:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical case of WP:BLP1E. Shankargb (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
clearing attempted, more users will give a try 93.140.167.107 (talk) 01:11, 11 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 by nominator‎

David Brakke

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

Fails WP:GNG, no third party sources available annywhere and everything is referenced internally to the university and one encyclopedia.com reference. Overly promotional given the lack of sources, as well. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 14:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator: Failed to consider WP:AUTHOR, due diligence failing on my part.

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Christianity, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Massachusetts, Ohio, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, completely erroneous nomination that fails to even consider the correct notability criteria, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, noting also that PROF notability is not about independence of sourcing. The named chair at Ohio State is a pass of PROF#C3, and the festschrift (while not enough by itself I think) is also indicative of academic notability. JSTOR finds many reviews of multiple books [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] giving him an easy pass of WP:AUTHOR and strongly suggesting that the nominator failed to perform WP:BEFORE adequately. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's entirely possible in this case! I'm going to withdraw this nomination in light of that. I did look for sources but missed WP:AUTHOR grounds in the process. I'll work on improving this article as penance! Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 18:01, 10 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 hospital fires in Romania during the COVID-19 pandemic

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

This is so insanely specific that I don't even know how you come up with a list idea like this. Fails WP:NLIST. Weird that fires in Romanian hospitals during COVID have happened thirteen times, though. E_F⁵ 14:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. E_F⁵ 14:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: COVID-19 and Romania. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and send to WP:DAFT per nomination. This is the most specific article I've seen on this site in my years here that still exists in mainspace. Departure– (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete If someone can find sources talking about said fires as an overall phenomenon, then this could become a subsection in a much less belabored form. As it is, this just a list someone made up one day. Mangoe (talk) 15:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mind-numbingly trivial.TheLongTone (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and delistify. I was initially skeptical but the series of Romanian hospital fires during the pandemic has received coverage as a notable phenomenon, e.g.:

I don't think this content is best served as a list, because many of the less deadly fires currently listed in the article are not mentioned in the sources I provided above. The main four fires receiving attention seem to be Piatra Neamț, Matei Balș, Constanța, and Ploiești, and we have coverage linking those four together as a phenomenon, so they should be combined in an article such as Hospital fires in Romania during the COVID-19 pandemic that can provide needed context. Note that the fires are already briefly discussed at Healthcare in Romania, and would also be due for a mention at COVID-19 pandemic in Romania. Astaire (talk) 19:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a redirect and merge to COVID-19 pandemic in Romania may be appropriate? - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Rott

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not meet WP:NMODEL nor WP:NBASIC. I went through and cut everything that wasn't verified in the citations, but I cannot speak to the {{coi}} tag. None of the coverage, nor any other coverage that I could find satisfies notability as reliable, independent, AND significant. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Artists. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Fashion, Internet, and Germany. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find any independent sourcing – at best it is too soon for an article about him. --bonadea contributions talk 15:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and it’s Too Soon Pizza on Pineapple🍕 (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masoud Ghadirian

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

Fails notability. I checked the refs and he won some medals in non-major events here and there but most of the refs just mention him (among other names) as a part of the national team. Sports2021 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Javid Torabi

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

Fails notability. most information here are either fake or exaggerated. I checked some of those refs and most of them didn't even mention his name even once. the user just faked some refs to make it look notable. only in one of them I found his name finishing 4th in a national competition. Sports2021 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farhad Azizi (athlete)

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

Fails notability. some achievements are listed for him but they are most probably fake. I checked some of those so-called refs and his name didn't even mention in them. and searching his name in English also gives nothing much. Sports2021 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Berbera uprising

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

The main source 'Notes on the history of Berbera' that this article relies on does not discuss of such event nor the killing of Abd al-Rahman Bey(check page 9). It is primarily based on WP:OR. No uprising took place, only an 'growing unrest'. Replayerr (talk) 13:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Egypt, and Somalia. Shellwood (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Officer hunter who was sent to Berbera by the British government shares his concern on berbera because “the habar awal somalis have murdered the governor of Berbera after he killed a Somali in an attempt to rob his caravan”.

i’m trying to find hunter’s report but believe abdurahman was killed and it is obvious.

the somalis of berbera also are happy to see some english travellers who they think is here to rid the region of “the unwanted turks and egyptians” Samyatilius (talk) 15:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The source you mention did not explicitly discuss the killing of Abd al-Rahman Bey. I have the correspondence between British here and they simply state that it was there was a revenge killing of an Egyptian sergeant, not the Bey who was serving as governor at the time. Refer to page 8.[31] Replayerr (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the Berbera Uprising was a "victory" as you portray it in the article. Why would they need British assistance in getting rid of them? Replayerr (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I54

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

Promotional? Notability? Possible original research? I cannot see any notability for the article. DragonofBatley (talk) 12:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Technology, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG: [32] [33] [34] [35] Cremastra (u — c) 22:29, 10 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]

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]
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 [36] and the Washington Post [37], and there are several other usable reviews referenced here [38] 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]

Christopher Hoban

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

Fails WP:VICTIM. Sadly police officer deaths are not unusual, and this particular officer was only known because of his murder.4meter4 (talk) 10:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Police-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ as the nominator notes, this could very well just be retitled. Not a reason for deletion. Such articles should use requested moves not AfD. Failing WP:VICTIM is not a reason for deletion it's a reason for retitling. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out to in another discussion PARAKANYAA, this is not a policy based vote but an WP:IAR vote. Arguing that a possible ATD should subvert discussing deletion policy is both irresponsible and lazy. Further, I don't think a retitling works here as the murder itself is not notable and fails WP:NEVENT. Under what basis does the sourcing pass WP:EVENTCRIT? The sourcing does not pass a single criteria demonstrating evidence of lasting or significant impact. The coverage is WP:ROUTINE.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(The ping did not work because you forgot to sign, FWIW). As pointed out in the other AfD, you are incorrect. There have been somewhere in the realm of dozens of person -> event moves for this very reason in the past few months. The very clear solution is to add three words to the title, which is a whole lot easier than taking it to AfD. If your assertion is that the murder itself fails NEVENT, that is a different and more reasonable assertion for deletion which can be checked. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that thinking PARAKANYAA is that the article is currently a biography and not an event so WP:NEVENT doesn't apply currently to an AFD nom. VICTIM is the policy that I could cite. Regardless, the murder itself is not notable as an event so this is the right forum either way. This article is essentially a memorial page and fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. 4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 There is so little here about him as a person I don't see it that way. That an article is mistitled is, IMO, not a notability problem, if it can be fixed through a WP:RM and renaming two headings. I'll check if it passes NEVENT and then re-vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Articles titled after people are biographies under our policy PARAKANYAA. They are not event pages. Period. You are fundamentally making a foundational error here on how we treat pages under policy. Look at the banners at Talk:Christopher Hoban. Both banners are BIOGRAPHY projects.4meter4 (talk) 20:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to what? Biographical or BLP material can be in any article, regardless of what it is titled. There are plenty of pages tagged biographies that aren't biographies, there are plenty of mistagged articles, because WikiProject tags mean literally nothing. WikiProjects do not own anything. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this would be self explanatory. One doesn't need a policy for "The sky is blue." A person is not an event. A person is a person. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) has no people titles in it anywhere for a reason. Wikipedia:Article titles places all its policies on titling people in relation to biographies. Perhaps an WP:RFC is needed on this to tighten our policies to make it clear (although it seems distinctly and glaringly obvious) that any article with a person's name as the title is a biography page. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A person who is only notable for one event is a subtopic of the event, so the event notability is obviously what is of relevance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) is specific that we title events to "time and place". A person is not isolated to time and place; nor are they a sub-thread of a single event in their lives. I'm sure you didn't mean it this way, but saying that a person is a sub-topic of a single event is dehumanizing, and its confusing. Nobody reading wikipedia is going to interpret an article titled for a person as an event page. They will perceive it as a biography.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and so the articles are mistitled from what the actual notable topic is. Why on earth would you delete a notable topic instead of adding three words to the title or spending 2 minutes shuffling it around? So the name should be changed. For the purposes of WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP1E, we cover the event first and only split it out if there is enough material/coverage to do so, so it is a very much a "subtopic". And, so what? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is so simple. There are real editorial and content issues at play. Most of these articles named for victims and not events should be deleted under WP:TNT because they aren't written with a proper encyclopedic focus/scope. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is a big problem, as is providing too many personal details about the victim extraneous to the event. One of the major problems in this content area is making an event page a substitute for biography on a person not notable outside of the event. A lot of personal life stuff shouldn't be there both out of respect for the privacy of the victim and their family, and as off-topic to the event. We shouldn't be using event pages as a proxy for biographies on victims which is what is happening. It's wrong ethically and editorially as an encyclopedia. The event is notable, not the person in most of these cases, and the biographical content should only place the event in context and not memorialize the person. It isn't encyclopedic to do otherwise under WP:NOT and WP:CRIME. Retitling the page doesn't solve the problem in 99% of these articles. They need to be majorly restructured and rewritten.4meter4 (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree entirely, and I think that is a wild misapplication of what WP:TNT is for. TNT is for absolutely hopeless cases, given as examples "Copyright violations, extensive cases of advocacy, undisclosed paid sock farms, and extensive improper use of large language models" - not reasonably editorial changes. And how much of the victim's personal life is relevant will obviously vary by case, and what the secondary sources themselves cover - it is not our job to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, which is what you are arguing we do. Your proposed solution seems more unethical to me, if anything. And that is not what you argued initially, so if that is your actual reason for deletion you should have said so instead of hiding it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely spurious given the cogent NEVENT argument I made which you agree with, and a WP:BADFAITH interpretation of this conversation. Further, violations of WP:NOT are clearly a valid reason to implement WP:TNT as its a core foundation policy that ungirds and supercedes every other policy page other than the WP:PILLARS.4meter4 (talk) 20:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. All NOTMEMORIAL says is thus:

"Subjects of encyclopedia articles must satisfy Wikipedia's notability requirements. Wikipedia is not the place to memorialize deceased friends, relatives, acquaintances, or others who do not meet such requirements. (WP:RIP is excluded from this rule.)"

If the person is notable, or their murder is notable, it is not a deletion worthy issue over how the article is written. NOTMEMORIAL says nothing about how the article is written!

But at this point, we aren't even arguing about this AfD, so the conversation should either end or be taken elsewhere. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We are in agreement on the outcome of this article which is what matters. You have raised a few points which point to ambiguity in our policy language. I may pursue crafting an WP:RFC to clarify titling policy on victims/events involving crime. We may need to update our policies to prevent conflicts like these in future, and perhaps provide a more streamlined pathway(s) to address these issues more clearly. It would be a lot simpler for example if we required articles on people known primarily as the victims of a single event to be titled with a year and event action with their name. That way it prevents arguments and gets people in the habit of creating articles with that practice. It also would inherently focus the content on the event. Obviously there should be some sort of thresh-hold where a person becomes notable beyond the event, and we should have criteria that helps determine that. There should probably be an WP:MOS guideline as well for articles on crime events specifically. Best.4meter4 (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but because the event itself fails NEVENT. Though there isn't nothing it is not in depth and is mostly localized to Brooklyn. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel G. Birmingham

AfDs for this article:

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

Not notable BLP (lawyer) with lacking sourcing and positions held during his biography. Cinder painter (talk) 10:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County-level officeholder with insufficient sourcing or substance to pass WP:NPOL #2. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Code Black (DJ)

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

Does not appear to meet notability. The DJ Mag list is good, even if the entry is a tad brief, but I think that's the only good source here. Aside from that, you've got a database, one song charting unimpressively, a Sydney Morning Herald list which turned out to be just a list of names with no critical discussion, and his record label's website. Could not find anything additional, though anyone who knows a good archive of DJ/EDM publications should give a good look just in case there's more there. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Australia. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 10:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paola Hernández (fashion designer)

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

Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 10:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wokingham Today

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

Rationale: Non-notable news media outlet per WP:GNG. I'm not familiar with WP:NME and WP:NEWSNOTE, but applying their rules, the newspaper seems to lack WP:SIGCOV to suggest broader significance beyond local publication.

Source analysis and online search: Currently links to a broken URL for a fairly brief annual report and a sister publication, both WP:PRIMARY and irrelevant to notability. All I can find in terms of WP:SIGCOV is:

the article's cited source from Hold The Front Page, a UK regional press website, about its initial syndication [39] and
a brief article from the same site about a touted "world first" that the paper had exclusively featured women's sport coverage on its back pages - the article concedes this was a coincidence, suggesting the apparent global significance is grossly overstated: [40].

ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 10:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toarn

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

All coverage of the band that I can find is press releases and/or short blurbs. There's no significant, independent coverage in reliable sources. Note that this article was created by User:Metalworker14, who is now banned for paid editing, frequently had COIs with the articles they created, and, as was eventually self-disclosed, some of the sources cited here were written by Metalworker14 as their day job. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 13:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Washington. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 3 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!} 10:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Guest (researcher and author)

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

Probable WP:AUTOBIO based on primary sources (letters), self-published books, ... The "Guest family history" has not received significant attention ([41]), and I see no other evidence of meeting our notability guidelines. Fram (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 09:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Cool family history project, but doesn't seem like it has attracted any attention that could confer notability. Nothing to be found in any of the Australian sources that I would expect might cover something like this. MCE89 (talk) 09:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete can't find any mention in Google books or news, main source is self-published. Orange sticker (talk) 10:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chembosky Motion Pictures

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

Only passing mentions associated with their films' routine announcements/reviews. Fails WP:ORGCRIT and WP:CORPDEPTH. Also read WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The Doom Patrol (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Organizations, Companies, India, and Kerala. The Doom Patrol (talk) 08:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AMD Livebox

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

The AMD LiveBox was shown at a conference, but based on the lack of further references, apparently never became a product. No significant coverage in sources, so not notable. Dicklyon (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 08:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, for the reasons given. In addition, the article about something announced in 2012 and apparently never delivered is highly promotional in tone. A lot of it reads as if it comes straight out of a manufacturer's publicity leaflet. Athel cb (talk) 09:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In its current form, Delete. If more sources can be found on this (e.g. someone finds a prototype unit), we may be able to salvage this article, but it is poorly worded, with iffy sources. Madeline1805 (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kimi Colney

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

The subject is not notable in their field, writing articles for some news websites does not contribute to Notability. The subject fails WP:AUTHOR,WP:ACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Women, Journalism, India, and Mizoram. Taabii (talk) 08:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think even calling them an "academic" is a massive stretch - as far as I can tell they were a part-time research scholar for a few years after they finished their Masters. So obvious fail on WP:ACADEMIC. No secondary coverage, so can't meet WP:GNG. And the articles they've written aren't going to meet WP:JOURNALIST. So unless the award they were shortlisted for is a massive, massive deal, which it doesn't seem to be as far as I can tell, not seeing what notability guideline they could satisfy. MCE89 (talk) 09:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Delete as per above, article is also written like a promotion in my eyes. Madeline1805 (talk) 23:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abul Khair Group

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

Lack of Reliable Sources: The article lacks citations from reputable, independent sources to verify the information presented. This absence of verifiable references undermines the article's credibility and violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy.

Neutrality Concerns: The content appears promotional, highlighting the company's achievements without a balanced perspective. This promotional tone conflicts with Wikipedia's neutral point of view guideline.

Notability Issues: The article does not provide sufficient evidence that Abul Khair Group meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for organizations. Notability requires significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, which is not demonstrated here.

Original Research: Some statements seem to be based on original research or firsthand knowledge, lacking proper citations. Wikipedia prohibits original research, requiring all material to be attributable to published sources. Wh8t0n3arth (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Companies. Wh8t0n3arth (talk) 08:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, very large and significant company in Bangladesh. Easy to find sources like [42] and [43]. Fulmard (talk) 08:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks are suggestions
Here are my arguments -
1. notability requires significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources—not just passing mentions or trivial coverage. Wikipedia policies (like WP:ORG and WP:NOTE) require sources that demonstrate lasting significance, not just the size or local importance of the organization.
2. Neutrality is highly dubious as visible bias within the article. only couple of news are sporadically added.

3. Manly section lacks lack sinlge source citations and seem to rely only one source. This directly violates Wikipedia's core content policy (WP:OR). Wh8t0n3arth (talk) 15:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not a particularly useful deletion rationale - it's possible I'm missing something, but I don't remotely see OR, promotional content or verifiability issues in the article. The deletion rationale doesn't seem to have much of a basis in either Wikipedia's notability standards (e.g. the presence of OR would not typically be grounds for deletion) or in the actual content of the article, which is only discussed in the vaguest of terms. A quick look at the existing sources and a cursory Google search seem to show a pretty clear WP:NCORP pass to me. MCE89 (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks are suggestions and detailed comment
Here are my arguments -
1. notability requires significant, in-depth coverage in independent, reliable sources—not just passing mentions or trivial coverage. Wikipedia policies (like WP:ORG and WP:NOTE) require sources that demonstrate lasting significance, not just the size or local importance of the organization.
2. Neutrality is highly dubious as visible bias within the article. only couple of news are sporadically added.

3. Manly section lacks lack sinlge source citations and seem to rely only one source. This directly violates Wikipedia's core content policy (WP:OR). Wh8t0n3arth (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take this the wrong way, but in future I would really suggest writing a deletion rationale yourself instead of using AI (GPTZero gives a 98% possibility that the original rationale was AI-generated). I'm sure you have a reason for nominating this for deletion and it might be a good one, but it's hard to tell what it is or find consensus when it's mixed in with the kind of generic or irrelevant points that AI comes up with. For instance, it's just not true that the article relies on a single source, and I cannot see the promotional tone at all (if anything, the article reads too much like a list of criticisms). I think sources like [44] [45] and [46] are enough for me to be satisfied that this passes WP:NCORP, and that's without even considering the Bengali language sources that are presumably out there. MCE89 (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1oneam

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

Promo piece on a non-notable musician. Rejected at AfC but moved into the mainspace regardless, speedy requested but the tag was removed, so here we are at AfD. No evidence of notability, the sources don't come even close to meeting WP:GNG, BEFORE finds only social media and streaming sites, and there is nothing in this draft to suggest WP:MUSICBIO notability either. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 10 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 United States of America. DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Beatty Gibbs

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

The article is largely sourced to a book written by the subject which is clearly not independent and a primary source. The interest in this person appears to be due to the family relation to a notable person. Possibly a case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Politicians, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Lydell

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

Unreferenced BLP other than IMDB as an external link. Not clear the subject meets WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 06:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Television, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no reason to believe this person is notable and my search did not find anything. 🄻 🄰 12:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, even though this dude *supposedly* worked for the American ABC as a music supervisor, I can't find any reliable sources for him. As per the contents itself, it could *possibly* be salvaged? A bit of a stretch, though. Madeline1805 (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abner Louima

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

Fails WP:VICTIM and WP:BLP1E. We shouldn't have a biography on a person who is only known for being the victim of a crime. A possible WP:ATD would be repurposing this to an event page in the same we that we often do with murders and other crimes.4meter4 (talk) 05:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the nominator notes, this could very well just be retitled. Not a reason for deletion. Event passes NEVENT. Such articles should use requested moves not AfD. Failing WP:VICTIM is not a reason for deletion it's a reason for retitling.PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA That’s not a policy backed rationale and you are making an WP:IAR vote. VICTIM and BLP1E are notability policies so AFD is the right forum. A keep is not supported under notability policy. You may vote renaming and repurposing as an event which mandates a rewrite under VICTIM to trim/remove extraneous biographical information not related to the event for WP:BLPPRIVACY reasons. WP:ATD is an acceptable alternative under deletion policy, but keep is not supported under our policies on crimes and at BLP.4meter4 (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@4meter4 WP:VICTIM says "A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person." and BLP1E says "it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article." We do not have an article that can incorporate the information on this person. And there really isn't any extraneous material to rewrite - there is one paragraph of "background" information which would be appropriate as an event article, and aftermath material, which is also appropriate. This is already written like an event article! That the title is incorrect is not a reason for deletion. And no, all the talk in BLP1E/BIO1E and VICTIM is about whether a separate article is warranted and otherwise suggests merging. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And honestly, I'm not even sure if this fails WP:VICTIM, it might not even need to be moved. See the move discussion on Matthew Shepherd, which looks like it will keep being a biography, even though it is structured much like an event one - this is the archetypal example for these kinds of cases. Or say, Rodney King, or Emmett Till - we have several biographies of people only notable for being victims, which have resisted many efforts to merge. This is a notable case whichever way we slice it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA Those people are all famous and have been the subjects of films, books, plays, etc. They don't compare in any way to this minor person/event. You conveniently left out the relevant part of WP:VICTIM
Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies: For victims, and those wrongly accused or wrongly convicted of a crime (or crimes), The victim or person wrongly convicted, consistent with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Subjects notable only for one event, had a large role within a well-documented historic event. The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role. In other words WP:BLP1E applies and this article fails that. Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:DIVERSE media coverage alone is not enough to prove WP:NEVENT or WP:BLP1E is met. A diversity of sources is a must (ie journals, books, etc.) The article should be deleted altogether. Further, as an event this fails WP:EVENTCRIT and does not demonstrate lasting impact.4meter4 (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"The historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role" - which this clearly passes. Yes, I think that whole bit as written is foolish, and we should always go with event focused for the main article. The event also clearly passes EVENTCRIT with tons of scholarly and political attention drawn to it [47] [48] [49] [50] [51], not even getting into the years of retrospective journalism coverage, focusing on its impact on law and policing. There are entire chapters and academic articles written on this case from RS, many of which focus on Louima's life afterwards. He is also not a private person for our purposes as he has given interviews to the media for years. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these. I concur that as an event it does meet WP:NEVENT in light of these materials which demonstrate WP:EVENTCRIT. I would support a move and reworking of the article into an event page. A possible title would be 1997 attack on Abner Louima. As for the interviews, they have all been in relation to the crime in some fashion, so I really don't think that overcomes our issues under VICTIM and BLP policy. The fact that journalists choose to be exploitive doesn't mean we should model their behavior.4meter4 (talk) 19:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that title. And what I mean is, for our purposes, a private person is someone who does not seek media attention. Louima has sought media attention over several years, to shine a light on what he experienced. It's not like the media hunted him down, to be exploitative, that is a different kind of issue. If he had expressed a desire to be private that is one thing but I really don't see that here. There isn't any insanely personal kind of thing here that I see a dire need to redact. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rework (or Keep), WP:VICTIM could be easily defeated if we reworded it like "1997 attack on Abner Louima", as 4meter4 suggests. Madeline1805 (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if moved, should be Attack on Abner Louima. Per WP:NCE these kinds of articles don't have years. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:22, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government Engineering College, Ajmer

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

This article's subject does not appear to meet notability standards. The article contains no references except for a dead link from the school's website and I can not find and reliable sources mentioning it on the internet. Cyrobyte (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and questions. I'm confused about the government's and universities' roles in this college's governance and what degrees are offered. Who owns the college? Who owns the land? Why are there hostels but no residence halls? Who are notable alumni and faculty? Is it accredited? Until these questions are answered, I'm not sure what to do. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 8 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!} 05:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit baffled by this one. To try to answer some of Bearian's questions above, the college seems to be accredited, but I can't find any evidence of notable alumni or faculty. My understanding is that "hostel" is basically just what Indian universities call residence halls, so that's not too unusual. Bikaner Technical University is apparently made up of 42 colleges including this one, 4 of which are government colleges (not sure what exactly that means in practice) and 37 of which are private colleges ([52]). My vague understanding is that in India "universities" are often more abstract entities with some administrative function, and they are actually made up of lots of very autonomous colleges like this one. But only 10 of the colleges at BTU seem to have a Wikipedia page, so that perhaps gives some indication that this college is not necessarily notable. I'm probably inclined to say redirect to Bikaner Technical University given the absence of meaningful coverage, but I'm not sure I understand the subject here well enough to say so confidently. MCE89 (talk) 11:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested by MCE89 Bearian (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Vincent Lockwood

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

The one viewable source has only one sentence of coverage. The other offline source can't support the entire text because it was published in 1926. The death information in 1951 is therefore unreferenced. We can therefore only assume that the Hubbard text is only supporting his participation in the Free Masons. There's not enough here to meet WP:SIGCOV/ WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Law, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roberto Vera Monroig

AfDs for this article:

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

Easily fails WP:GNG as it did last year when previously deleted, and there has been no new or near substantial coverage. Snowycats (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, Politics, and Puerto Rico. Snowycats (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, and have to pass WP:NPOL #2 on the depth of substance that can be written about their mayoralty (specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the community, etc.) and the volume of reliable sourcing that can be provided to support it — but this is basically "mayor who exists, the end" with no sourcing at all, and Adjuntas is nowhere near large enough to extend him a presumption of notability if its sourcing and substance are lacking. (A mayor of New York City or Chicago whose article was this inadequate would obviously get the benefit of the doubt, on the grounds that it was easily repairable — but a mayor of a small town with a population of just 18K gets no such indulgences if the article isn't already up to snuff.) Certainly no prejudice against recreation in the future if somebody can actually write and source an article that actually satisfies the requirements, but this isn't it. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Lieberson

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

Article is cited to a staff biography at Harvard and a paid obituary in the Boston Globe (not a staff written one). Neither of these are independent. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy/snow keep. The nomination does not mention the relevant notability guideline of WP:NPROF, which the subject here clearly passes multiple criteria of. Sourcing could be better -- the Harvard source in the article doesn't work for me, but this one does [53], the AAAS membership is verified here [54] -- but as usual, WP:DINC. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Social science, Canada, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep WP:SK3, completely erroneous nomination that fails to even consider the correct notability criteria, WP:PROF and WP:AUTHOR, noting also that PROF notability is not about independence of sourcing. This stub manages to pack in five separate and unambiguous claims of WP:PROF notability: named professor at Harvard (at a time when that meant much more than it might today), member of NAS, Amacad, and the American Philosophical Society, and president of the American Sociological Association. The Harvard link (visible in archive [55]) gives even more, including another fellowship, two more presidencies, and a very likely pass of WP:AUTHOR even before looking for book reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per criterion 3 (lack of accurate rationale in nomination) and passing both WP:AUTHOR and multiple criteria of WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing per WP:HEY as well as the cogent remarks above. Article has been majorly improved by Vycl1994 in particular. Clearly meets the SNG criteria provided by others above. Thanks to those who improved the article. Good work.4meter4 (talk) 20:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Lee (still photographer)

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

Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Everything is related to his brother Spike Lee in a search. Article is sourced to a self published website. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Film, Television, Photography, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – there are some articles about him (Chicago Sun-Times, AMPAS 1, AMPAS 2), but always in reference to his brother's work. Also wouldn't be opposed to merging to a new "Family" section or similar at Spike Lee, with info from Joie Lee and Cinqué Lee as well. RunningTiger123 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123 That's not a bad idea on a family section in the Spike Lee article. I would support a selective merge to Spike Lee as an WP:ATD if an editor steps forward who wants to take that on.4meter4 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James V. LaSala

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

Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: By the article's own evidence, very obscure mobster. Could not find anything useful. The one source used doesn't even mention him as far as I can see. Very well could be a hoax. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, not a hoax (newspapers.com hits), still not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is actually included in a brief entry in the "World encyclopedia of organized crime" but it's not long and basically just what is here already. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism on Wikipedia

AfDs for this article:

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

This is basically the same as Wikipedia:Vandalism. We don't need to have an article specifically about vandalism on Wikipedia, and much of the info in here is covered in Wikipedia:Vandalism. Cyber the tiger 🐯 (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be salted because this article is literally a duplicatearticle and we don't need duplicate articles on Wikipedia, nor should they ever be created. I support deletion for this article. After deletion, I think this article ought to be salted. 54rt678 (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I can't find evidence of a duplicate article anywhere IDK how to read (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And the link below dos'nt help either, we need an actual wikipedia page instead of just a random project page IDK how to read (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wikipedia:Vandalism: The article is duplicative of an existing project page. TarnishedPath^talk 06:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:57, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is encyclopedic coverage of vandalism on Wikipedia, which is extremely socially and verifiably notable. The project page is also a good page, but that's a project page on how to detect and mitigate vandalism, not encyclopedic documentation of Vandalism on Wikipedia. See NYT Bits and Poynter for examples of significant coverage. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep. it's not the same as wp:vandalism in any way beyond being about vandalism on wikipedia. the article provides notable examples of it happening, with a hint of details on how people make it show up less. the policy defines what vandalism is, provides examples of what counts as vandalism, and details how to deal with it. one is a guide, the other is an article, is what one could say consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 14:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep content and sources shows that this is a phenomenon which has wide implications and impact off-wiki, making it notable Orange sticker (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is trivially notable and is clearly not a duplicate of Wikipedia:Vandalism, despite the similar titles. This article describes the phenomenon and WP:VAND informs editors how to deal with vandalism on Wikipedia. Astaire (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously not a duplicate of the internal project page, and supported by external sources. XOR'easter (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The content is vastly different than what is at WP:Vandalism and serves an entirely different purpose. I do think it would be reworked a bit, but that's not what the AFD process is for. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 21:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to WP:VD Madeline1805 (talk) 23:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems redundant to me to have two separate articles in mainspace about the exact same thing. Madeline1805 (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't two separate articles in mainspace, and they don't say the same thing. XOR'easter (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what is this other article? consarn _{(speak evil) (see evil)} 00:36, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let me clear up a misconception here: Wikipedia:Vandalism is not an article, and this is therefore not a duplicate. The Wikipedia: page describes our policy, while the page under discussion is an encyclopedia article about the concept. They are not the same thing. QuicoleJR (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Really easy keep. Articles about Wikipedia and its aspects on Wikipedia have been around since the beginning, and established, long-time editors should know better. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 03:39, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WNYT (internet radio)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Internet radio station; just two sources; TV station in Albany should be primary topic. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Education, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per first AFD. College radio station that was on the air for decades; while the article could certainly use some work, the topic is notable. 162 etc. (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete previous AfD keep votes and above argue WP:ITSNOTABLE. I'm not seeing sources to establish GNG. LibStar (talk) 08:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it was on-air for decades it is likely notable in some way, even if that's difficult to verify with online sources (a typical issue with topics like smaller media orgs) - the argument that another radio should be WP:PTOPIC is irrelevant - it's disambiguated already, that's why DABs exist. (Although it's irrelevent to this discussion, I am inclined to agree that the Albany station is likely PTOPIC here) ASUKITE 16:26, 9 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!} 04:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it existed until 2023, so it should get online coverage. None of the keep !votes have provided evidence of coverage. LibStar (talk) 04:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New York Institute of Technology. College radio stations, regardless of whether they broadcast terrestrially or over the internet, are not "inherently" notable just for existing — like all other types of media outlets, a college radio station still has to be shown to pass WP:GNG. But the only references here are a very short blurb in Billboard, which is fine but not substantive enough to get this over the bar all by itself, and content self-published by its own parent institution, which is not support for notability at all. We also do not simply assume that GNG-worthy coverage exists just because the topic's been around for a long time — you must find and show evidence that enough GNG-worthy coverage does exist, not just speculate about the possibility that it might. And since we are not limited to sourcing that Googles, but are allowed to dig out and use sourcing that we find in archives like ProQuest or newspapers.com, Googlabilty problems are not an exemption from GNG either.
So I'm willing to reconsider if somebody actually finds and shows hard evidence that sufficient GNG-worthy coverage actually exists to fix the article with, but media outlets aren't exempted from GNG just because editors assume that better sourcing might exist than anybody's ever been bothered to actually add to the article.
But per WP:STUDENTMEDIA, college radio stations which don't clear the bar for their own articles should be retained as redirects to their host institutions. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A City Dressed in Dynamite

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

Non-notable album; shows no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 3 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!} 04:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Government procurement in Poland

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

Links to only one article. Text has not been significantly updated since the page was first made. No proof that the article falls under WP:SIGCOV; no sources are listed on the article, and even Polish Wikipedia has only one secondary source. I would additionally argue that the article falls under WP:A1. Mupper-san (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Poland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Millheiser

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

Article relies primarily on primary, self-published, and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Become the Other

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

Studio album which does not make the case for notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How does it not make the case for notability? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@DanielTheMusicMaster Is this a vote? If so, please update your comment with a vote like Delete, Weak delete, Neutral, Weak keep, or Keep. If it is not, please add Comment or {{Comment}} which produces the following:

Comment:

Hope this makes sense! TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I think I understand now. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 17:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the album warrants an article, seeing as how it was included on the Official Charts. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again, not strong arguments for Deleting or Keeping this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:22, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, if the article did place high on some sort of chart, then I suppose there's a reason to keep it? But, I did get a whiff of WP:GARAGE. Not enough to warrant a delete vote, but still. Madeline1805 (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Floor's Too Far Away

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

Non-notable studio album; does not make the case for inclusion with listed sources; could be merged in band's page in part. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it not make sense? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, typed a little fast there. What I meant to say was: Why does it not make the case? DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The album has been mentioned in official publications. DanielTheMusicMaster (talk) 20:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not strong arguments to Keep or Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Don't see a good reason to keep this. Album didnt hit any sort of charts or top hits, all the sources at a quick glance seem to just be either reviews on websites I don't know the reliability on, or just sites listing the tracks, with user-generated reviews.

Madeline1805 (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward J. Megarr

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

Relies entirely on military journals and newsletters like the Marine Corps Gazette. Not sure if we should consider these independent enough to meet WP:SIGCOV (in the same way that we usually don't count trade journals and magazines in other fields). Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - a quick gsearchs seems to show a few other hits, and a three-star general is almost absolutely notable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Major general is two stars, not three. I'd agree he should be notable based on holding a division command alone, but I'm really surprised there isn't more out there. Especially since he seemed to have served during Vietnam. Intothat darkness 14:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Duh, right, it is two. My brain was going "Major is a higher rank than Lieutenant" and forgot that for Generals it's the other way around... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Generals are always special... I might look through my sources and see if I can find anything relating to him during Vietnam. Don't have much on Korea, though. Intothat darkness 03:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete you'd presume a Major general would be notable, but there aren't enough WP:RS to support that presumption, so fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:38, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Although a major general is *definitely* notable, the lack of WP:RS *does* make it fail WP:GNG. Any hits I can find on Google are either just presumably general listings of war vets, or user-generated content.

Madeline1805 (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted GNG is a general (no pun intended) guideline, not the hard-and-fast ironclad standard a lot of people make it out ot be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@The Bushranger That's an essay that isn't widely recognized as valid. It's also true and not true. It is true GNG is only one pathway to prove notability. We have WP:SNGs as another recognized pathway which is what that non-policy essay is vaguely pointing to. But there isn't an SNG in this content area so all we are left with is GNG in this case or WP:ANYBIO/WP:BASIC. The subject doesn't meet any of these based on the current evidence. Perhaps there should be a SNG for military people but currently no such policy/guideline exists. We do need to follow a recognized policy/guideline at AFD. Otherwise WP:IAR would have us keep all articles mindlessly. You are making an IAR vote, which is fine, but most of us aren't going to take that argument seriously.4meter4 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very aware it's only an essay. It's one I happen to agree with. The thing is there used to be a SNG in this content area - WP:SOLDIER (which established "flag officers are always notable"). It was depreciated some time back, as a lot of SNGs have, which is highly unfortunate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you are in a minority opinion that has been widely discredited after discussion. The fact that it was deprecated by community WP:CONSENSUS strengthens the argument that WP:GNG is what the community by consensus wants to see and expects to be applied in this context. Citing WP:ONLYESSAY/WP:NOGNG after a formal 2021 WP:RFC (see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1008759107#rfc ) already told us to apply GNG in this context seems ill considered at best, and at worst a WP:DISRUPTSIGNS per criteria 5. You might want to rethink making arguments that have already been formally deprecated by an RFC outcome you are already aware of.4meter4 (talk) 03:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George Meehan

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

None of the sources (other than Blottner) mention the subject in anything but credit lists. This does not constitute significant coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 04:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Probably none of the references? Many sources mention the subject other than in the credit list! gidonb (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add those here. The only source used which has him in anything beyond a credits list is the Blottner source; but those comments are sparse and perfunctory and do not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. Please provide evidence of sources with in-depth coverage. None of the materials address biographical content like dates of birth or death. An encyclopedia entry (if one can be found) would go a long way to proving notability for example. Even an obituary (as long as its not a paid for one) would be useful to help meet GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reference. References are in the article. Sources are out there. This particular reference was removed by someone and just re-added by me. I saw maybe 10-20 sources that mention the cinematographer. He probably passes CREATIVE #2#4b for being extremely prolific. Texts often say something about the job he did. There is an anecdote in a book about a fellow cinematographer who he trained. There might be more in the newspapers. gidonb (talk) 22:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a WP:SOURCESEXIST argument which is listed as a discredited argument at AFD. You must produce specific sources here with specific details (preferably url links but offline sources with title, author, date, publisher, and page number work too), and not make vague unsubstantiated claims.4meter4 (talk) 22:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. It's not WP:SOURCESEXIST at all as I do not say that SIGCOV exists, only that I'll look further. That's anyone's prerogative. Also, nothing vague about WP:CREATIVE #4b. You wanted SIGCOV. I'll look some more. Please note that thus far I have only commented so all these frames are totally irrelevant. gidonb (talk) 01:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frenemies (podcast)

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Since Frenemies was only a series of episodes of the H3 Podcast, there is no reason for there to be a standalone article about it. This page could be redirected to H3 Podcast#Frenemies and Families, which was the consensus on the previous AfD. The discussion at Talk:Frenemies (podcast)#This was never a standalone podcast also provides some useful information. Badbluebus (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Popular culture and Internet. Badbluebus (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to H3 Podcast#Frenemies and Families

Never heard of this podcast, but seeing off of what OP says, and doing some research myself, it does fail REDUNDANTFORK in my eyes. Madeline1805 (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dom har glömt

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

The article fails WP:NSONG with no chart information, and it fails WP:GNG with no significant descriptions of the song in the literature. The supplied citations are useless: four of the five are about other things, and the fifth is a Discogs.com link that merely proves the existence of the single. Discogs cannot be cited per WP:ALBUMAVOID, and it certainly does not establish notability. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 3 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!} 04:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Elva kvinnor i ett hus as standard WP:ATD. No evidence of meeting WP:NSONG. Jfire (talk) 05:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Max McCalman

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

Article is cited entirely to primary and self-published sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Food and drink, Brazil, Arkansas, Kentucky, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James McLain

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

This is (probably) a 15-year-old hoax, as brought to my attention by Bearian. All the creator's edits were to this page. There is nothing in any book source that is not a Wikipedia mirror, there is nothing in any primary source news article, there is nothing that is anywhere except sources recycling Wikipedia. There are 0-mentions in RS for this name or his supposed old name the whole story about the name change reads very hoaxy. All of it reads very hoaxy, anyone who had brushed shoulders with this many notable people would have been mentioned in RS, or at least primary source news! This reads like someone's mobster OC. If it is not a hoax, it is a very very obscure man who does not pass our notability guidelines. But I am fairly certain it is a hoax. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Illinois. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination - whether a hoax or just a criminal who never saw significant coverage, this shouldn't remain here. I looked online and found nothing. Bearian (talk) 03:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maddelynn Hatter

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

Article relies on blogs, self-published podcasts, and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Additionally, fails WP:BLP1E as everything revolves around competing on a television show.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not expand this redirect, but I removed the bad sources and added a few more sources + claims to the article. I'd say there's probably enough coverage to stitch together a decent biography about her early life, career, and personal life, but IF the subject is deemed not notable then please just redirect the page to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3. The page serves a purpose and there's no need to delete the article history. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Photography, Sexuality and gender, Massachusetts, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the additional text that's recently been added. I think there's room to expand this. If there's insufficient support for keep, I would also settle for a merge with the Dragula article. Lewisguile (talk) 08:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG. I've added several more sources and think the entry should be expanded and improved, not deleted ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not appear to meet WP:ENT, no valid secondary sourcing. Interviews do not count, nor do blogs or Youtube. Mamani1990 (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabish Khan (art critic)

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

Biography of an art critic that fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in article are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in media coverage of other topics, primary source bios and other non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Visual arts, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the writer is known within the contemporary art scene in the UK and is currently active suggesting there may be more additions to the page in future. While I agree that searching for the author turns up lots of his own writing, a look at other art critics, writers and journalists with Wikipedia entries returns similar results. In terms of independent coverage, this article does include links to notable outlets that have sought his views on art stories and artworks. Suggestions for improvement rather than deletion may be a better course of action. Londoneditor284 (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Londoneditor284 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep these are good points. It would be a diservice to Wikipedia if well-known critics were expunged Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although this person is mostly only known within the contemporary British art scene, they have contributed numerous articles, interviews, and features in multiple outlets and have been quoted in many sources (as can be seen from the citations). They are clearly significant enough within their own field to warrant keeping this article. Any suggestions to improve the article would be welcome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.45.218.212 (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — 80.45.218.212 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Izno (talk) 22:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quotations in sources are not enough to demonstrate notability (except in a limited case for certain academics), and authoring articles isn't either. What SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources can you offer? Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let me do some digging and get back to you. The nature of the subject (someone who writes about other people's artwork for a living) makes it difficult by definition to have many SIGCOV sources. I feel this should be taken into account? 80.45.218.212 (talk) 16:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel this way, that's a great discussion topic for WP:VILLAGEPUMP, not for a discussion where we can't change policy. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Could Dclemens1971 help in finding any better sources for this person/article? I've looked at pages for other critics too but can't seem to see how they fit the criteria if we are super-strict with SIGCOV Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC) (striking duplicate vote. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]
Please strike your second !vote; editors are only allowed one !vote in an AfD. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the entire point of the WP:BEFORE search (which I did) was to find qualifying sources, and I didn't find them. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"[A] search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent [sources]" - isn't this exactly what we should expect though? Likeabutterfly (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's what we should expect from a person who's not notable, I suppose. And as already mentioned, please strike through your duplicative !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. Taabii (talk) 10:30, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this AFD discussion. Since there are several strong Keep arguments, I'm giving this discussion a little more time for supporters to locate RS that provide SIGCOV. If nothing appears, then I assume this article will be headed towards deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas F. O'Neill

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

The one source that is used is literally just a filmography listing. It doesn't have anything to say about the subject's work. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven O'Mahoney-Schwartz

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

Relies entirely on primary and non-independent sources. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malaysian Association of Private Colleges and Universities

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

Has been tagged with being un-notable for seven years, without improvement. I could not find independent or secondary sources. LR.127 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Malaysia. LR.127 (talk) 03:13, 3 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!} 02:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not appear to meet WP:NLIST ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:11, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party coverage of this association. LibStar (talk) 04:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard O'Connell (racehorse trainer)

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

The cited sources either don't mention the subject at all or only in passing. They don't verify the content in the article. Perhaps there was link rot of some kind? Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cloud engineering

AfDs for this article:

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

Page on a very uncommon to non-existent discipline. It has been tagged for notability for many years, and just left. No attempt has been made to keep it current and encyclopedic, the main page cloud computing is far more current and useful. Best to remove, there is no useful information here we should be providing readers. This topic is really part of computer science & engineering. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ligaturama (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Pustilnik

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

Relies entirely on primary sources. Fails WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:18, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akin Ogunbiyi

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

Fails the notability guideline for politicians and does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Politicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 02:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A lack of reliable online sources to establish him as a notable businessman and simply a candidate for a position.Southati (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all sources either barely mention him or fail WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA. 🄻 🄰 13:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As always, people do not get Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates in elections they didn't win — the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one — but this article neither establishes that he had preexisting notability for other reasons independent of a candidacy, nor demonstrates a credible reason to treat his candidacy as more special than other candidacies. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL Ibjaja055 (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No valid secondary sources to prove notability for WP:POLITICIAN. Mamani1990 (talk) 22:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lincoln Lambert

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

Can't find WP:SIGCOV; at best can only find passing mentions. seefooddiet (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, South Korea, and United States of America. seefooddiet (talk) 02:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much of the refs didn't actually support claims given in the article; I just gave it a scrub. The rest of the articles have barely any mention of him; just a namedrop. A little sus. seefooddiet (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer Ross

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The one source used only has one sentence of coverage of the subject.4meter4 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Added two in-depth sources which should help to sort things out. With how much sports media there is in and around New York, you had to know there'd be something. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Radio, Television, Sports, Florida, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doing WP:BEFORE helps avoid these unnecessary nominations.[56][57][58] – Muboshgu (talk) 14:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Rlendog (talk) 14:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject easily meets WP:GNG as per WP:BEFORE. There are hundreds of articles available as references as per Google search. Flibirigit (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close per above. Easily passes GNG. The Kip ^(contribs) 18:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing per WP:HEY. Thanks to those who improved the article's sourcing.4meter4 (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Katherina Roshana

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

Fails WP:BLP1E. Only known for winning a beauty pageant.4meter4 (talk) 01:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Beauty pageants, South America, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Rodriguez (photographer)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. The New York magazine piece is a great feature of his photographs but there isn't much prose about the subject accompanying the photos. The other source is the subject's website. There's not enough indepth coverage here to justify an article.4meter4 (talk) 01:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, Photography, and New York. Shellwood (talk) 02:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of American films of 2028

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

This seems way WP:TOOSOON to be useful for the foreseeable future to be draftified. Only one item is even titled. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON; can be re-created when we have more than two press-release-parroting sources. (And I will never understand why some editors have to be the first to create an article about a subject for which literally nothing is known yet).WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The page should be kept since it was multiple release dates announced by the studios, as oppose to 2029 onwards. KingArti (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:HAMMER. 3/4 films listed have no name. "Hammer" is just an essay, but so commonly cited at AfD that it might as well be a guideline. Bearian (talk) 03:57, 8 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!} 01:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There have been several movies announced with release dates in the year 2028. More 2028 films will be announced as the year progresses so I believe it should be kept. If a page is created for 2029 or beyond, however, that should be considered WP:TOOSOON. TheJay123 (talk))
Delete per other "delete" recommendations above. There's not enough information here to warrant having an article yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Lobb

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

A before search shows nothing to pass GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 01:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. Kline • talk • contribs 01:18, 3 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!} 01:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: So far has only made a few appearances for Wests Tigers and their website lists him in WS Magpies squad. No problem with the article being recreated if he goes on to establish himself in the NRL team and thereby receive significantly more media coverage, but currently only mentioned in a few match reports, or on websites for teams he played for. EdwardUK (talk) 14:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksei Kulashko

AfDs for this article:

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

No changes have been made since the previous deletion and doing a before search reveals nothing passing GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 01:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Russia, and New Zealand. Kline • talk • contribs 01:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD so Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Sofie Madsen

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

Borderline notability, subject requests deletion,Ticket:2024091410007147. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Fashion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Do you have any details on the VRT request, CaptainEek? Any reason for why they would be against the article? Since nothing in it seems negative. And I would not call her borderline notable, since she's one of the biggest names in fashion. It's just that the coverage of her is almost entirely not in English. But outside of most every fashion magazine in the world covering her, she also receives mainstream coverage from newspapers of record. For example:

So I'd really like some more information on this one before making a decision. Because I'm currently leaning toward too notable and well known for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to matter. Silver seren^C 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Silver seren The issue seems to be one of inaccuracy and the sources being out of date; most of them are over a decade old. I made a few corrections to the article, but her overall concern is that the article is now so out of date with her resume that potential employers google her and think her CV is fake because her more recent achievements are not on her Wikipedia. I think this is a problem we often encounter with BLP's: their article is frozen in time at a point when they had coverage, and doesn't reflect who they are now, but there isn't enough new coverage to update with. A problem that grows as Wikipedia reaches the 25 year mark. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like an argument for expansion, not for deletion. Unless we're going to be deleting a ton of articles for being out of date. There's sources available. There's this from Vogue on her Tokyo 2017 collection. There's this from Women's Wear Daily on her Paris 2018 collection. There's this from Woman.dk and this from Fashion Forum about her 2021 collection collaboration with Lulu Kaalund. I got all that from just a quick Google search without even knowing anything about how to search for Danish, French, or Japanese sources. Silver seren^C 01:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the VRT agent for that ticket, and CaptainEek's characterization is correct. She has provided only vague objections about things being incorrect, nothing specific. I have asked her to use WP:Edit Request Wizard to identify specific things to fix on the talk page, but she seems to want a VRT agent to do the research and fix things for her. The creator of the article even invites people to contact her directly and includes her email on her user page, but the article subject has not engaged with her. Yes, the subject of the article wants it deleted because she isn't famous, but the sources already cited suggest she's clearly notable, which isn't the same thing as fame. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the argument on her end is more of the "not a celebrity level fame", rather than the "rather well known designer in a field level fame" that she actually is, it seems. I still think this is fully fixable in the article, though it would definitely be helpful if she was willing to work with us on that. Since I'm sure she's more personally aware of the fashion news sources covering her more recent work than any of us are. Silver seren^C 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have received an email from the subject and have asked for further details. At this stage, I am not sure if she would prefer deletion or correction.--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion would be an option if she was borderline notable or the article was a hit job, but neither case applies here. The notability seems pretty clear, and the article isn't negative either. If an article about a notable subject is deleted, someone else will eventually come along and write another article. Improvement is really the best past forward. ~Anachronist (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: She is a notable fashion designer and has coverage in reliable sources such as Vogue. Moopaz (talk) 23:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fashion deigner covered by Vogue and other sources listed above. I added the "Update" template to the top of the article, saying "Please help update this article to reflect recent events ..." So, if "potential employers google her" and find this article, they will be greeted with a note making clear the article does not reflect recent events. I hope that helps. Asparagusstar (talk) 03:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: before I would go along with a keep, I would like to see the sources found incorporated into this article. This is my personal opinion, and I've raised it before in other AfDs. Bearian (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to hear from more editors and if you have found sources, please mention them here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I had a very quick look on The Guardian newspaper website and found two places where she's named alongside far more famous designers. I've added them to the article. She's mentioned in a textbook, admittedly only a photo of an example of her work, but the author must have considered her worth including – Udale, J. (2023). Textiles and fashion : from fabric construction to surface treatments (Third ed.). Bloomsbury Visual Arts. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edd Gould

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

I've been pondering on nominating this for AfD, and I've finally come to the conclusion that this article is not eligible for standalone notability and should either be deleted or merged into Eddsworld (if that article is even notable at this point with such sketchy sourcing). A WP:BEFORE search brings up obituary-style sources and passing mentions in articles. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:13, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Europe, and United Kingdom. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:14, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Internet. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 🌹 ⚧ ^{(CALL ME IF YOU GET LOST)} 01:42, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: while i agree Eddsworld isn't sourced properly (and that it probably is impossible to source well given the mainstream media snobness about early-2000s internet culture), this article in particular seems pretty well sourced to me. That his notability mostly comes from the continuation of his work by Ridgewell (ie he became notable mostly posthumously) is irrelevant because he is notable. I think EddsWorld should be merged into etiher TomSka or this article, but that's not the subject.

Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't very many in-depth sources (including in the article) but I think there are just enough to support a short article on Gould or Eddsworld. However, most of the coverage is overlapping between Gould and Eddsworld and I don't think there is enough to justify articles on both of them so I would support a merge to Eddsworld (or vice versa). Shapeyness (talk) 15:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Raffa

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Obviously a very accomplished woman, but unfortunately I was unable to locate any independent RS from a reliable publisher. Tulsa Ballet's blog is a self published source and the ABT is her employer. Everything I could find only mentioned her in passing.4meter4 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Dance. 4meter4 (talk) 01:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I found multiple articles covering Raffa's work in reliable sources, including the New York Times^[2] and the Boston Globe.^[3] This story in a Kentucky newspaper is additional coverage.^[4] I put these citations, and more, into the article. DaffodilOcean (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing and speedy keep. @ DaffodilOcean You are a gem. Thank you so much for these and improving the article.4meter4 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/469815
^ Dunning, Jennifer (1985-01-20). "THIS DANCE COMPETITION DOES MORE THAN GIVE PRIZES". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-01-10.
^ Temin, Christine (5 November 1981). "THE MAKING OF A BALLET STAR; AT 17, NANCY RAFFA LEARNS THAT SUCCESS BRINGS MIXED BLESSINGS". Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext) ; Boston, Mass. p. 1 – via Proquest.
^ Winer, Linda (1980-11-23). "Overworked, underpaid ballet dancers ask whether it's worth it". The Lexington Herald. p. 80. Retrieved 2025-01-10.

Keep though that's probably not necessary now that the nominator has withdrawn it. As she was a principal dancer with Ballet de Santiago and Ballet National Francaise, I would expect to find coverage in Chile in Spanish and in France in French. I'll see what I can find. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian phonk

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

Expired then contested PROD. Concern was: The article's text is overly promotional and almost all claims failed verification from cited sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Brazil. UtherSRG (talk) 00:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Phonk#Subgenres – As WP:ATD. The rhythm is not notable for its own article, but it can be mentioned in the aforementioned section. Svartner (talk) 07:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://asn.flightsafety.org/wikibase/469815

[2] Dunning, Jennifer (1985-01-20). "THIS DANCE COMPETITION DOES MORE THAN GIVE PRIZES". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2025-01-10.

[3] Temin, Christine (5 November 1981). "THE MAKING OF A BALLET STAR; AT 17, NANCY RAFFA LEARNS THAT SUCCESS BRINGS MIXED BLESSINGS". Boston Globe (pre-1997 Fulltext) ; Boston, Mass. p. 1 – via Proquest.

[4] Winer, Linda (1980-11-23). "Overworked, underpaid ballet dancers ask whether it's worth it". The Lexington Herald. p. 80. Retrieved 2025-01-10.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]