Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

27 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 26	January 28 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Taras Kostyuk

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

Fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of "significant roles in multiple, notable" productions. Most of the credits are unnamed, one-off supporting characters (e.g. "Thug #1" in an episode of Andromeda). All external links except IMDb are dead. It's difficult to find out much at all about this actor, because reliable sources with significant coverage don't appear to exist. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Ukraine, and Canada. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much non-notable actor. "Security Man" and "Another Guard" are just not what we need. I can't find any sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment His most significant roles seem to have been Sasquatch in the film of the same name, also released as The Untold (TV listings said "Tara Kostyuk had the thankless task of playing Sasquatch" [1]), and Red Seven in two episodes of Dark Angel (he's listed as Guest Cast in this Encyclopedia of superheroes on film and television). This Ukrainian Phrasebook, Dictionary, Menu Guide & Interactive Factbook ebook (on Ebookit.com, so presumably self-published) has as an example sentence for the word 'stunt': "When it comes to movie stunts, Ukrainian-Canadian Taras Kostyuk has performed many of them , some quite dangerous , in his 40 movies." The external link kinofilms.ua lists 4 movies/series in 2015 + 2016 that are not in the WP article, but his roles in those also seem to be the kind that's listed as 'priest', 'long-haired thug', etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm leaning towards weak keep and to rework the page as the actor may be notable. 2001:A61:25EB:5701:CC85:6C3B:4189:8DC7 (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretão

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

Player played 25 games in Brazil's fourth tier in intermittent seasons, never playing double-figures amount of games. I'm finding absolutely no coverage of him, even when I search his real name (his nickname, if I am not mistaken, means "The Big Black Guy"). Soccerway's data implies he won the state league Campeonato Amapaense five times but offers no statistical proof; the state is the second least populated anyway so this is hardly the same as winning the Campeonato Paulista five times even if true. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. Skynxnex (talk) 23:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – There are few things about him in the sports media, just one case where he was punched by another player in the Amapá state championship [2]. Svartner (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On ogol.com.br it shows that the athlete never even played outside of the Amapá state league [3] , and only gained prominence because he was presented alongside Beto Acosta at Santos-AP [4]. Svartner (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oruru-Parapara

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

Fails WP:NGEO Statistical areas aren't legally recognised places. The legally recognised places would be Oruru and Parapara. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest moving the article to Oruru Valley.-Gadfium (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is willing to create an article on it I'm fine with a merge. None of the potential merge targets such as Oruru, Parapara, or Aurere exist as articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Split Completely agree census tracts are not notable, but this is a unique situation where the census tract covers four places which are eligible for WP:NGEO articles, but those articles don't appear to exist yet. It may be better editorially to actually keep this until those articles exist. Oruru certainly needs its own article based on a WP:BEFORE search. Oruru was listed as a town in Wise's New Zealand 1905, Aurere as a station, Parapara as "see Mangonui," and Paranui as a bit harder to find. Aurere now looks like a hamlet and there's a tourist centre there, Paranui is clearly a hamlet as well, Parapara is a "locality" with several houses. All are clearly defined by the census and as such would all pass WP:NGEO on their own, so we shouldn't lose any of the information at this article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William James Carson

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

IRA member who was killed in a shocking and sad way in 1979. I can see why someone felt this deserved an article but I'm not seeing many reliable sources. Prezbo (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Prezbo (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:BLP1E or WP:NVICTIM. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Northern Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He has an entry in Lost Lives (p. 783), and I would hazard a guess that there are offline sources. If not kept, merge to List of people killed during The Troubles (1969–1998) as WP:ATD. Jfire (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think Wikipedia should try to have an article on every individual listed in Lost Lives, that feels off to me. Prezbo (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's debatable. WP:5P1 says Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias. Lost Lives is such a specialized encyclopedia, so content with its features is arguably in scope for Wikipedia, providing it meets other guidelines and policies. Jfire (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Spiegel

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

My WP:BEFORE turned up no decent sources with significant independent coverage - it seems to be almost entirely recycled press releases, passing mentions, interviews or items that the subject has written themselves. I therefore submit that notability is not established under WP:GNG and I don't think that any of the WP:SNG pertain in this case. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, Germany, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog. Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the article. To address the concerns raised in the nomination, I am actively improving the article by removing sources that lack sufficient independence or reliability. Additionally, I am researching and incorporating high-quality references that offer significant coverage of the subject from third-party, independent sources. To ensure the article adheres to a neutral point of view and complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, I have already removed content that appeared promotional. Based on these ongoing improvements, I kindly request that you consider the revisions before making a final decision regarding the deletion of the article. Thank you.

Sergiomarcus (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergiomarcus great stuff, please do add them to the article, and they can be taken into account. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog Thank you. Sergiomarcus (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the stub is still expanding. Let's wait another few days. Ping me if you think this passes WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources found about this topic are PRs about their appointment as a CEO and some other routine interviews. I would be willing to change my !vote if sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Raza (actor)

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

Disputed draftification. I do not believe redraftifying would allow this to be accepted because no amount of editing can conjure notability from nowhere. Fails WP:NACTOR. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with at least two main/lead roles in notable productions + other significant roles. Can be expanded through sources like https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/you/1063549-ali-raza (containing an interview; bylined presentation). Declining creation because iit needs improvement could have been OK but not because it does not meet WP:NACTOR. Because it does. -Mushy Yank. 12:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that interview means means much for to WP:Notability, see WP:INTERVIEW. And declining wasn't an option for the nominator, as they said in the nom, this is a disputed draftification; this is an procedurally correct nomination. Follow up @Mushy Yank, I'm just going through the filmography on the article, which two are you considering main/lead roles in notable productions? I'm not sure I'm totally convinced but I could be persuaded to agree. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby CohnOh, no the interview is not to prove notability directly, just an exemple of what can be used to improve the page and verify the importance of the roles. Regarding procedure; I did not say this could not be AfDed (everything can), just commenting on the fact that the nomination's rationale is based on NACTOR, just like the reason to decline the creation at AfC was. Lead/main cast roles in Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri, & Noor Jahan (2024 TV series) ; significant roles (not minor) in Duniyapur (TV series) & Gunah (TV series). I'm leaving it at that. Best, -Mushy Yank. 20:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)EDIT: +lead role in Iqtidar (see page)-Mushy Yank. 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 14:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having lead roles does not make someone inherently notable. They need the significant coverage to support. The references are interviews, puff pieces, or otherwise unreliable. On a side note, this was more than just draftification. It was draftified, then declined, then still moved to the mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Echoing the nom, fails NACTOR and GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but "fail[ing] WP:NACTOR", how, please? -Mushy Yank. 12:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it otherwise? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the guideline and read the page. It is obviously a pass of WP: NACTOR. See my comment above. -Mushy Yank. 21:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the guidelines and read the page. In my opinion, he did not have any significant roles, in fact filmography section is devoid of any reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No significant roles????? REALLY? I will assume good faith then.... if you honestly want to check, just click on the links about the series.....I’m leaving it at that. -Mushy Yank. 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does a mention in a Wikipedia article confer notability? Almost, none of those articles has his role supported by a reliable source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost? Meaning, you find a few that confirm them, after all? :D Again, I am assuming good faith. -Mushy Yank. 22:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the content covered in other Wikipedia articles about the subject does not establish notability. Almost meaning the ones I checked lack reliable sources amounting to WP:SIGCOV. He is a young emerging actor but does not have coverage at the level of establishing notability. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR is not about SIGCOV (just read it, it's not long), NACTOR is about significance of roles in notable productions. 2 sources in English almost at random to confirm 2 different significant roles in 2 notable productions: https://www.dawn.com/news/1773436 ; https://images.dawn.com/news/1192720. Again, read my comments above. Thank you. (NB- I never said that mentions in WP confer notability, please read me carefully.) -Mushy Yank. 23:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is 100% about significant coverage. Again, it is under additional criteria (a subsection of WP:BIO which is the actual guideline) and says "may" which is only an indication a person could meet the overall WP:BIO guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. See below and read the guideline. -Mushy Yank. 00:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is barely mentioned in those two sources. In my opinion, both of these roles do not fulfill the merits of WP:NACTOR. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But mentioned, right, with his roles? That are significant (not minor), and in notable productions? Correct? So, well, NACTOR applies.. -Mushy Yank. 00:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

significant roles in multiple productions, in my opinion, a role is only significant if it is thoroughly discussed in reliable sources. Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant", sure, absolutely, but again, that is not what I said; it depends on what is said about it. Significant roles in the production (lead/main/recurring/etc) make a NACTOR pass; just like a director plays a significant role in the making of a film. A noted part in/of a noted film can be considered notable enough and that is why such guidelines exist. If coverage allows to verify it, it can/may be considered enough. By the same token, it may be considered insufficient and I understand that is your take but that does not change the fact that it's a NACTOR pass. Really no further comment from me here. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 01:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline reads "may be considered notable" (as pointed out in other AfD's), not "is considered notable." The person could have 20 significant roles and not be notable unless there is significant coverage to support. Here, the coverage falls short.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even GNG uses ”may”. WP: NACTOR is a solid reason to keep a page. You can judge it’s not enough if you want but still it’s a perfectly acceptable reason to consider a person notable. This is a NACTOR pass and that is that and that is the applicable guideline. -Mushy Yank. 21:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is not a pass/fail, it is only an indicator of WP:BASIC which requires significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is simply. not. true. NACTOR is a specific notability guideline for people. You may not like it, you may want to change it or to get rid of it, and you still may !vote to delete or to redirect a page when a subject passes its requirements but it is a notability guideline and the applicable one in the present case. Thank you for your time. -Mushy Yank. 22:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. It is only part of a guideline that says "may" (meaning "could be" or "possibly"). If you look at the entire guideline (not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria"), you will see that a person must still meet WP:BASIC. It is not what I like or don't. It is literally what the guidelines says. I do not see anything that says a person "is" notable if they have had significant roles. If I missed that part, please point it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but again, I am very sorry but what you are saying is not true. Again, even GNG does not say something like "Subjects Meeting GNG "ARE" notable and this cannot be discussed and their notability cannot be challenged".

The page WP:Notability (people) says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...."(=additional criteria [including NACTOR] ). Not "if they meet any of the following standards AND the basic criteria".

Again, one can perfectly judge that a WP:NACTOR pass (or a GNG pass, or a NDIRECTOR pass, or a BASIC pass) is not sufficient but one can also think it's enough; and that is one reason why AfDs exist. I will rephrase: a simple WP:NACTOR pass CAN be (and often is) considered enough for notability (and that is because it is a (specific) notability guideline); it does not guarantee inclusion, that's all.

You may not like it, you may call that specific guideline tiny and want to change it but that is the way it (currently) is. See Cavarrone's comment on the thread you yourself initiated there, please......I really have no further comment. -Mushy Yank. 00:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy by assertion. I also never called something tiny. Again, please show me where it says someone "IS" notable for having significant roles. I will not hold my breath here. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy by assertion?? :D Sure, if you say so. "I also never called something tiny." But of course you did. "(not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria")" No further comment.... -Mushy Yank. 00:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist my words to support your assertion. "Tiny" referred to the size, not the significance. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't twist your words (let alone to support any assertion of mine, mind you). I just quoted one word you wrote. And you denied having used it. That's all. -Mushy Yank. 00:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final question which still hasn't been answered. Is there anywhere in NACTOR that says an actor "is" notable for having significant roles?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 11:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Meeting WP:NACTOR is a valid reason to keep an article, but the discussion so far has focused on GNG and on meta disputes about the wording of NACTOR - evaluating whether this person's roles are sufficient to count toward that guideline is necessary to establish consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @Vanamonde93:, for clarification, are you saying that someone would meet NACTOR for significant roles despite not having the significant coverage to support? Meaning, as long as we verify those are significant roles then NACTOR is met? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting NACTOR is usually enough to keep a standalone article, so long as there is enough reliably-sourced material to write a BLP-compliant article. All of our notability guidelines - including GNG - are written with some degree of qualification, because they are meant to be interpreted with common sense and allowing for exceptions. You need to look at the entire documentation, and the history of applicability, to determine whether a notability guideline is treated independently from GNG or not. NACTOR, alongside NPOL, WP:PROF, NAUTHOR, and a few others, is typically treated as an alternative to GNG. I am explicitly not stating that this individual is notable, only that their roles require evaluation with respect to NACTOR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with that assessment. I believe some arguments in this and other discussions is that NACTOR is in itself enough despite NACTOR saying "may be notable." It is also a subsection of WP:BIO which still requires people to meet WP:BASIC which is where I think there is confusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say you agree with me, but what you're saying is directly in contradiction to what I said: NACTOR can indeed be enough without GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I referred to WP:BASIC, not WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you expect a reply from me on an obscure page, it would be useful to ping me next time...WP:BASIC does not in any way obviate other criteria. NPOL, NAUTHOR, PROF, NACTOR, and a few other criteria have long been held to be sufficient despite GNG. NSPORTS was too, before the community decided it wasn't. "Presumed notable doesn't mean notable" is not the gotcha that you seem to think it is - it means that common sense needs to be applied in every case, not that that particular criterion can be set aside altogether. The summary at the top of WP:BIO also uses the "presumed" language with respect to what is essentially GNG - yet nobody would argue that GNG was insufficient. Anyhow, this is the last I will say about this, because I don't want or need to persuade you - I am only explaining how a closer will usually weigh arguments. A clear NACTOR pass with sufficient sourcing to write a biography will usually be kept. A clear GNG pass will also usually be kept. A failure of both criteria will usually be deleted. I have no opinions on which case is true here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has had significant roles in two or three TV series which have Wikipedia articles (so are presumably notable), so he meets WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumably notable" is not notable. We need significant coverage to support that presumption. Can you provide a list of the sources you feel are significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) We don't need significant coverage for someone to meet WP:NACTOR, we just need evidence that they had significant roles in notable shows. (2) I said the TV series were presumably notable. The series are not being debated here, and do each have two reviews, hence my "presumably". RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that wrong. Apologies. As far as "just need[ing] evidence," how are we able to get that evidence with there being significant coverage in reliable sources? Are press releases okay? Primary sources? Honest question. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The presumed notability of the TV series does not necessarily indicate that the actor had a significant role. It is entirely possible that their role was minor. On what basis do you consider their roles to be significant, and how do we establish that? Shouldn't we determine this by examining coverage in reliable sources? Do you really think an actor with a significant role would only be casually mentioned in an article about the series spanning ten paragraphs? Wouldn't you expect a bit more detailed coverage for a truly significant role? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources are poor and there is not enough significant coverage on the career and reliable sources to verify the roles (if lead or not) played by the actor. I have seen "Noor Jahan" show and the actor didn't have a lead but a supporting role (one of the sons of the lead female character who played title role) in that show and the page wrongly calls it lead role. So without verification and evidence on the roles played and significant coverage, we cannot assume the subject meets WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the page rapidly again to address raised concerns.-Mushy Yank. 19:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Iqtidar: The only significant role I can verify as of now is from Iqtidar. In the future, coverage from Tauba, Girhein and Dastak may help establish notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR, he has had significant roles in two or three TV series. NACTOR is enough to keep an article. Jitujadab90 (talk) 12:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Isabelle of Salm-Salm

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

Nominated on behalf of 46.132.74.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I contested this editor's WP:PROD nomination, and they then asked on my talk page how, as an unregistered user, they could start an AfD nomination. Their PROD rationale was The article was already deleted once over concerns of notability, and although this version is longer, it is still mostly unsourced and includes nothing that would make the topic obviously notable. I will give my own opinion separately. Jfire (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Jfire (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article appears to be a translation of de:Isabelle Gräfin von Loë. The best sources I have located appear to be:

Gies, Gabi (2009-01-14). "Ein bewegtes Leben". Neue Ruhr Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 2025-01-20.
"Gräfin Isabelle von Loe - Schloss Wissen". Blattus Martini - Kevelaerer Enzyclopädie. Retrieved 2025-01-20.

The first is a biography in a regional newspaper. The second appears to be a reprint from a biographical dictionary (Kevelaerer Persönlichkeiten by Evers and Willing). This is somewhat suggestive that a more thorough search could locate enough RS coverage to meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, although I'm not sure it's enough on its own. I mainly contested the PROD because the tag had previously been removed by another user, and because the article had been recreated after a prior PROD deletion. Jfire (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see why someone might think Wikipedia should have an article on this person, since she lived a pretty impressive life. However, I can't find any sources (aside from a few passing mentions) other than the two Jfire has already identified, and I would say they are definitely not sufficient to establish notability. Tserton (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems that this article just needs to be improved by including more sources, she certainly did enough to warrant notability as another user mentioned. I do think that the wording and flow needs to be improved, but that's another topic. Perhaps just add the relevant banners instead of requesting deletion. Just the fact that "she was the longest lived royal European centenarian to have ever lived" makes me think that some more effort should be put in to save it. If there's a source for that, I don't see how it wouldn't meet the relevant standards. Laurelius (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it certainly needs work, but based on what is in there and sourced, and her extremely long life, she's easily notable. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cut out some fluffy language and added some royal connections like Marie Antoinette, the headless queen who was her distant-great-aunt. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am very uncertain about this one. I think she would need to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, as she doesn't meet any WP:SNG. So, has there been significant coverage about her in reliable, secondary sources? The first source in this article apparently "describes in passing" some activities the author of that source undertook with her. That doesn't sound like significant coverage. The two sources that Jfire found are as much about her family and the castle as about her, and don't go into detail about her wartime activities, and they are also both very local. In the past, when articles about centenarians were brought to AfD, they were usually deleted unless there was significant, non-local coverage (so not just the local newspaper covering their 90th, 100th and 110th birthdays, for example), or if they met WP:ANYBIO. Examples of AfDs where the result was Keep are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edna Parker (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Lockett. I haven't found much here, although there was a paragraph about her in The Tatler [5] (included in the article Salm-Salm). I have found a source about her donating land to the German War Graves Commission [6], but that isn't significant coverage, it just confirms content in the article. I have tried to search in digitised German newspapers, and found only a notice of her husband's death and some social notes. I tend to think there is not enough to keep this in English Wikipedia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling someone would bring up the Tatler article. To spare people a click, it's a listicle that might well have been sourced from Wikipedia. 46.132.74.112 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as female figure. To the listed pages noting her passing there is also coverage: Für viele war sie eine zweite Mutter (German) in local journal Kevelaerer Blatt. Axisstroke (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but...that article is one of precisely two sources in existence that aren't passing mentions. Tserton (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meralco Theater

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage on the theater itself save for the 40th anniversary Philippine Star article. Other citations are an OpEd, a tag page for Rappler only filled with press release articles of events happening. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and move relevant details (seating capacity, opening/inauguration date and so on) to the Meralco Building article. -Ian Lopez @ 15:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A WP:BEFORE search shows this is a clearly notable theatre. [7] and mentions in The Palgrave Handbook of Musical Theatre Producers, The Encyclopedia of World Ballet, Encyclopedia of Asian Theatre: O-Z, [8], has its own tag on Philstar for news about it [9]... should be easily notable, even if the article needs work. Notability isn't just about the citations in the article... SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Similarly the Philstar tags are just PR release for events happening in the theatre (watch this play now, get your tickets now! at contact number type of articles). LionHeartTV's reliability is being contested. I cannot comment whether the Meralco Theatre is substantially mentioned on the aforementioned book though. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To clarify, having a tag on Philstar does not automatically make the theater notable. Tags, much like categories on Wikipedia, are intended to group news articles that may be related to the subject. While they can be a helpful starting point for finding related coverage, they do not necessarily indicate notability. Additionally, most, if not all, of the articles in that tag only talk about the events held in the theater, but they don’t talk about the theater itself, which I think does not establish WP:SIGCOV on Philstar’s end. Below are the first three articles from that tag that demonstrates the lack of significant coverage for the theater itself despite having a tag. Other articles with the tag are the same as these:
- Cocoy Laurel leads 'Guadalupe: The Musical' in September - Only talks about the event, the only mention of the theater is, "Guadalupe: The Musical" will run at 8 p.m. from Sept. 28 to Oct. 14, 2018 at the Meralco Theater, with with Saturday and Sunday matinées at 3 p.m.
- Halili 30th-year concert - Similar to the first one, this one only talks about the event and the only mention of the theater is, The Halili-Cruz School of Ballet (HCSB) celebrates Christmas with a dance concert titled HCSB 30th Anniversary: Isang Pasasalamat at the Meralco Theater tomorrow at 6 p.m.
- The Horse and His Boy opens today at Meralco Theater - Literally the same as the first two, the only mention of the theater is, If you haven’t told your kids a story recently, take them to Trumpet’s The Horse and His Boy. The journey begins today at the Meralco Theater.
AstrooKai (Talk) 13:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not. At the same time, there are dozens of articles with that tag, only dating back about 15-20 years, and the "40 years" article is clearly SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this is a notable theatre. Bduke (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per SportingFlyer's sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Flo27 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@D-Flo27 sources that can be questioned. LionhearTV, in particular, is going to be treated as a generally-unreliable source very soon. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by a local editor. I might check it out when I'm in Manila for my partner's family reunion. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by SportingFlyer. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living Textbook of Hand Surgery

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

I cannot find any indication that this specific work passes GNG or NBOOK. However, the "Living Textbooks" as a platform (which this was the launch of) might. If there are sources for that this could be turned into an article on that, but I am not sure there even are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Science. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find anything that would substantiate the wiki-notability of this book itself. It might be possible to describe the "living textbooks" platform/series at German National Library of Medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could be one choice because ZB MEB is host of Living Textbook of Hand Surgery, but dosn't contribute to the content of this peer reviewed "platform". Woller (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see literally zero secondary coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Keep and modify if necessary Woller (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a book as usuual - Living Textbook of Hand Surgery is work in progress as a peer reviewed platform teaching hand surgery using text and videos for surgical techniques. Maybee category "book" is misleading. Woller (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't pass the GNG either. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: including a potential merger target, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking into WP refs you can find several citations of "Living Textbook of Hand Surgery". The online-Textbook is work in progress, so with coming chapters more and more citations are to be expected. Really "zero secondary coverage"? Woller (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are not secondary coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is honestly a pretty difficult topic to judge notability on because it doesn't really fit any one given area. It's a website, but it's more like a book or academic journal. As such, this suffers from some of the same issues that an academic would when it comes to establishing notability because well, academic resources like this are far less likely to receive the typical types of coverage that say, a Stephen King book or non-academic website might. I do think that there's some merit in looking at the citations, as this could help establish that the resource has made a significant contribution to the sciences - we do somewhat the same when it comes to academics. However at the same time, we would still need some sort of prose accompanying those citations to show that the site has been viewed as particularly influential or important. Since it's not a person, we won't really have a h-index to rely on. I guess my point is that this is going to be tough to judge since it's not like your typical website and this doesn't really fit into either NACADEMIC (as it's not a person) or NBOOK (technically not a book). JOURNALCRIT comes the closest to potentially covering this, but it's an essay and not an official guideline/policy. We really do need to have some sort of notability guideline for academic publications, however since that's not really my area of expertise (and I'm on here so irregularly) I'll let someone else handle raising that discussion again (as I know it's been raised before).

Of note, there does seem to be some coverage in German. I found a brief mention here, but it's in passing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative, if sourcing can't be found, is to redirect this to German_National_Library_of_Medicine#Open_access_publishing. This does seem like it should at least be mentioned somewhere. The GNLoM page does have a brief mention so that could suffice. As far as the other organization goes, it looks like it hosts the content but is not exactly responsible for the contents - at least not to the level that the GNLoM is, hence why I wouldn't redirect there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I do think that we could expand that brief mention into a couple of sentences explaining the GNLoM's "living textbook" program and listing all five of the books they currently have. I might try to do that in a bit, as I can use a primary source for that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to German_National_Library_of_Medicine#Open_access_publishing. Searching for this was frustrating. Quite a few hits came up. Few of them were junk hits, however at the same time none of them were really anything I could use to firmly establish notability. A lot of them were either citations, brief mentions like this, or were in places Wikipedia wouldn't see as usable even if it was in-depth. I've expanded mention of this and the general program (Living Handbooks) in the above mentioned section to a couple of sentences, so this could redirect there. I have no objection to this redirecting with history, in case more sourcing becomes available, but it might be a while. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Privee AI

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

Literally every source is a copy of the exact same press release, which is WP:PRIMARY and doesn't count for notability. Only sources I could find with a quick WP:BEFORE were more press releases, nothing counting for GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All available sources are WP:PRIMARY, as stated by the nominator. Therefore, the company is not notable. Silvymaro (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no independent coverage Helpful Raccoon (talk) 23:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmid

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

Geonet is not a reliable source for populated places (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#GEOnet Names Server (GNS) for discussion) and the Census of Iran has been known to count people according to locations that are not necessarily villages/towns but can be shops, pumps, bridges, farms etc. Fails WP:V. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Nero

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

There are no good sources. Doesn't meet the rule wp:artist Pollia (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN, WP:COMPOSER, or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Pipe Smoking Day

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

Pollia (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Smoking pipe. There is essentially no WP:GNG (no WP:SIGCOV). The existing independent source (a calendar) is good for exactly one sentence in the Smoking pipe article (that would mention the day). Of the other two, one is a promotional link to an internet store (Smokingpipes), another one to some American club with no apparent physical presence (online?). My attempt to find anything reliable on Google Books ar Google Scholar failed. Викидим (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Health and fitness, and Popular culture. Skynxnex (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsix

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

There are no good sources. Doesn't meet wp:blp, wp:artist Pollia (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:COMPOSER, WP:NMUSICIAN or WP:GNG. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - His material is self-released on the usual streaming platforms and he has achieved no significant and reliable media notice. As a Nigerian-American with ties to the old country, he has figured out how to use Nigeria's gossipy and unreliable media outlets that reprint promo announcements. When any of those have a headline like "a Rising Star With Growing Taste For Greatness" (currently ref #2) you know that reliable music journalists wouldn't stoop to such peacockery. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 21:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desiré Inglander

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

No one good source confirming the significance and matching WP:BLP or WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST Pollia (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Pishro

AfDs for this article:

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

Same reason as previous afd, no evidence of notability. It was moved to mainspace from draft without a review from a sock at some point, moved back to draft, and moved again without a draft review. Tehonk (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Iran. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Wilkinson (darts player)

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

The first reference is decent but a WP:BEFORE search only found passing mentions in crewe chronicle and nantwich guardian. Failing WP:GNG Canary757 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Darts, and England. Canary757 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Kumar Tiwari

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

Being a chief secretary of a state doesn’t inherit notability, on WP:BEFORE search i found some sources which are on his appointment news. Also lack of sig cov. In secondary sources, fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, Jharkhand, and Uttar Pradesh. TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sepulveda Rose

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

A fairly WP:ROTM mid-century Los Angeles apartment building. The only WP:GNG-qualifying source is the LA Conservancy page on the complex. The LA Historic Resources Inventory (a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE) indicates that the building may be eligible for a historic designation but it's not designated now. I don't see a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: almost, but not quite notable. Some historical interest noted, but nothing we can use to build an article. If it gets some sort of listing, either local or in the NRHP, we can look at revisiting the article. Delete for now Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some insight as the author - I saw it on the Conservancies' website and am definitely more of an inclusionist. It has a few mentions on various city and are historical society pages, and the architect had his own article which pushed me over the edge. I thought it was on the line but decided to write it and hash it out later if people disagreed. Blervis (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See my reasoning above. I've seen buildings that feel less notable to me, I guess it just depends how much stock you put in the LA Conservancies opinion of what constitutes a historic building. Blervis (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCREATIVE works generally only one direction; being the creator of a notable/significant work can qualify for notability, but it's not really possible for a work to have WP:INHERITED notability from its creator. (The exception is articulated under WP:NBOOK for works by creators of such fame that every work they produce is considered notable (say, Shakespeare), but this architect is not at that level and buildings aren't covered by NBOOK.) So until we have more independent SIGCOV besides the LA Conservancy, there's not a GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply it was notable solely because of the article, just that a building on a recognized historic listing by an architect of note is more notable than one that isn't. As I said above, I agree that this is on the line, I feel that the conservancy and city sources elevate it to notability. With respect to the WP:ROTM comment, it clearly isn't since the Conservancy has designated it as of particular interest. Whether you think that particular organization is too free with designations is another question.

If people feel that both city and Conservancy recognition doesn't amount to notability then I won't fight it - that's all there is at this time. I'm of the opinion that those two are enough to constitute notability - not every building is going to have books dedicated to it. It seems consensus is against me on this one. If it does get recognized by the city or other entity someday we can revisit this. Blervis (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm very pro NRHP buildings having a listing here, but the sourcing just doesn't seem to be there. I've been creating articles on and off on this subject, and it's a high bar to meet for inclusion, but it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion. BD2412 T 01:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Chitramandir

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

Contested redirect – I think this is a case of WP:NOPAGE. The information here can be presented over on Zee Marathi#Zee Chitramandir, and this television channel itself doesn't have the non-routine, secondary coverage we want to establish notability of it. ~ Tails Wx 14:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a contested redirect, this article is not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: notable television channel. Anktjha (talk) 18:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Kristin Brooks Hope Center

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

Can't find SIGCOV Jay Cubby 17:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Psychology. Jay Cubby 17:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to Bearian @Bearian, who preferred I nominate this for deletion after Christmas, though I'm quite sure why prodding or XfDing a suicide crisis center on the holidays would be as controversial as he describes. Jay Cubby 17:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Self harm peaks in December and early January. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it's after Christmas and early January. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some coverage and folks can discuss if that's significant or not. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shunga–Greek War

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, Mostly based on Original Research and Non–WP:RS, None of the sources refers the event as Shungha Greek War. Mr.Hanes Talk 16:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Giuseppe Vinci

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article was recently created (not through AfC) by a new editor whose userpage says they know the subject. Vinci's "career" consists of material about one case that is more about the defendant than about Vinci, his lawyer. The sources supporting the material, including a blog (unreliable), have no significant coverage of Vinci. Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "blog" source was removed. Yuriupdates (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new source was added proving the international relevance of the "Marijuana Express" operation. Yuriupdates (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Osho

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

Reviewed all 11 sources in the article as of the time of this nomination, none is a significant coverage. Most are statements or "Notes to Investors" issued by the company where the subject is quoted as a managing partner. A good number of the sources do not mention the subject but the company which cannot be inherited by the subject of this article. The subject does not meet any of the notability guidelines. Mekomo (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Companies, and Nigeria. Mekomo (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glooko

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

No reliable sources for NCORP, forbes contribs removed and other original research NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Medicine, and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference 1 might just barely clear the bar for significant secondary coverage, but ref. 2 is a dead link and the others are routine PR. I was able to find this case study: [10], but I don't know if this would could as significant coverage. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chuks Joseph

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

Reviewed all sources cited but none gives significant coverage to meet notability requirements. The subject does not meet any of the notability criteria Mekomo (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Entertainment, and Nigeria. Mekomo (talk) 16:17, 27January 2025 (UTC)

Delete per nominator, nothing notable about this subject. Ok1616 16:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Valley, Indiana

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

I've found one person born there, but best evidence is that this was just a 4th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference 2 plainly states it was a post office. Nothing there today, just a crossroad with a couple of houses. Fails WP:NGEO. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Minister's Cup 2024

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NEVENT, tried to move to draftspace for improvement but the creator reverted the action. I brought it to AFD to avoid move-warring. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, India, and Uttar Pradesh. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Editors may recommend for draftifying if necessary. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creator (me) reverted back by improving what reviewer told to improve

I added more sources

If needed more

I will add more

But aren't enough sources are given for a single exhibition match trophy cup? Sid Prayag (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improved the article.. Look again into it Sid Prayag (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect with Kolkata Derby – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A whole new cup? a whole new event organized by other.. How can i mix it. Shouldn't it have a separate article for itself Sid Prayag (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I have provided many sources of media house covering this cup. Isn't it significant coverage? Sid Prayag (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No reason to merge. Clearly not notable. Anwegmann (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for draftification here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toku (company)

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

No reliable sources, promotional content, paid publications like Tech in Asia and WP MILL. Not a source really meeting NCROP NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Singapore. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Machines

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

No reliable coverage meeting NCORP; only general news announcements; WP MILL, etc NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverages. Anktjha (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Swan River Seaplanes Cessna 208 crash

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. No sign of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, no reason to expect WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Australia. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasons stated by nominator. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and no expectation of lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, this comment, "no expectation of lasting effects," is essentially a speculative comment since we don't know whether or not that will be the case. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. Noted. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a crystal ball to justify notability today. If any lasting effects or other grounds for notability come to light in the future, the article can always be recreated. In other words, usual caveats apply. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable per Wikipedia:NEVENT. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 12:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 12:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No significant or in-depth coverage found that would demonstrate the event's notability, even if tragic. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least Draftify. How can you claim no lasting impact when the investigation hasn't been completed? Surely it's too soon to claim that. Plenty of WP:GNG coverage to date. Another article appeared today about maintenance issues. The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify as per User:The-Pope, it still has some coverage even if minor. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 15:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

draftify as twenty days is just not long enough to determine whether this accident is going to satisfy our notability standards. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity or keep until a bit after it occurred or when the investigation is finished. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Sketches

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM. Draftification and BLAR were contested, hence why I'm here now. Proposing redirect to Birdy (singer), the singer for the album. Currently the only sources are to Apple Music and Discogs and there does not appear to be enough based on a WP:BEFORE search to meet album notability guidelines. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, this review of the album from the Philippines, [11], helps, but one isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage for an article, a few more critical reviews in RS would help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [12][13][14][15][16] Due to these reviews, this EP is worth to be kept. Also, there's no harm thing to keep this article separate.

Camilasdandelions (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per those review above. Anktjha (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself other than, "After touching down, the plane crashed with X casualties", with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Transportation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A scheduled passenger flight which ended in fatalities and safety recommendations. The requirement for sourcing here is difficult because this occurred in a very remote part of the world - deleting this would further WP:BIAS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that the article is currently adequately sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is based on policies or guidelines. There is no such policy that states that an event is solely notable if it was "A scheduled passenger flight which ended in fatalities and [resulted in] safety recommendations". WP:BIAS does not state that we should ignore notability guidelines simply because it happened in a country where coverage is limited. I've seen better articles than this get deleted and the mere fact that the article is well referenced does not make it all the more notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're applying our rules too strictly. All of the sources in the article are American, but this happened in Sudan and the Sudanese performed the investigation. Furthermore it is fairly obvious that a regularly scheduled passenger plane service which ended in fatalities is likely notable - heck, multiple American sources picked it up even though it occurred in rural Sudan. The only possible reason to delete at this time is that there isn't demonstrated lasting coverage in English-language sources... SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So? You have yet to actually mention a policy or guideline to support keeping the article. An investigation was performed after a plane crash - That is routine. The news covered the accident without any further coverage - WP:NOTNEWS/WP:EVENTCRIT#4. It's been more than a decade since the plane crashed and there clearly is zero continued coverage. If your only argument for keeping is the aforementioned, then clearly one could create hundreds of articles on non-notable passenger flights on the sole basis that they received coverage for less than a week and had a final report published. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I've cited policy - the article as written meets WP:GNG as it was a plane crash on a commercially scheduled flight which resulted in fatalities, which received international coverage. The only reason to delete this is if WP:NOT applies, and I don't think it does - the nature of the event and the location of the event means follow-up coverage is likely to be local and in a language other than English, and the nature of this specific crash means that deleting it would further implicit WP:BIAS by excluding plane crashes from parts of the world where finding coverage is difficult, even if the crash which would otherwise be notable. Your other argument is wrong as well - this is very different from a general aviation crash in the United States, so keeping this wouldn't open any floodgates. SportingFlyer T·C 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Existence is not notability so the fact that a plane crashed, wherever in the world, is not proof of notability unless the sources demonstrate so. Your comment only precised "scheduled passenger flight" which basically applies to any type of aircraft that provides that service. Sudan is a country that speaks english and arabic, so that already makes it easier to search for sources, and the mere statement that there could be sources does not establish notability unless you actually give sources that provide significant and in-depth coverage after the initial aftermath of the plane crash instead of saying that "finding coverage is difficult". It doesn't matter whether or not a deletion would further implicit bias. So instead of citing WP:BIAS, which does not trump notability guidelines, please provide us with these notability-establishing source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article has already established notability with the sources in the article, we're just discussing WP:NOT. I disagree with you strongly here, and arguing further won't change anything. SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with SportingFlyer. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – meets WP:GNG for me. C 679 10:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets notability based on existing sourcing, as spelled out by SportingFlyer in detail above. nf utvol (talk) 19:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Education Channel

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, sources not independent of the subject Protobowladdictuwu (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) ~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A name that generic for a local educational channel (as opposed to a major national service), in this case Baltimore County, Maryland, pretty much tells you that this is run-of-the-mill and that GNG sourcing is going to be impossible to find (this probably isn't even the only such channel to simply be called "The Education Channel"). I doubt there's much independent or significant coverage under its other (and less ambiguous) "BCPS TV" name, either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources exist that satisfy WP:GNG. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masam Project

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

The entire page is highly promotional - with potential WP:COI issues - and most sources used are not neutral WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Sources 10 and 13 talk about this organization; listed as marginally reliable sources per Source highlither, but I see no reason not to use them (I can't think of a reason to make things up about clearing landmines). There's another project with the same name [17] that makes it hard to find sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The article fails to meet notability guidelines under WP:GNG due to the lack of significant, independent, and reliable sources providing in-depth coverage. The majority of the references are promotional, potentially biased, and raise concerns about a WP:COI. Additionally, the content's tone is overly promotional, which detracts from its encyclopedic value. While the organization's efforts may be noteworthy, the lack of neutral, reliable sourcing prevents it from meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.--जय बाबा की^Talk 16:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jfire (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonty Bidois

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

WP:TOOSOON. Sources are not independent or does not contain significant coverage about him - a couple of sentences at best. Geschichte (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and New Zealand. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it for now, need more significant coverages. Anktjha (talk) 18:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B1t

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only sources in article are Navi.gg, ESL, (both of which are not independent of the subject), and HLTV (unreliable per WP:VGRS). A WP:BEFORE search does not find anything of substance either. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Ukraine. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Movement of Kerala

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

Non-notable political party founded 3 months ago by then Left independent Member of Kerala legislative assembly P. V. Anvar. The party is not recognised by the Election Commission of India and merged into Trinamool Congress later 3 months of its inception. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Kerala. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Trinamool Congress#Kerala, where mention is appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 23:54, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kaiser-e-Hind Fortress

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

So far only cited with WP:NEWSORG. The event does not have enough independent significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International reputation management

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

Lack of notability. Two of the sources are not about this comany; the third seems to be a dead link. A search for 'International Reputation Management' threw up nothing to establish notability, altho I did find a list of the top ten companies in this field...which did not include the subject of this article. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, the links are active. The company is suitable for inclusion due to its numerous references in mainstream newspapers. It has 175 mentions in U.S. papers - Here is a link referencing them https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?keyword=%22international+reputation+management%22 NYMediaGuy (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions are not what's required, we need stories about the company, not PR items or staff interviews. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these mentions appear to be reprints of the same Washington Post story. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These are brief mentions or interviews that the subject above mentions. None of these are acceptable. I can only find name drops, nothing we can use for sourcing... Many PR items, which don't show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the article creator, User:NYMediaGuy, created an article about founder Nino Kader a few years ago, which was deleted: [18]. @NYMediaGuy: can you disclose your relationship with this company, if you have one? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmological decade

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

Old article created in 2004. As far as I see, the "Cosmological decade" is not a standard term used in astronomy/cosmology. It seems to be coined in pop science book by Fred Adams and Gregory P. Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe (see f.e. this NYT article [19]). Google Scholar returns only 21 matches for "cosmological decade". Of these, 1 is a book review, 3 are essays, 4 are articles by Adams and Laughlin, 2 are pop science pieces, 1 is a phd thesis in theology, 1 is an msc thesis in the history of cosmology, 1 is some old forum post (why is it even in GScholar?), 1 is a wiki article mirror, 1 is unreachable and doesn't show the term's usage, and only 6 are independent peer-reviewed works, of which 3 are by one author. And I haven't seen any usage of the abbreviation CÐ in reliable sources on cosmology. The article has two references: one is to the original book, another to a paper that has no words "cosmological decade". It might be notable enough to warrant an entry to the glossary of astronomy, but I see no notability for a standalone article. Artem.G (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Artem.G (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flag for the Confederation of the Rhine

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

Notability. It is actually stated in the article that this flag does not exist. TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Clearly incomplete, but notability might be established if RSes can be found. CR (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It’s not finished. It’s meant to be about possible historical flags for Rhine confederation, aswell as give context to the white green blue flag and discuss its origins tae prevent misguided edits to confederation page itself ToadGuy101 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 14:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, there is no evidence that there ever was such a thing, and the file description page on Commons c:File:Alleged flag of the Rhine Confederation 1806-13.svg has all the information needed. —Kusma (talk) 14:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knox, Henry County, Indiana

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

A "no there there" name on a map about which we have nothing to say. No evidence of what this was that I find. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing found at all. There is another Knox in Indiana which makes searching very difficult. Satellite view just shows a rural intersection. Total failure of WP:NGEO, and sources cited are just databases. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of manipulated economic data in the Islamic Republic of Iran

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

Cut and paste move from Draft:Allegations of manipulated economic data in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It might have been moved back, but in this form it would not have been accepted as a draft. A valid outcome is a consensus to draftify. In its current form I see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and see this as an essay. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Iran. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably draftify. I think this is almost certainly a notable topic, but agree that in its current form it is unacceptably full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There's enough there that I think it's worth draftifying rather than deleting, but would not be opposed to deletion per WP:TNT. MCE89 (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom and User:MCE89. Notable topic, should not have been moved from draftspace in its current form. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) Due to lack of experience in working with drafts I first worked with a draft and than submitted the article for publication. If not for the lack of experience I would have worked on the draft using WORD and then publish it, as I did in previous articles. Sorry. 2) This is not an original research. I added three citations [1][2][3]) that claim fabrication of data. 3) I was strict in not adding numbers. I only cited references that show a deviation from official data. I thank the members of community for their helpful comments.^[1]^[2]^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razgura (talk • contribs) 13:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added another claim on fabrication of data [20]https://irannewsupdate.com/economy-2/iran-s-false-economic-statistics/

I added new citations that claim problem with inflation data Razgura (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added citations that claim problems with inflation data (https://djavadsalehi.com/2023/04/11/delay-and-discrepancy-in-irans-inflation-data/) (https://www.cato.org/blog/irans-lying-inflation-statistics) Razgura (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://iranfocus.com/economy/52975-unprecedented-inflation-and-rising-prices-in-irans-food-market/ also claims fabrication of inflation data Razgura (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable, nobody disputes this. The page should be improved, but it is sufficiently informative and sourced already. The title probably should be changed by removing word "allegations". My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Amiri, Hoshang (2024-04-18). "Fabricated Statistics in Iran's Economy". Iran Focus. Retrieved 2025-01-12.
^ Khatinoglu, Dalga (2024-02-07). "How Iran Manipulates Foreign Investment Statistics". iranintl.com. Retrieved 2025-01-12.
^ Farhadi, Noah; Lahooti, Hooshang (2023). "In Data We Trust: Proving Market Manipulation on the Tehran Stock Exchange". International Journal of Business and Management. 17 (4): 1. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v17n4p1.

Comment: I see this and see synthesis. I'm not sure if this can be fixed by ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siam-Patani War (1638)

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

(1) The topic is already covered at Patani Kingdom#Blue and Purple Queens. There isn't nearly enough information in scholarly sources to sustain a stand-alone article. (2) Siam's campaign took place in 1634, so the erroneous title wouldn't be useful as a redirect. (3) The little existing content here is wildly inaccurate, so it wouldn't be worth keeping. Yamada died in 1630 and couldn't have had a part in the Siamese invasion. Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Malaysia, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Draft of this article was declined four times at Draft:Patani-Siam War (1638). See also Draft:Siam-Patani War (1634), Draft:Siamese-Pattani War (1634), and linked SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Article creator has now been blocked, but not as a confirmed sock of another account, so G5 doesn't apply. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the concern about Yamada, "1638" does not appear in the accessible book source (and the web source doesn't seem to be anything). There is a 1634 war, as in Patani Kingdom#Blue and Purple Queens, and the final sentence about 1641 does seem to be real, but related to the 1634 war. It is also already covered in Patani Kingdom#BYellow Queen and decline. So I agree with Paul_012 on his point (2) about the misleading title, and (3) in that the content is either inaccurate or already covered, whether or not their point (1) on the overall lack of sources is true. CMD (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since sockpuppetry is involved, let's get a clear consensus before taking action to avoid an easily contestable soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner, Indiana

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

I'm having trouble with the maps on this one, because in spite of what GNIS says, I can't find any trace of the label before the 2013 edition. Possibly there is some coordinate error, but in any case there is just nothing much at the location, suggesting that it was never anything beyond a 4th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 1896 United States Official Postal Guide confirms the post office, which is all that the Baker placename book source actually says too, upon reading it; and like Mangoe I find zero evidence for the usual "unincorporated community" rubbish claim by the article that this is something other than an extinct post office or that there is anything verifiable to say other than that it was a post office. This should be in the 1895 edition of Lippincott's Gazetteer, but checking page 2583 there is no post office listed, nor anything for Indiana with this name other than Tanner's Creek. This post office must be truly lost to history not to even have made it into the contemporary Lippincott's. Both the Baber 1875 and the later 1884 histories of Greene County pre-date when this post office was supposed to have existed, so there's no documentation from them to be had. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Silex Microsystems

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

It looks like most of the sources are press releases or routine coverage in industry publications, and I didn't find much SIGCOV on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep inclusion in the Financial Times and the Mercator Institute for China Studies shows that this page is worthy of inclusion on wiki. I find the "routine coverage in industry publications" comment questionable. What is "routine" about the coverage? Why does wiki discriminate against "industry publications"? Shouldn't we be promoting the Category:MEMS factories instead of deleting of one out of four articles in it? After all, if a $90 billion revenue company like TSMC is in the business of MEMS we should promote understanding of MEMS. Stickhandler (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starchess

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

No independent sources in the article. Only independent mention I could find is:

McC. Haworth, Guy; Rusz, Á. (2012). "Position Criticality in Chess Endgames". In Jaap van den Herik, H.; Plat, Aske (eds.). Advances in Computer Science. pp. 252–255.

It only discusses a specific chess algorithm that uses Starchess as a test case, most of the four pages are just a list of lines discovered by the algorithm. Likely not SIGCOV, and certainly not enough for it to meet WP:GNG Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be called Polgar Superstar Chess at List of chess variants. Absent any established notability, merger there seems indicated. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Rostand

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP that doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO. The coverage is largely interview-based and WP:ROUTINE profile pieces. BilletsMauves^€500 15:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the sources are from Energy sector and the positions etc. sounds notable in the energy sector. The page exists in 3 more languages and on French Google there's a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Statements in WP:NBIO aligns with the content and sources.NatalieTT (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to any WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources? Cause I haven't really seen it in my WP:BEFORE search. BilletsMauves^€500 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kayrros. He does not appear to be independently notable. In particular there is a dearth of independent, reliable sources about him as opposed to written by him, quoting him, or mentioning him. The best I found were [21], [22], and [23] which isn't enough for a BLP even when you add a couple more interviews and plenty of business networking profiles. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - the Forbes and Business Insider, along with the trade publications, are probably enough. Bearian (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Antoine Rostand fulfills the notability criteria under WP:NBIO due to his prominent role in the energy sector and significant coverage in reliable sources. Articles such as Forbes, DotCom Magazine, and mentions in industry-specific trade publications demonstrate his influence and recognition in the field. His leadership at Kayrros and association with global organizations like the World Economic Forum further establish his credibility and notability. Additionally, the existence of the article in multiple languages indicates international interest, reinforcing his significance.--Abhey City (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jfire (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the company as noted. This is the third time in as many years it's come up in AfD, and still nothing substantial has shown up. Not convinced the sources given show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might be worthwhile to undelete the last version of the previous version of the old article (the one that was deleted as a result of the second AfD) so that the sources in that article could be added to the current version. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binay Shah

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

Sources are not neutral, insufficient coverage, promotional tone. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Educational Advancement

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

Non-notable organization that sponsors scholarships. None of the sources in the article supports WP:NCORP, nor does anything in my WP:BEFORE search except for possibly this expert blog post. Everything else is press releases, trivial mentions, affiliated sources but nothing else that passes the NCORP threshold. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator; modestly notable scholarship is what the org is known for. Perhaps only needs to be one article about both; I merged the article on the scholarship into the one for the institute (though I could see it going the other direction). – SJ + 16:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share which sources meet GNG for the scholarship? Every source you've added in the merged text is affiliated with the Institute or is a primary source. I still don't see WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The two full-ride scholarships are well known in high school + gifted ed circles because there aren't any others like it; I'll look again for an external review of what exists -- it's mostly catalogs with limited discussion. There does seem to be less written about programs and scholarships for younger children. Summer camps get more visibility; and I think the founder came out of CTY, added a bit of context there. – SJ + 19:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. 3/4 of the page is promoting the foundation, without significant coverage in three or more independent, secondary sources, and using words that are subjective and impart no verifiable information. When I taught at a junior college, every student in their second or third semester was required to take a class on critical thinking, which included a module on distinguishing between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Students in my paralegal program also had to take a second course on how that applies to legal research. The other 1/4 of the page veers off into a discussion about a different foundation with a similar mission, but one entity's notability doesn't confer the same on a different entity. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Feldman

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP notability. Subject is a former local congregational rabbi (12 years) with no major organisational titles other than a term as president in a local rabbi group. Per existing sources, subject only appear notable due to his fumbled testimony in a royal Commission, this incident led to his synagogue firing him. (Possibly this is notable due to his lawsuit against media coverage?). Other sources relate to family squabbles or local gossip about donors withdrawing support. Overall, there's not enough here. I also note that a 2007 prod result was to delete the page. דברי.הימים (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oppose the mendy wax case is notable enough to warrant the article. 212.199.168.193 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binaytara Foundation Cancer Center

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

Article doesn't meet criteria for organization. Most of the references are about same news of 200 bed expansion. No coverage to describe its notability in neutral and reliable source . Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Bhatt

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

References are mostly of brief primary account (interviews), and the rest do not center around her. WP:NEWSORGINDIA might apply to some sources. Overall, the sources do not establish the grounds for a standalone article on this individual yet. X (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers. -Mushy Yank. 13:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She might pass WP:NACTOR for her roles in Sunflower and The Family Man for example, as the bylined presentation of this interview in The Hindustan Times states. A lot of interviews in more or less reliable media outlets are an indication that she could be considered a notable person. If NEWSORGINDIA applies (and how exactly please and to which sources precisely?) to sources on the page, the very general recommendations in that paragraph in an information page do not apply to all sources and should not prevail over the specific notability guideline. So (weak) Keep; Draftify if judged insufficient, please.-Mushy Yank. 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Looks like she passes Wp:NACTOR, multiple significant roles in notable films. No objection for redirect. Zuck28 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm not seeing evidence that she passes WP:NACTOR. The article says "she played a parallel lead" in Agar Tum Saath Ho, but she appears at the end of the cast list in that article. She's not listed at all in The Family Man or in Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi. I'm not sure how significant her role is in Sunflower - it's not mentioned in the plot summaries, though they may not be accurate. But even if it is a significant role, that would still be only one, not multiple. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akram Ahmad (researcher)

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

I am not able to find a single reliable independent source with SIGCOV on this subject. A WP:BEFORE search shows multiple sources from media bureaus with no bylines. If anyone proficient in NPROF can evaluate his works, I might change my mind, as almost all the coverage about him is WP:PRIMARY. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Health and fitness, India, Uttar Pradesh, and Australia. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete. His citation count is okay, but I don't think it's enough for C1 in a high-citation field. As far as I can tell he was an assistant professor and a lecturer (never a full professor) and is now an edtech entrepreneur, so I couldn't find anything to suggest a pass on the other WP:NPROF criteria. There are plenty of sources about his entrepreneurship, but I agree that pretty much all of them seems to be promotional. This at least has a bylined reporter, but doesn't seem remotely independent. These [24] [25] [26] [27] all just seem like straightforward paid coverage. This is interesting and is the closest to counting towards GNG, but it's really a story about the visa program and he just happens to be interviewed as an example, so probably doesn't qualify IMO. Overall I don't think there's any way he passes WP:NPROF, and I'm doubtful that he could pass WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 12:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Laura Sangenito

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

Not every supercentenarian needs an article. Wikipedia is not the "Guinness Book of World Records." Suggest deleting or redirecting to List of Italian supercentenarians. Junbeesh (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Junbeesh (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Anktjha (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, sole claims to notability is her age. Wikishovel (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added a couple of short news items as sources, which should go some way to establish her notability with respect to Wikipedia, and I've moved the grg-supercentenarians.org links - which I would put more in the class of database / stats sites, like Soccerway is to football - to be external links. On the wider, non-Wikipedia, meaning of "notability" I'd say, actually, that to be the oldest living person in a country is not a far-fetched claim to notability. I might do a more focused search against Italian sources to see if there are additional ones that might flesh out the biographical stub a little more. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths of Kenny McCormick

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets CSC point 2, RS coverage for the phenomenon is in the Kenny McCormick article, verification for each death is uncontroversially sourced to the relative primary source i.e., the episode listed. Jclemens (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That Kenny died repeatedly is well recognized as part of the character and of the show itself. However, documenting every single death is absolutely inappropriate for WP without secondary sources showing that the manners of death are just as important. Using only primary sourcing as the primary supporting information for the list is a violation of WP:NLIST as well as WP:V. --Masem (t) 19:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Masem. Wikipedia is not a directory, and we cover topics based on what secondary sources say about them, ideally in prose. This lacks the quality of sources to meet WP:NLIST, let alone WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Masem. The running gag of Kenny dying is a notable part of his character, and is covered in a large section of his article. That does not automatically mean that a list detailing every example of it happening is an appropriate spinout. This is essentially just a list of trivia that runs afoul of WP:NOT. Rorshacma (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Comparable to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time The Simpsons characters. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 01:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTTVTROPES or some meme site. At best this could be merged to Kenny McCormick, but there are limits to listicles on Wikipedia, or at least - there should be. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, a functional and understandable list (and please don't degradate its usage by portraying essays as anything but an essay) the meme of Kenny's death and resurrections has been a vital part of the long-running series. Nominated just hours after its creation, this excellently presented list is about a topic known to all fans of South Park. Such lists are essential to the full coverage of both an iconic character and long-running show (I see above it took three attempts to remove the couch gags, no article should be nominated for deletion three times, or be criticized-to-extinction by citing essays). As a compact one-subject list it does not "run afoul" of WP:NOT. And per both Jclemens above and commonsense definable characteristics of major characters. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, The page "List of Deaths of Kenny McCormick" serves as an integral and well-established part of the South Park series' cultural legacy Thats why i made it in the first place. Kenny McCormick's recurring deaths are a defining characteristic of his character, and the page dedicated to cataloging these deaths plays a vital role in understanding both the show and its influence on popular culture. Deleting this page would not only disregard a significant aspect of South Park's history but also diminish the cultural relevance it holds in various discussions surrounding the show.LuanLoud 15:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a collection of fancruft that violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It frankly is trivial to list every individual episode and way this character died. The main Kenny McCormick page already provides a decent summary of the gag, which is more appropriate than needlessly splitting off the deaths into their own list. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find the arguments in favour of keeping this article wholly unpersuasive; it is not in dispute that this character dying repeatedly is a noteworthy aspect of the character (or the show, for that matter), what is in dispute is whether covering this in list format separate from the main article about the character is appropriate. In other words, the argument for keeping needs to be a WP:PAGEDECIDE one, namely that covering this in list format in addition to (the already-present) prose coverage in the article about the character is preferable to just covering this aspect in the latter form. I don't see any such arguments that I think hold up to scrutiny. More generally speaking, Wikipedia should pretty much never have a stand-alone article for listing in-universe events in a work of fiction, and I don't see a strong reason why this should be an exception. As Masem notes, there are in principle ways that sources could cover this topic that would make a stand-alone list article appropriate; it is up to those who think the article should be kept to show that such sources exist (and then they would need to be incorporated in the article). As it stands, this is just a bunch of WP:RAWDATA about fiction absent meaningful properly-sourced context/analysis, making this a WP:NOT violation for which WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. As I've said before, compiling raw data about works of fiction is not Wikipedia's purpose, nor is analysing the same (it is, however, TV Tropes' and Wikia/Fandom's purpose). Compiling analysis about works of fiction made by others is, however. Or as the essay WP:CARGO says: Fiction is not fact and Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. If there are sources that by their coverage demonstrate that not just the overarching topic of this character dying repeatedly is significant (already covered at Kenny McCormick, and no reason to cover this in list format in addition to prose), but specifically that the details of each individual instance are significant to the overarching topic, please ping me and I'll reconsider. TompaDompa (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll add here, to add clarity and emphasize the point, that WP:Writing about fiction explicitly says Avoid lists of fictional events. This article very obviously runs afoul of that. TompaDompa (talk) 10:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per the rationale of TompaDompa. Failure of many different guidelines here, and arguments to keep are ignoring the obvious Wikipedia:INHERITED issue here. Notability of Kenny's deaths are not granted notability from Kenny himself; these need to be separately notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Masem and TompaDompa. This is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and primarily sourced. The notable aspects (that are covered by the reliable sources at play) are at Kenny McCormick#Deaths, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so this article needs to meet the standards on its own. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as a presumably SIZE-required split, the topic of the article is 'Kenny McCormick' which is notable, and the primary sourcing to the individual episodes is just fine because, again, the topic is notable. This is textbook WP:CSC point 2. Jclemens (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's wrong on several fronts. Firstly, this is not a split at all; the article was created de novo. Secondly, the topic of this article is not the character Kenny McCormick but that character's deaths—and even if it had been a split, the new article needs be appropriate for a stand-alone article per all the usual requirements and considerations (WP:AVOIDSPLIT; WP:NOPAGE). Thirdly, while this arguably meets both WP:CSC 2 (Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Before creating a stand-alone list, consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a "parent" article.) and 3 (Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.), that does not in itself mean that the topic is appropriate for a list but merely defines what entries the list can contain; put differently, proper list criteria is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a list to be appropriate. I'll also note that WP:Writing about fiction explicitly says Avoid lists of fictional events; that is precisely what this is. TompaDompa (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"For fiction, such spinout articles are typically about characters or other elements that appear in multiple works", from 'WP:Writing about fiction' (Kenny's deaths are a major element of both the character and the show), and other rules-and-regs go towards keeping this list. There are many sources that could be used on this page for individual shows and overall coverage at the Kenny article. Lists such as this give encyclopedic attention to notable elements of the topic, nothing at all broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That segment of WAF is appropriate for why we have an article about Kenny McCormick, which has an extensive discussion of his per-show death as a notable aspect of the character. That doesn't mean listing each and every single death is appropriate, also from WAF, absent the demonstration that the individual/specific means of deaths have been discussed extensively in secondary sources. I would anticipate that one could find a recap here or there for some of the deaths, but nowhere close to all, and if it is just a recap, that remains a primary source (no transformation of information). — Masem (t) 12:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited. Kenny is notable as a character, the list of deaths are not automatically notable and has to be demonstrated separately. — Masem (t) 12:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this or any related search engine page. The topic 'Death of Kenny McCormick' is well-covered on its own in many sources, there seems no question per sourced material that it's a notable topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As well you know, notability does not necessarily mean that something should have a stand-alone article (as opposed to being covered as part of some other article). What is the WP:PAGEDECIDE argument for covering this topic/aspect in list format in addition to the prose coverage at Kenny McCormick#Deaths, especially in the light of WP:Writing about fiction specifically saying to Avoid lists of fictional events? TompaDompa (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good list of a recognized topic. I don't know about the 'writing about fiction' page except that over the past two months it has been edited so much by an IP and another editor that I don't know what's recognizable in it. Way too many edits to read through, and probably should just be reset to before the overhaul. Any rule-or-reg that says to 'avoid lists' is way outside the standards of Wikipedia where lists are functional, informational, and enjoyed by editors and readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's a non-answer. WP:Writing about fiction has said Avoid lists of fictional events for years and beyond that you are just making the bare assertion that the list is good without even beginning to address the substance of the matter. TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the sources that I get with "Death of Kenny Mccormick" and I cannot find much beyond things like Cracked.com and Comicbookresources.com as sources, both which are extremely weak to justify RSes for demonstrating that the full list of mannerisms of Kenny's death is separately notable from the character itself. Masem (t) 15:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree the article does lack sourcing, only 1 is currently listed, but I believe this is a nicely laid out list on a character that definitely has notability. OhNoKaren (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— OhNoKaren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. Most of these are just WP:FANCRUFT. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "no consensus", but was challenged, so I am relisting for a further week instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The character is notable, but that does not mean that creating a list of deaths is a good idea. This list shows zero signs of meeting LISTN and is pure fancruft. Kenny's deaths can be covered sufficiently in the article on Kenny, we don't need a list of every single one. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudwara Bibi Veero Ji

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

Fails WP:NBUILD. No coverage in secondary sources. Junbeesh (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Junbeesh (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that page creator deleted all maintenance tags (once again) and moved it to Draft:Gurudwara Bibi Veero Ji, probably hoping the redirect would be deleted before we noticed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note, I've moved back the draft to mainspace since there is an ongoing deletion discussion for this article. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are promotional / touristy and don't seem reliable, not enough to show this is notable. Ravensfire (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews which do not establish notability. The secondary sources cited here only discuss the song briefly, and I cannot find any RSes that discuss the song in-depth. The article is sourced okay, but it does not pass WP:GNG, so it should be merged into They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. I noted in the bundle discussion that I think this one has sufficient referencing to meet NSONG and/or GNG. It's close, though, and I doubt there's much to merge, so redirect if there's consensus against notability. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alka Tiwari

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

It may warrant deletion due to insufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. WP:NOTCV. This is a promotional page of the entity WP:PROMO. B-Factor (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, India, and Jharkhand. B-Factor (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: On WP:BEFORE search i found mostly sources about his appointment as chief secretary. Being a chief secretary doesn’t presumed to be notable. TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Waab station

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

Redirect to Gold Line (Doha Metro). The only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV I found was this, most of which isn't even specifically about the station in question. JTtheOG (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Qatar. JTtheOG (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade X season 1

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

WP:REDUNFORK of List of Beyblade X episodes

Also nominating the second season for the same reason:

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's a redundant fork. There are only two seasons, so having both seasons only under List of Beyblade X episodes would be the wisest move. Eelipe (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Miminity! Just came to my notice today that both the articles were put on deletion. I have made few changes to the two articles. I also did some changes to this article, fearing it may fall under WP:REDUNFORK. Let me know your thoughts on it. Thank you and have a great day! VizDsouz (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per MOS:TVEPISODELIST (For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists. and If this is done, the main list of episodes should still contain the entire episode list, appropriately sectioned, without the episode summaries.) Beyblade X currently has 64 episodes and will eventually have 80 episodes. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Beyblade X season 1 And rename page as simply Beyblade X, just like other programs with several seasons they should just be on one page. OhNoKaren (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Currently at 64 episodes, the episode count is expected to rise beyond 80. For such a series, having these two articles will be reliable in the future. VizDsouz (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MaxPlay Classic Games Volume 1

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

Unreferenced article which was formerly BLAR'd into a page where this game compilation was not mentioned. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG from my searches for sources. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are references on the talk page which should be sufficient to mention it at Datel, but aren't enough from WP:GNG. That feels like a more useful redirect target even if it's not currently mentioned (note that CodeJunkies redirects to Action Replay currently). --Pokechu22 (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not demonstrate sufficient notability and not a good redirect either. MimirIsSmart (talk) 05:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Datel#MaxPlay_Classic_Games_Volume_1 (now mentioned there, and a more fitting target than Action Replay. --Pokechu22 (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page

Nintendo Official Magazine had a review of MaxPlay.^[1] (Unsurprisingly, it's fairly negative.)

There's also a mention in PSX Extreme which seems more about the disc being hard to dump than the game itself.^[2] It's probably not useful to establish notability, but it is interesting to see a reference to Datel discs being weird in a print magazine (I personally know this affects other Datel discs but it doesn't seem to be mentioned there).

All other results I could find were in advertisements. There probably is at least one more magazine review in something that hasn't been digitized (e.g. CUBE) but currently there definitely isn't enough for an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokechu22 (talk • contribs) 01:48, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Scott, Dean (July 2004). "Review: Max Play 01". Nintendo Official Magazine. No. 142. p. 97. ISSN 0965-4240.
^ Yohko; Teruo (April 2005). "szara strefa". Hardkor. PSX Extreme [pl] (in Polish). No. 92. p. 77. ISSN 1429-172X.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Pokechu22 and WP:ATD. I don't see WP:SIGCOV, but this can be mentioned somewhere, as it does verifiably exist. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:01, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or Redirect? Let's also get a consensus on the redirect target too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajib Kro

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

No SIGCOV sources were found, failing GNG, and there are no significant roles in these films, failing WP:FILMMAKER. GrabUp - Talk 08:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Assam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrum Bitcoin Wallet

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

The sources show that the subject is not yet notable for an article Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, such an article already exists in the German Wiki. This doesn't mean that the Electrum is notable but at least shows a demand for this. I also wish to translate the article to other languages that I know. The point of the article is to have a more neutral information about the critical software.

Even after 16 years since release of Bitcoin there are not so many of wallets available.

The ideal wallet also should be open source, community driven and cross platform. Current options are:

Bitcoin Core (Qt) which downloads the full blockchain, too complicated for most users.

Cake Wallet which is based on Electron and the Electrum which is fully cross platform. It even available in PlayStore and F-Droid.

The Electrum exist since 2011 and very well known. It introduced many innovations like simplified validation, seed phrases and Lighting. It also a base for the official NameCoin wallet.

It's endorsed on the bitcoin.org https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/desktop/windows/electrum/

Please clarify why you think this software is not important.

I'll try to add more back links. Stokito (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Although this article should be rewritten, there is some literature investigating the features and security of Electrum. [28], [29], [30] . Less significant coverage: [31], [32], [33]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man, It's So Loud in Here

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG. The article is a very short stub that only cites two primary sources. The song did chart, and there are a few RSes that discuss the song (e.g. the ABC); however, none of them have enough coverage for a standalone article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental Film (song)

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. This article is mostly cited to primary sources (including an interview), as well as a review of the album. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss the song in depth. This article should be redirected to The Spine (album), and the adequately sourced content could be merged into that article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S-E-X-X-Y

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2005 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article is a very short stub that only cites two primary sources. RSes only mention the song briefly in recaps of concerts. This should redirect to Factory Showroom. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(She Was A) Hotel Detective

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews and does not cite any reliable secondary sources. The article is only briefly covered in RSes (e.g. Pitchfork and this tongue-in-cheek mention by A.V. Club) and does not have enough coverage for an article. This should redirect to They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snail Shell (song)

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This song does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. The article cites only one RS, which only mentions the song briefly; the other sources are primary or user-generated. I can only find RSes that mention the song briefly, mostly in recaps of concerts. Article should redirect to John Henry (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Statue Got Me High

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The only RSes cited in this article are on chart positions; the other sources are primary or user-generated. Secondary sources only mention the song briefly (e.g. PopMatters). Article should redirect to Apollo 18 (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlackHatWorld

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

I don's see any reliable sources to provide notability. Note that the Yahoo source is from NewMediaWire, which seems to specifically write PR articles. Janhrach (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Technology, Internet, and Websites. Janhrach (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – BlackHatWorld has a surprising number of hits on google scholar. It is apparently well-known within its field. Most papers only have 30–40 words of usable information, which I don't consider to be significant coverage. However, there are some exceptions. Honor among thieves: A common's analysis of cybercrime economies (cited 32 times, published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has 150–200 words of potentially usable information. Profiling underground merchants based on network behavior (also published by IEEE) has an 86-word blurb explaining what "BlackHat World" is. I also found a conference paper titled Computer-Supported Cooperative Crime that may or may not be significant coverage – I can't access the whole thing. I can keep looking, but so far, I'm leaning towards keep. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 20:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- After taking a more thorough look, I am less convinced that this meets either the general notability guidelines or website-specific notability guidelines. Everything from APWG is peer-reviewed, but both articles from that conference only count as one source. The other scholarly sources either have the same authors (so again count as one source) or only have trivial coverage. I can't access the kernelmag.dailydot.com source, but based on how it's used, it doesn't look like it has significant coverage. The Ungagged source, which I also can't access, probably isn't independent. Coverage by Paris Martineau is insignificant. If ~~both~~ Tech Business News ~~and Search Engine Round Table (aka Barry Schwartz)~~ were reliable sources, then BlackHatWorld would meet notability guidelines. However, I do not believe this to be the case. So, regrettably, I am changing to delete. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've stricken my comment about Search Engine Roundtable because coverage in this source is not significant. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This website is known to promote a lot of online scams, and it's been getting worse in recent years according to a 2024 HackerNoon article that I've just added. For the purpose of educating people about the history and reputation of this "scammer's paradise" it might be a good idea to keep the article for now. --Honos582 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion should be relisted soon. @Honos582: I agree with you that the article is useful. The question we're trying to determine is whether BlackHatWorld is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notable, which tends to be a higher bar than the ordinary definition of "notable". For an explanation of why these guidelines exist, see this explanation. We don't want to pass along gossip about a topic – we want a balanced overview of the topic. To do this, we need at least two (though preferably three) reliable sources that have significant coverage of the topic and are independent of the subject. All of these criteria must be met by multiple sources.

We have found several independent sources that have significant coverage, but it is my opinion that only two of them are reliable. Here comes a rather lengthy analysis of every source that I can I access that I believe to have arguably significant coverage. I apologize for its length.

In my analysis, every study with Sadia Afroz as a co-author counts as one source because these studies will all have the same bias (and so don't make our understanding of BlackHatWorld more balanced). A lot of these studies are published through the IEEE and claim to be peer-reviewed. Coverage is significant.

A second scholarly source is published by MDPI. This publisher is hit-or-miss. The actual journal is Mathematics. Looking at the journal's stats, it could very well be reliable. At 70 words, coverage is arguably significant.

One source is an opinion piece published in Tech Business News. I can't find a discussion of the source on Wikipedia, but it has the word "blog" in the url. Here is that website's policy on contributions. I don't think this source is reliable for statements of fact. At best, it is a newspaper blog.

Regarding hackernoon, there was a discussion involving hackernoon in 2019. There seemed to be a consensus that hackernoon was not a reliable source.

Regarding the Huffpost source, see this entry on the frequently discussed source index.

Regarding an article in The Tribune, it's hard to be certain this is independent. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 22:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satandisk

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

I can't find coverage outside of forums, even there it seems to be a niche gadget. Jay Cubby 05:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and Computing. Jay Cubby 05:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The best ref I can find is a couple of pages about the UltraSatan in Jamie Lendino's 2019 book Faster than Light: The Atari ST and the 16-bit Revolution. There are passing mentions in a couple of European computer magazines in retrocomputing articles, but I didn't see anything else in-depth. Adam Sampson (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singdarin

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

I've lived in Singapore for more than ten years. "Singdarin" is not a thing. Clubette (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Clubette (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick google scholar search for "Singdarin" comes up with 17 results, and a google search finds only 124 results (with similar results ommited). If Singdarin is a thing, it is safe to assume that the good sources are not in English. Machine translation is pretty useless with this word. Anyone who knows Mandarin, Malay or Tamil might be able to find some better sources.

The sources on this article are also really bad. The word Singdarin is mentioned in almost none of the sources, and when it is, it is used as shorthand for Singaporean Mandarin. Clubspike2 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Denying the existence of Singdarin is no different to denying that Singlish exists. An overwhelming number of Mandarin-speaking Singaporeans use Singdarin in colloquial speech and I find it peculiar that you have not noticed this despite claiming to have lived in Singapore for a decade—which I suppose its possible, if you had mostly just lived among other expats/immigrants and not interacted much with the locals. Many ethnic Chinese Singaporeans are not known to be particularly fluent in Mandarin as compared to their Chinese/Taiwanese counterparts due to their country's multicultural background as well as their huge immersion in English being their main language, which led to the rise of Singdarin. 175.197.10.59 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball nicknames

AfDs for this article:

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

The list is full of OR and tagged as such for 13 years now. Not every single nickname need be included in this list. If a nickname is legit, it belongs in the player's article. "Mr. October" is a well documented nickname; "the Milkman" is not. An alternative to deletion would be to cull the list dramatically and merge/redirect to List of sportspeople with nicknames#Baseball. Rgrds. -- BX (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Baseball, and Lists. BX (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I don't think it is WP:OR - almost every nickname has a source, and the fact there are published books on the topic (in the article) means it's probably a notable list. It is in desperate need of cleanup, though. SportingFlyer T·C 06:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of junk in this article. Several folks on here like Arky Vaughan and Satchel Paige who used a nickname from childhood. These are not "baseball nicknames", they're just the names they went by. Elsewhere only names extensively used should be included, not just any appellation. Reywas92^Talk 14:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep. There is clearly sourcing of these names as group. A quick Google search found [34], [35], [36]. That being said, the article is in pretty bad shape. A draftify to try to clean it up is not something I would oppose. Esolo5002 (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe draftify is a practical option if the article is much older than 90 days, per WP:DRAFTNO and the RfC for it. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over that RFC, it seems to me that it would allow a draftify if there was consensus at AFD. You just shouldn't make the move to an article over 90 days old without consensus first. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article has potential, but needs additional refs to verify some nicknames, as well as an update to players listed (i.e. those who have retired or since elected to the HofF). A possible renaming to something like List of Major League Baseball player nicknames may also make sense. Nearly all players listed have played in the MLB at some point, and the history of the Negro leagues (i.e. John Jordan O'Neil) has been incorporate into MLB record-books and history in recent years. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, also think that this baseball article is way too large (150,000 characters) to merge into List of sportspeople with nicknames#Baseball, and don't see clean up the list to decrease the size significantly. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man's World (periodical)

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

Don't think it passes WP:GNG, only a casual mention in one independent secondary source (The Guardian), can't really find any additional secondary sources via Google search Reflord (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabaghat Aa'lam Al-Shia

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

I am unable to identify any third-party references to this work that qualifies this work as notable under WP:NBOOK. --Eelipe (talk) 02:46, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Chambers

AfDs for this article:

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

As to someone who is very familiar with the Resident Evil series, I feel like Rebecca is pretty much on borderline when it comes to notability. I was hesitating about this article and asked Piotrus. [37] is the only sigcov, while this one [38] just only states that the creator hates her. Others were just listicles/rankings and passing mentions. I couldn't find even more sources per WP:BEFORE. I know this is GA, but I don't think this one passes unlike Barry Burton. I do promise that I will bring this article back from the dead after the rumored Resident Evil Zero remake is dropped. I want your opinions about this if this should be kept or merged. No hard feelings! Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Video games. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having looked at the sources that mention her in their headings, in addition to the SyFy source linked above, only [39] from TheGamer can be argued to be SIGCOV-meeting, but it is also a crappy listicle. So yes, this is very borderline, GNG-wise. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Resident Evil characters. Given the nominator's extensive history with Resident Evil characters (Nice job with all the FAs, btw), I trust they have done adequate research and a BEFORE on the character, and the current sources seem largely trivial. The few non-trivial sources, as well as what conception info exists, can be merged to the character's entry on the list as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The WP:SIGCOV does not seem to be there. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per all. User:Boneless_Pizza! has been doing a lot to improve this topic area and I agree with that most of the reception is built from WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Merge is an WP:ATD that leaves the door open should we find something better than a listicle, after a future game maybe. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CupidDB

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

Open source project with no claim to notability, article was created by the project author.

By the numbers:

7 commits
4 stars on GitHub
1 contributor

Brandon (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Brandon (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brandon,

Thank you for reviewing my article and providing feedback regarding its notability. I understand that the project was marked for deletion due to having only 7 commits, 4 stars on GitHub, and one contributor, which you mentioned might be too small to meet notability standards.

However, I would like to clarify that the project has actually been worked on by multiple contributors, including my coworkers, and there have been several additional commits prior to its GitHub release that were not reflected in the current commit count. The project is also being used in production as part of the data caching infrastructure at a notable bank in Thailand. I believe these contributions, combined with the project's history, may provide a fuller picture of its development and significance.

In light of this, I’d also appreciate it if you could provide further clarification on what level of GitHub stars or other criteria would be considered sufficient to meet the notability standards. I want to ensure that I can revisit the article in the future, should it be deleted, with the necessary improvements and information.

Thank you for your time and understanding. I look forward to your feedback. I'm very new to Wikipedia, so your guidance would be highly appreciated.

Cheers! Wiamsuri (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's definition of notability requires significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources (e.g. news media, books written by authors who have no connection to the project). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: you should generally not edit about topics that you have a personal connection to. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No independent coverage, so fails WP:GNG. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Don't see any independent coverage, and it seems extraordinary unlikely that such coverage would exist for a minor open source project like this one. MCE89 (talk) 03:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu Feed Bin

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

random store whose only claim to notability is that it was destroyed. harrz ^talk 01:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and California. harrz ^talk 01:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 02:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article was recently created, because this was a family pet food store in Malibu for more than half a century. It's now a statistic as of one of the businesses destroyed in the current Southern California wildfires. — Maile (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject is notable as evidenced in articles like this and this where the subject is the primary topic. Also, with all due respect to the nominator, please keep in mind that the person who created the article is still relatively new to Wikipedia. WP:BITE does apply here and we should take that into consideration before launching an AfD (or a PROD). --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 02:28, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is notable; I'm finding quite a few sources pre-dating the fires just from a basic search. The page just needs work to include them. As pointed out above, a new user created the page, and treating newcomers with patience includes giving them a minute to figure things out. -- Kylara (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete Yeah, there is more coverage than just that it burned down, but it's local coverage of local things and I'm not seeing the larger notability. A the fact that the article is less than a month old suggests that the old news articles didn't register.Mangoe (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedians write about their interests, so I don't get this argument that newness implies that "the old news articles didn't register". The absence of an article on Wikipedia until yesterday (when a participant in an edit-a-thon on the subject wrote about it) in the face of there being significant coverage of the subject in other media does not (and should not) imply that the subject isn't notable. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 15:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susovan Roy

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable actor, doesn't passes WP:NACTOR. I got a mail from User:Xegma, they written, Hi Taabi, this is my article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susovan_Roy why you tag deletion for it. Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it. They also closed the discussion and drafted the page. It's a clear WP:COI. The closing admin can ask me for the proof of their mail, I'll be happy to share. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and West Bengal. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noting here as I did at ANI, Xegma is p-blocked from this discussion to avoid further disruption. They're welcome to contribute elsewhere. Star Mississippi 15:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per their roles in those two series "Anandamoyee Maa", "Korapakhi" and modeling works with several known brands.HeMahon (talk) 13:13, 19 January 2025 (UTC)}} — HeMahon (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Blogs19 (talk · contribs). Spicy (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Roles mentioned above are not significant roles. Notability is not inherited from notable brands he may have worked for. Sourcing is dodgy PR pieces pretending to be real articles. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These five sources are 1. IBC24, 2. Navabharat, 3. Krishijagran, 4. Pardaphash, 5. Meghalayamonitor looks independent reporting by their own staffs. 185.48.248.126 (talk) 07:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 3 is written by "reporter" and barely a half page, I can't open source 5... The rest look about as unhelpful. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 01:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aerography (meteorology)

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

Stub that has been unsourced since its creation and largely consists of definitions of terms that have their own pages. Noah, BSBA^Talk 00:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (strong) -- uncited stub. As a (former) military meteorologist, the only time I've ever even heard this term is in-reference to the U.S. Navy's 'aerographer's mate' rating. My policy argument would likely be NOTDICT.

MWFwiki (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources at all. Anktjha (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of Overwatch

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

There is a consensus at the Video Games WikiProject that we shouldn't create this type of WP:REDUNDANTFORK between a game and its gameplay (the same thing). This is already covered elsewhere, and otherwise violates WP:VGSCOPE. The characters section has already been turned into an article at Characters of the Overwatch franchise. The complete list of levels/maps is a violation of WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE, with mass amounts of unsourced information. That leaves nothing left to WP:PRESERVE. Even if we added a reception or development section, it would duplicate what we already have at the game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Video games. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Overwatch per my other votes at deletion discussions like this one. I don't think these types of articles should exist, period. λ NegativeMP1 00:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or if anything Merge to the Overwatch franchise article. The claim of "mass amounts of unsourced information" is exaggerated, and while there are several paragraphs that need sourcing, this should be obvious they can be fixed or trimmed down with how much coverage Overwatch has gotten. Further, things like lists of levels are not forbidden per VGSCOPE or GAMEGUIDE, but rarely do you see every game level get discussed in anything more than name drops, which is why we normally don't have such lists since the bulk will only be sourced to primary material. However, all the maps in Overwatch have been discussed to various degrees in secondary sources, which doesn't immediately disqualify those lists; obviously this is the exception, not the rule. Masem (t) 00:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think a list of Overwatch maps would be feasible, but the article is too detailed like a WP:NOTDATABASE. IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per NOPAGE. "Gameplay of X" simply does not work as a standalone article, for the same reason that we couldn't make a "plot of X" article for a book or film. The gameplay essentially is the game, and therefore can't really be covered separately. I do think that this title could make a useful redirect, but I disagree that there is anything here worth merging. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are some standalone articles which do work for games where keeping gameplay/rules in the main article would result in a too large article. For example, Rules of chess has a good article rating. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that is the same thing. Chess has had a thousand-year history and the rules have changed over the years, and are somewhat customizable. Overwatch, however, has had the same set of gameplay the whole time, and there can't really be discussion of one without the other. I simply think that this article does not work as a split, since it does not have any independent development or reception. Any attempt to make such a section would essentially just be a copy-paste of the relevant section of the Overwatch article, showing how this doesn't work as a separate article. Most of the information in this article is also not suitable for merging into the main article, which is why I instead chose Redirect. Also, as a final note, there is recent precedent against keeping these articles. See here, here, and here. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough secondary sources for a standalone article and merging back would run into WP:TOOBIG issues. There are parts that can be trimmed/removed (per Masem above) and more critical analysis could be incorporated so this feels like a cleanup issue instead of a deletion issue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment given the article's large amount of sources to wade through, would those arguing Keep be willing to share examples of SIGCOV per Wikipedia:THREE? I feel a more valid argument can be generated if it's made more clear what sources are being considered as major coverage in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect as it fails WP:NOTGAMEGUIDE. I also don't oppose transwiki to Wikibooks, but this is unencyclopedic content as it is only relevant to fans of the game and no one else. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Overwatch. Despite a large amount of sources for this article, larger video games with far more detailed content on their gameplay do not have standalone articles about their gameplay. A good 90% of this page is just the history of Overwatches gameplay changes and its maps. I see no reason why any of the notable content in this article requires a stand alone article. Clubspike2 (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per others. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Amiri, Hoshang (2024-04-18). "Fabricated Statistics in Iran's Economy". Iran Focus. Retrieved 2025-01-12.

[2] Khatinoglu, Dalga (2024-02-07). "How Iran Manipulates Foreign Investment Statistics". iranintl.com. Retrieved 2025-01-12.

[3] Farhadi, Noah; Lahooti, Hooshang (2023). "In Data We Trust: Proving Market Manipulation on the Tehran Stock Exchange". International Journal of Business and Management. 17 (4): 1. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v17n4p1.

[4] Scott, Dean (July 2004). "Review: Max Play 01". Nintendo Official Magazine. No. 142. p. 97. ISSN 0965-4240.

[5] Yohko; Teruo (April 2005). "szara strefa". Hardkor. PSX Extreme [pl] (in Polish). No. 92. p. 77. ISSN 1429-172X.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]