Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Purge

31 March 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Purge server cache

Deutsche Welle Bangla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I do not think there is any necessity whatsoever to create a separate article under the name "Deutsche Welle Bangla." The reason is that Deutsche Welle is currently available in 32 languages, and none of these are perhaps notable individually. If needed, it would be best to create a table within the Deutsche Welle article listing the 32 languages in which the publication is available and writing a brief line about them. Somajyoti 16:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kakan Rajputs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this is an orphan article, plus there are WP:MOS and grammar errors galore here too Gommeh (talk/contribs) 15:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of this Wikipedia page(Kakan rajputs) and have been actively contributing my time and knowledge to it since its inception. I have made frequent additions and have been consistently involved in its editing. The grammar errors present are not from our side but from other contributors/editors, and my team is actively working to correct them. I assure you that these issues will be addressed, and we will closely monitor the page moving forward. Therefore, I sincerely request you to withdraw this deletion request, as we are committed to maintaining and improving the page. ZypheriZ (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that an article is an orphan is in no way a reason for deletion. At worst, an orphan is just an article created by a less experienced editor who does not understand that it is important to provide sources, links or even categories, or by a more experienced editor who simply cannot find any other pages that can link to the subject. Or it may be a relatively new article that the creator is planning to link from other pages, but has not identified other articles or otherwise carried out that task yet (a page generally should not be tagged as an orphan until it has been around for a little while). Being an orphan is not a reason to delete an article, only to fix whatever issues it has." This is based on Wikipedia's own guidelines. Your claim that the article is orphaned is not a valid reason for deletion. I request you to withdraw your deletion request. ZypheriZ (talk) 16:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what you are trying to say, but I still feel like you should have created a draft of this page and perfected it before submitting it for creation. I'll let others decide whether or not the article should be deleted. Additionally, who is your team that you mentioned above? Gommeh (talk/contribs) 16:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Our team will be more mindful of these issues moving forward. However frequent edits from other contributors have caused difficulties, as they often add inaccurate or unnecessary information. This requires us to make constant revisions and corrections, which you can verify in the page's revision history. I appreciate your understanding. Thank you. ZypheriZ (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Light train (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be an original WP:NEOlogism. None of the cited sources use the term "light train" as defined in the article, and there do not appear to be other sources that describe the term as such. It appears to combine two separate concepts: lightweight trains from the mid-20th century, and a unrelated variety of trains in operation in Europe which are not permitted for regular operation in the United States. Sub31k (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WeProtect (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG. Absolutiva (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Petr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

He played 86 minutes in the highest tier of Slovakia before disappearing in 2023. My secondary searches are limited to passing mentions and an image caption. ⋆。˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚。⋆ 14:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn‎. (non-admin closure) Absolutiva (talk) 14:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Berry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, did not find any WP:SIGCOV. Absolutiva (talk) 14:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fail-safes in nanotechnology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Page that fails WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, WP:CRYSTALBALL and WP:Notability. It combines a number of different topics, with original research suggestions for ways to prevent malfunctions. The page contains 8 sources, but only [6] is claimed to be related to failsafe and reading of the source only has “In the future, if our molecular automaton is sent on a medical mission, it can be programmed to exercise similar judgment”, i.e. crystal ball. When this page was created in 2008, perhaps there was discussion of building failsafe into future nanotech, although I am dubious; for certain this neologism has not been adopted by the community. Topics such as self-healing materials, self-healing hydrogels, self-healing concrete (and a few more) as well as fault tolerance are well established, and should not be confused with this neologism.

Curtesy ping of User:Bearian. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scrapyard (mixtape) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass WP:NALBUMS. Half of the sources are from Twitter while the rest are seemingly from student newspapers, which do not contribute to notability. The only reliable source from WP:A/S used here is HotNewHipHop, but an album needs at least 3-4 reliable sources from A/S to pass for notability. Locust member (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation of the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The International Bureau of Weights and Measures (commonly BIPM, per its name in French) is undoubtedly notable but this article does not show that the foundation of the Bureau was a separately notable event, and notability is not inherited. Merging into International Bureau of Weights and Measures would not be appropriate; much of this content has previouly been removed from that article, and/or Metre and History of the metre, as excessively detailed, failing WP:DUE, off-topic, digressive and florid. NebY (talk) 13:26, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mosaics in Asia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't see how this is one topic, and not just a grouping of topics across two characteristics (mosaics from certain regions / influences, and certain regions in Asia) which have no real common ground. I could find no good sources for this topic as a whole (looking for this gave results about mosaics in Asia Minor, which is not the same of course). Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts and Asia. Fram (talk) 13:25, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I agree that the article lacks a common bond of mosaics in the different regions, I think some of the content is good. Mosaic is overwhelmingly about Europe (and it should make better use of summary style with its subpages), but the Middle Eastern and Western Asian section is relatively short and there is nothing at all about East or Southeast Asian mosaic art. This is a new article from a new user, so I would recommend they consider merging some information or working on it as a draft. Reywas92Talk 15:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Draftification and splitting into separate articles may be best. Fram (talk) 15:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Joshua Chibueze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. No independent reliable coverage; most of the coverage consists of "Chibueze said," "Chibueze told," "Chibueze commented," etc. Cinder painter (talk) 11:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirecting to a non-existent article is not a viable option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marat Ressin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BLP, no media sources relevant to the article. Article moved from draft to main space without being checked. Bexaendos (talk) 12:25, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – the article is supported by multiple reliable sources including mainstream media (e.g. Canadian Jewish News, Forbes Kazakhstan, CMDA, Schulich/York University). Subject is notable as the founder of YEDI, a globally ranked accelerator by UBI Global. Sources confirm awards, academic work, and public recognition.

Oleksandr Makarov (talk) 13:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 13:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
March for Our Lives Seattle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT. The coverage of this protest are just local routine news. After the protest ended, all coverage stopped completely. WhoIsCentreLeft (talk) 12:59, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If guidance in WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NEVENT are not defining specific criteria for when to keep Wikipedia articles on protests, then we should develop special notability criteria for keeping them.
It is the nature of protests to have journalist coverage when they happen, then only be discussed thereafter as part of the aggregate of political protest around the fundamental issue. This was a March for Our Lives protest, so even if this was just in Seattle and just in 2018, all following media about March for our Lives is still reporting outcomes from this protest. We need as many local summaries of multi-site, multi-year protests as we can capture as Wikipedia articles. I see that we have no dedicated guidance at WP:PROTEST - perhaps we need some guidance. Bluerasberry (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space has interrelated issues. I'm not able to find other sources than the sole one that the article cites (F. Trèves' book on topological vector spaces). I think inasmuch as it is different from just, multivariable differential calculus, it is not a notable topic—in that sense, it may be seen a content fork, where the page is about an obscure TVS approach to a well-known topic that probably doesn't merit coverage on the article about the latter. It is also written in WP:NOTTEXTBOOK-like style, quite closesly paraphrasing Trèves. For example, the portion starting at Differentiable vector–valued functions from Euclidean space#Space of Ck functions corresponds tightly to the portion of Trèves starting at Notation 40.1; see an example of this below:

Article:

Suppose is a sequence of relatively compact open subsets of whose union is and that satisfy for all Suppose that is a basis of neighborhoods of the origin in Then for any integer the sets: form a basis of neighborhoods of the origin for as and vary in all possible ways.

Trèves:

Consider a sequence of relatively compact open subsets of whose union is equal to , an arbitrary integer , a basis of neighborhoods of zero in , [namely] . As and vary in all possible ways, the subsets of , form a basis of neighborhoods of zero for the topology.

ByVarying | talk 02:49, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I do not agree with your assertion about a lack of noteworthiness. Also, the topic is substantially different from multivariate calculus. Topological vector spaces are certainly noteworthy, and since differentiability is a corner stone in analysis, it is clear, that differentiable functions with values in such spaces are also noteworthy. The classical definition of differentiability is based on norms (see, for instance, Jean Dieudonné's textbook "Foundations of Modern Analysis"). This classical approach does not work for functions with values in topological vector spaces. So this article has very little to do with multivariate differential calculus. It is a keep. 51.154.152.231 (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    When I say notable, I'm talking about WP:N. Being tangentially related to notable topics doesn't make something notable; substantial coverage in RS does. ByVarying | talk 00:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, plicit 11:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Al Dhafra Private School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

not notable and doesn't pass WP:GNG 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Wilson (missionary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article looks at first glance very well referenced, but looking more closely, I fear there are some major problems.

  • Hargrove 1809" doesn't seem to mention Charles Wilson?[1]
  • Sibree 1923 is a publication by the "London Missionary Society", so not an independent source
  • Davies 1808 and Davies 1810 are "'publications" from the "Records of the London Missionary Society" and not even really published, it is a microfilmed manuscript
  • Wharton & Im Thurn 1925 is this source which has one primary mention of Charles Wilson as a co-signatory of a letter
  • "London Missionary Society 1818a" is obviously a publication from the LMS again

So nothing in the article is actually based on reliable, independent sources about Charles Wilson, which indicates the lack of notability for this missionary (and the text gives no indication why he would be considered notable either). Fram (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Religion, England, and Oceania. Fram (talk) 10:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lovett's 1899 History of the London Missionary Society 1795–1895 has (on p.176) Charles Wilson captured on the "Duff" before going out again on the "Royal Admiral" in 1801. So that's how the Hargrove source, an account of the "Duff" voyage, gets joined in. For a fact-poor obituary of Wilson (which outright tells us that it isn't going to tell us anything about the period between 1801 and this person retiring in 1842 and dying in 1857) that however also joins the dots for the "Duff", see the July 1858 Missionary Chronicle, p. 453. There's another obituary in the 1858-09-24 The Friend (v.8 no.9 p.65) which tells is that this person's work "extended over a period of near sixty years", and says not one thing about those 56 years, also stopping the facts at 1801.

    That said, perhaps we could have left the article for more than 30 minutes of writing to see how the other 26 sources were going to pan out. Uncle G (talk) 11:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    Judging from other articles like this one, there was little inclination to keep on working on the article. Many of these other sources were from the LMS as well anyway, and other ones don't really have much on Charles Wilson either (e.g. [chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://scholarspace.manoa.hawaii.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/a6a00647-248f-40a2-beed-87e632163f33/content this one]). The two sources you mention aren't independent either, of course. Fram (talk) 11:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vasu Raja (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks notable, verifiable sources proving his subject meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for a person. Hka-34 Jyli (talk) 09:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Vasu Raja was the high-profile architect of the world's largest airline's commercial strategy including a unique take on distribution for two years before being forced out and continues to be a notable industry expert. He has sufficient coverage to meet the general notability guideline and curious whether a search was done before nomination. Avgeekamfot (talk) 16:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:35, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jasmeen Manzoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ref 1 is a mention, Ref 2 is tagged as PR, Ref3 is not independent coverage as the coverage given to her was by her own TV station. Ref 4 is a database entry, Ref 5 is a video of her own TV show, Ref 6, 7, 8 merely mention her. Ref 9 is an example of routine coverage (PR again?). Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. Gheus (talk) 08:54, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfDed before. Not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:34, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Radhikaraje Gaekwad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED.

None of the reliable sources provide significant coverage to the subject separate from their family. Koshuri (グ) 09:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Rizvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Draft on this subject was declined multiple times due to lack of notability. Since it was still under process of improvisation, editor has blanked the draft and moved the article into main space. Article doesn't meet BLP criteria. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:37, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please identify this sourcing not just vague waves
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:57, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're all in the article. BurimKazimi (talk) 15:39, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further thoughts?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gonna do a source assessment: Refs 1, 2, 12, 13, 15, 17 have short quotes from Rizvi on other topics and do not count towards the GNG. Ref 3 quotes Rizvi extensively – not sigcov about him, but this indicates to me that he is a subject-matter expert. Ref 4 mentions that Muhammad Rizvi's father was a "well-known Shia imam and writer" but doesn't have sigcov of the son. Ref 5 is an obituary for the father which briefly mention's the son's job, not sigcov. Ref 6 has long quotes from him and mentions that a school he was affiliated with was suspended, not quite sigcov but closer. Ref 7 is a short biography, definitely sigcov, but it is not really independent, given it seems to be hosted by an online school he works for. I don't have access to the book cited in ref 8, so I cannot judge it. Ref 9 doesn't have the title of the article, so I can't find it on ProQuest. Ref 10 quotes Rizvi extensively but from the part I can see doesn't give much information about him beyond his job. Ref 11 is a passing mention. Ref 14 has longer quotes from Rizvi. Ref 16 is just a photo. Refs 18, 19, and 20 are about a document he signed along with a large number of other people; they do not contain sigcov, simply listing his name once or not mentioning him at all. Ref 21 is a long quote from him, from a source of dubious reliability (WP:MEMRI). Ref 22 is a scholarly source that extensively references Rizvi's writing and at one point criticizes it – if we had more sources like this, we might meet WP:NAUTHOR, but one alone is not enough, and this is not sigcov about him. Ref 23 is a biography (sigcov), but it is not clear to me if it is independent. Ref 24 is the only source that definitely counts toward the GNG.

    Based on the sourcing in the article alone I lean towards !voting weak delete, but he does seem to be an influential and oft-cited expert on religious matters. Toadspike [Talk] 09:44, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • I did a few spot checks, starting with the JSTOR source, and came to much the same conclusions. The sourcing to a photograph of 3 blokes standing around is one of the particularly poor pieces of sourcing. Surely there was a piece that had words in it, to accompany the photograph! Uncle G (talk) 09:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lonestar Shootout 2022 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No notable pro wrestling event. Most sources are just WP:ROUTINE coverage, no coverage after the show to prove notability. Searching for sources, it doesn't look like the event had coverage after [5] HHH Pedrigree (talk) 12:07, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the article has coverage, there is no in-deep coverage of the event AFTER it happened. Wikipedia:Notability (events) talks about it. While the event was covered at the time, there is no much sources years after. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As demonstrated above, NJPW pay-per-views (as topics) are always subjects of WP:SIGCOV. However, they don't always need to have ongoing coverage since generally demonstrating WP:SUSTAINED and WP:NTEMP (no need for extra future articles to provide more coverage as established by NTEMP). The Duration of coverage subsection of the inclusion criteria also talks about it. Narrowing down to the hereby case, the article meets at least two main criterias of WP:DEPTH through it's references. Sources such as [6] which are not featured in the article but can be googled check the WP:FUTUREEVENT criteria. All of the reliable sources already featured in the article check the criteria of WP:DIVERSE. JeyReydar97 (talk) 15:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:00, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Patrick Durusau (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While certainly accomplished, I cannot find enough in-depth references to show that he meets WP:GNG, and does not meet WP:NSCHOLAR. Onel5969 TT me 16:11, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aranmula Palace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article has been subject to several AfDs under multiple titles (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aranmula Kottaram and the much older Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aranmula palace). The article has weak sourcing and search results turn almost none that can demonstrate wp:notability. Recommend redirection to Aranmula as with the most recent AfD (that was closed three months ago!). Please note that the author's edits mostly revolve around promoting the palace as a standalone article. ToadetteEdit (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Royalty and nobility, and Kerala. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:02, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What with Aranmula palace (AfD discussion), Aranmula Kottaram (AfD discussion), Aranmula Mangattu Palace, Aranmula Vadake Kottaram (Northern Palace), Aranmula Palace (Aranmula Palace), Aranmula Palace (Aranmula Kottaram), Aranmula Pala (Aranmula Kotta), Draft:Aranmula Kottaram, Draft:Aranmula Mangattu Kottaram, and Aranmula Mangattu Kottaram it is becoming hard to keep track. It doesn't help that the articles don't clarify which of these is the real Kottaram. Uncle G (talk) 18:43, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear all, The malayalam word 'kottaram' means Palace in english language. vadake kottaram is the name of palace. There was another big palace in aranmula known as 'Valiya kottaram'(Meaning-big palace). when valiya kottaram demolished on 1985, last king moved to Vadakke kottaram and continued to live there until 2008.then he left aranmula and died last year. The malayalam word 'vadakke' means northen in english language. After 5 yeas research,in the book 'Aranmula Ithihyavum Charithra Sathyangalum' Written By K P Sreeranganadhan, he mentioned in page 418 that he have proofs that showing vadakke kottaram renovated in 1910 and got approval from kerala ruled king. Since aranmula dynasty don't had any ruling privilege's, and it is a small village, it is not mentioned much in history. However, in the book Kerala A Journey in Time Part II: Kingdom Of Cochin & Thekamkoor Rajyam; People Places and Potpourr, written by George Abraham, also describes Aranmula palace belongs to Thekumkoor dynasy. Article's about aranmula kottaram is there in news channel is also added in references. I don't know how to vote for 'keep' this article. i couldn't find any 'keep' button. yes to protect this page, I have done some small mistakes. I have created a page on 2009 in wikipedia and from 2018-2021 onwards, this page is targeted and attacked. it is mentioned that the article has been subject to several AfDs. it was for the first page and it is deleted by some one without even informing me. Sorry to say You people didnot take any action against user who do vandalism. I have recreated this page and Now again.. Please keep in mind that there are lot of treasures in world like this which are not recorded properly in history. I have spend a lot of time and effort. I had enough mental stress due to this page and not anymore. If you think this is fake, you may delete this. You can delete only Wikipedia page but not the real palace which will remain in Aranmula for ever.

    Thanks Ajithchandra (talk) 12:05, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per nom. If this is a duplicate of another article, then it could be redirected there, but in the absence of a better redirect target, the town article is the most appropriate. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not duplicate. This is recreated page when someone targeted and deleted first page after continuous vandalism. You may ask why i didnt reported. First of all, i am not a wikpedia expert. I have reported it in edit history and to some people who tagged for deletion. After reading my reply, they all just left instead of providing support. I tried to go through the help but to be honest, it was very confusing and there is no simple steps to follow. So i did what i can do. What else i am suppose to do when there is no support from wiki experts? Ajithchandra (talk) 12:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect both this article and the equally poorly sourced page Aranmula Mangattu Palace to Aranmula. I agree with the user above that it's becoming hard to keep track of the drafts and all the similar pages. Keivan.fTalk 19:27, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is genuine article and the authenticity is proved in the books mentioned in reference. This article is also useful for people who are searching about Aranmula. The malayalam word 'kottaram' means Palace in English language. vadake kottaram is the name of palace.. After 5 yeas research, in the book 'Aranmula Ithihyavum Charithra Sathyangalum' Written By K P Sreeranganadhan, he mentioned in page 418 that he have proofs that showing vadakke kottaram renovated in 1910 and got approval from Kerala ruled king. Since Aranmula dynasty don't had any ruling privilege's, and it is a small village, it is not mentioned much in history. However, in the book Kerala A Journey in Time Part II: Kingdom Of Cochin & Thekamkoor Rajyam; People Places and Potpourr, written by George Abraham, also describes Aranmula palace belongs to Thekumkoor dynasty. Article's about aranmula kottaram is there in the news is also added in references.Ajithchandra (talk) 13:21, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was not aware of what was happening, but now I have a clear picture. The original page was created in 2009. The issues with this page began when a user, Arjunvishnu2000, along with another user, repeatedly attempted to change its content to "Mangattu Palace" (a different building near this palace) from 2018 to 2024. Every time I reverted their edits, they change it again after 2–3 months. I was so frustrated that I even tried creating a separate page for Mangattu Palace, hoping they would stop the vandalism and work on that page instead. However, when their repeated edit attempts failed, they then tried multiple times to have this page deleted. I did not receive any notifications about these actions until December 2024. I was also unaware that the original page had been redirected. One day, when I searched for it, I couldn't find it. As a result, I recreated the page, thinking the original content was lost.

      If you check the edit histories, you can clearly understand this. Unfortunately, it now seems that admins are protecting the page of user responsible for the vandalism while attempting to remove the real page. Ajithchandra (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This palace still exists in Aranmula and serves as a valuable reference for those interested in building a Nalukettu-style house. I believe this page should remain to inform those who are not familiar with Aranmula. vasu44 (talk) 17:58, 28 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The book mentioned says, in toto, 10 words on this subject: "The Thkkumku royal family had several palaces, including Aranmula Palace". Clearly, even the article creator cannot give a simple verifiable statement of which Kottaram is the real Kottaram, given that there are 2 different buildings across a host of articles, and no decent sourcing. One has to appreciate, also, the new anonymous web-log purported source dated the very day that Ajithchandra weighed into this discussion, tagged with "wikipedia" at the bottom. Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aranmula. This article fails WP:GNG. A standalone article about the palace cannot be justified with the sources presented.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence C. Marsh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG & Wp:nprof Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Economics. Sabirkir (talk) 11:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two items with pretty good citation levels is below what I'm generally looking for in WP:NPROF. University-wide teaching awards do not contribute here. On the other hand, one book tends to fall under WP:BLP1E so far as WP:NAUTHOR goes; I did not anyway find reviews on a cursory search. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:13, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Indiana, and Michigan. WCQuidditch 18:18, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. For someone at this level of seniority, two well-cited publications (one a textbook) with the rest falling off steeply is below the bar for WP:PROF#C1, and nothing else in the article looks to contribute to notability. I did find one published review of the book, and hints that there might have been another by Garman in [10] (from which any book reviews are now missing), but even if I could find the second review it wouldn't be enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. To my mind a notable econometrician. His founding of/chairing of the Midwest Econometrics Group (MEG) is I think very notable within the US academic econometrics community and his role as the guest editor for a special edition of a highly prestigious econometrics journal - the Journal of Econometrics is important, as his work on Splines in ecmetrics via his book and papers ... and these seem to me together sufficient for notability. His published academic work in econometrics is very wide ranging....and I have used some if it in different contexts.... His later post-retirement books and media / opinion piece work seem to me less notable (but my bias is towards the academic side) and I don't know how notable his work as an independent Midwest Voices columnist on the Kansas City Star online edition might be from a journalistic point of view. (Msrasnw (talk) 07:56, 19 March 2025 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep The article has been expanded since its creation. The contributions made by Msrasnw, consisting of valuable content including his publications, serve to further establish the notability of the subject. Gedaali (talk) 08:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While he has (as mentioned above) a couple of well cited papers, the dropoff is fast and the total number of citations at 1359 is weak. His own page does not indicate anything notable except some prior students; notability is not inheritable from his prior students. I don't see indications that his book(s) have had an impact. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:56, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:50, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Royce Cronin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completely unreferenced article about an actor. As always, actors are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party media coverage about them and their performances -- but this cites no references at all, and is written in a semi-advertorialized tone that's not complying with WP:NPOV.
As he's a British actor whose strongest claims to potentially passing NACTOR are television roles from 20 years ago, I'm willing to withdraw this if a British editor with better access to archived UK media coverage from the noughts can find enough GNG-worthy sourcing to salvage it, but nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have any referencing. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete found nothing in my search that'd contribute towards GNG. Traumnovelle (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete have yet to find independent RS referencing the subject in detail asides from brief mentions of his roles from what I have found so far.Villkomoses (talk) 17:15, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He meets WP:NACTOR with significant roles in 24Seven, Family Affairs and more recently on stage in The Band Back Together, a stage play by Barney Norris which does not yet have a WP article, but has reviews from The Guardian, The Times and The Spectator, which I have added to this article, and is thus clearly notable. He has also had other stage roles, including in a well-reviewed production of Bouncers by John Godber (which also should have a WP article). RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NACTOR - Had two regular roles on main channels in the UK. I have expanded the article slightly. Thank you for explaining RebeccaGreen - I was able to find sources for the works you talked about using the newspaper archive. Perhaps this just needs extra research, a lot of his career was in the 1990s and early 2000s and the link rot obviously means we lost sources for his early roles. I have sourced some early role info using archives.Rain the 1 21:20, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would request that this stays open longer since the original rationale and subsequent support for deletion is based on an unsourced version of this article [11] - I have sourced more of the actor's early life and career beginnings since my previous comment. Also pinging @Alexeyevitch:@DerbyCountyinNZ:@Villkomoses:@Traumnovelle:@Bearcat: - should I continue trying to expand it?Rain the 1 22:00, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources provided by RebeccaGreen and the improvement (WP:HEY) done by RainTheOne. The subject is clearly notable and meets NACTOR. There are also multiple newspaper sources discussing the actor that I can email. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:22, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 08:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Grand National Unity Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete – The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations.

- **No direct sources**: There are no independent, verifiable sources directly covering the subject. - **Lack of references**: No reliable references exist to establish the significance of this political party. - **Fails WP:GNG**: The article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. - **Violates Wikipedia’s sourcing policies**: This article fails to provide reliable sources and lacks independent sources, violating Wikipedia’s verifiability policy.

For these reasons, I support the deletion of this article. --Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC) Kim jong min (hanyang) (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chengdu Golden Apple Child Education (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any information about this company. The only company with a similar name I found was not founded in 1985. I'm not sure if it exists, and there are no references to this entry. Babaibiaobin (talk) 07:14, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cho Hyung-jae (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete – The article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for organizations.

- **No direct sources**: There are no independent, verifiable sources directly covering the subject. - **Lack of references**: No reliable references exist to establish the significance of this political party. - **Fails WP:GNG**: The article does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. - **Does not meet all three criteria for Wikipedia notability**: The subject is not listed in a biographical dictionary, has not received a significant award, and has not demonstrated consistent contributions that establish enduring notability.

For these reasons, I support the deletion of this article.--Jo HyeonSeong (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WAMPOC/WAMPEX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability, as it relies on self-referential sources and lacks significant independent coverage from credible publications that establish the conference as a prominent part within the energy industry Mapsama (talk) 07:05, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lhoist group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

due to a lack of notability, as significant coverage from independent reliable sources is missing, and the content is too short to provide notability Mapsama (talk) 07:03, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andres David Drobny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

questionable notability, as it relies predominantly on sources too closely associated with the subject and lacks significant independent coverage in reputable publications. Additionally, the article presents a promotional tone Mapsama (talk) 07:02, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Midas Pharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I recommend the deletion of the MIdas Pharma page due to a lack of notability, as it does not have sufficient independent coverage in reputable sources to demonstrate its significance in the pharmacy industry Mapsama (talk) 07:00, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CTGP-R (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable stub about an unofficial game mod that lacks sufficient coverage or depth. Contested WP:PROD. Current secondary sourcing is one reasonably in-depth TheGamer article about the subject, and a trivial mention in a WaPo article. A quick search yields little other than a brief mention in a Cracked article here: [12] All in all, this isn't exactly the pedigree or depth of coverage for a video game article. (Note: I'm not sure who decided to NPP tag what feels like every single possible tag on the page, but that wasn't me. The 'sources exist' tag is not accompanied by any suggested sources in-article or on the talk page.) VRXCES (talk) 06:52, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of straight up deleting it, we should just Draftify it instead. TzarN64 (talk) 15:42, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Operation Dost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article documents a routine humanitarian mission that received only brief, routine news coverage and does not meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria for events (WP:EVENT). It clearly falls under WP:NOTNEWS, lacking the enduring coverage or in-depth secondary sources required by WP:GNG. There is no indication of lasting encyclopedic significance.

Operation Brahma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article fails Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for events (WP:EVENT) and falls under WP:NOTNEWS. It documents a routine news event without lasting encyclopedic significance. There is little to no in-depth coverage in multiple, reliable secondary sources that demonstrate enduring notability. As such, it does not meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chegouahora (talkcontribs) 06:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - theres literally a lot of pages like this Category:Humanitarian military operations involving India. India everytime launches a significant humanitarian aid with special names as an operation which is notable. I'm not only referring to india, there are loads of rescue operation like this by the US too Category:Non-combat military operations involving the United States. Imwin567 (talk) 06:47, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that there are similar articles about other operations, but just because those exist doesn’t automatically mean this one should stay too. Every article still has to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards on its own.
Imo though, the coverage for Operation Brahma seems pretty limited, it's mostly short-term news without any real in-depth analysis or long-term significance. That’s why I think it falls under WP:NOTNEWS and probably doesn’t meet WP:GNG either. It's best that this article be merged to the page on the quake and this deleted. Chegouahora (talk) 07:15, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is yet to be updated. The operation is not even finished yet, you are rushing. Theres a lot more. Check the timeline section of the article. Later there will be numbers of how many being rescued and the role of operation brahma of the earthquake. Imwin567 (talk) 07:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly makes this in particular so special from other rescue missions other countries are doing to where it warrants its own wikipedia page? The material, resources, manpower in this rescue mission done by India are all at similar levels to other countries. It does not warrant its own wikipedia article. Chegouahora (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Negative checking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After a cursory search through the sources listed in part D of WP:BEFORE, I failed to find any other notable sources (much less three) that specifically speaks of negative checking as opposed to someone's checking account having a negative balance. A search for neg check is admittedly a bit more promising, but it mainly turns out online services as opposed to notable sources.

Given that we can't really merge this article into our article on the fictitious persons disclaimer (which itself doesn't really discuss negative checking), I propose deleting this article. Silcox (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • no opinion on how notable, but I looked for the Lunney and Oliphant book mentioned on the page, and it indeed has a para on negative checking just as described, on page 728. Hyperbolick (talk) 06:31, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll admit that I'm unable to read the book due to technical reasons, although I was already aware that the book was mentioned in the article even while writing this AfD. I cannot find any other sources on negative checking, so I think we're stuck in 1R territory even if the book proved to be a non-passing reference for the subject. Silcox (talk) 06:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's a shame, because if you had, you would have seen that the source cites a second source itself: Barendt et al. 1997a, pp. 114–115 and Barendt et al. 1997b, pp. 195. That said, I think that this is the BBC's idiosyncratic name for this. I found exactly one other mention, and it was in a directory of BBC departments in a 1993 handbook on television production (ISBN 9780240513447). (Yes, BBC. The original source talks about the BBC. See page 132.) Uncle G (talk) 08:36, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section heading used on Barendt et al. 1997a, p. 114 is "The Problem of Unintentional Defamation", by the way. You will get a lot further with unintentional defamation as the subject name. Of course we've had a missing subject titled by one particular nonce noun phrase instead of the actual name since 2008. This is Wikipedia. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Radio, Television, and Law. WCQuidditch 10:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a UK term, not specifically a BBC one - and indeed the example given in the article is an ITV programme, although it is used at the BBC. Smethurst's How to Write for Television (both 2000 and 2016 editions) has half a page of discussion of neg checking under Libel. Gallagher's Breaking into UK Film and TV Drama (2016) mentions it under Clearances. Orlebar's The Practical Media Dictionary (2003) has an entry for Negative Checks. Note that all of these have a slightly different definition from the current article - it's not just about individuals' names, but also about products and companies. I didn't find any examples of it being used outside the UK; from the US, Patz's Production Management 101 (2002) uses it to mean checking film negatives. Adam Sampson (talk) 13:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • With 3 slangy sources where "neg check" is string matched to something partway down and buried in the middle of what is actually a discussion of defamation (the "libel" sources saying "defamatory matter" outright), specifically unintentional defamation, how one risks it and how one can attempt to avoid it, you make my case for me.

      If you go instead to the higher quality law sources like Douglas Maule's Media Law Essentials (EUP, 2017) or Robertson and Lane's Media Law: The Rights of Journalists and Broadcasters (Longman, 1984) you'll find this and more under unintentional defamation. There's tonnes of this if one actually gets the subject name right and stops following the Wikipedia practice of using slang titles and string matching.

      I'll mention at this point that the Lunney and Oliphant book is on the law of tort and page 728 is part of chapter 12, on defamation, pages 727 to 729 dealing with intent and with E. Hulton & Co. v Jones, 20 (AC 1910). as the aforementioned do as well (and which has had impact in Indian and Australian jurispridence). Even the 1 original source cited is telling us all what the subject is. Uncle G (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to unintentional defamation and refactor this content into a section on means of preventing this, basically per Uncle G. BD2412 T 14:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Vivienne Pinay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass GNG. Only piece of independent, in-depth coverage is an interview in "Hotspots Magazine" from 2013. The other source with subject's name in headline is just a recap of a reality TV episode on which the subject was eliminated; it is not in-depth coverage of Vivienne Pinay. Zanahary 04:57, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lineysha Sparx (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not pass GNG. The only piece of in-depth, independent coverage of this person is an interview from 2013 in Hotspots Magazine. Zanahary 04:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vuk Topličević (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I could find nothing meaningful on this young player. Possibly WP:TOOSOON, but as it stands right now, there doesn't appear to be any WP:SIGCOV here. Anwegmann (talk) 04:45, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diamonds Are Forever, So Are Morals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

While reviewing my past AfD nominations, I came across this page and noticed that it has been further improved. Upon closer examination, I discovered that the book in question was published under the Penguin Enterprise imprint, which is essentially a vanity publishing division of Penguin Random House India. As per WP:NBOOKS, "Self-publication and/or publication by a vanity press do not establish notability." So, I am nominating the page again. This book is simply a strategic attempt to improve someone's public image. Charlie (talk) 17:18, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That it was self-published doesn't make it not notable if there are reviews. It just tends to correlate with a lack of reviews. Reviews were brought up in the last AfD. Do you have new reason to believe those are unreliable (not out of the question since NEWSORGINDIA) PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In my personal opinion, I feel that a book published through a vanity press and written by a rocket scientist rather than a business expert may not have the same credibility as works from any other established author. Also, a glance at the author's Wikipedia page shows that they have written on almost every topic imaginable, which is quite something. Interestingly, the book is mostly reviewed in Indian news portals (which, as everyone knows, lacks integrity WP:NEWSORGINDIA) instead of respected academic journals, which makes one wonder about the recognition it’s getting. Overall, things don’t quite seem to add up. Now, if I let my imagination run a little further, it wouldn’t be too far-fetched to think that Govind Dholakia, the subject of this autobiography, might have funded this autobiography to bolster his bid for a Rajya Sabha seat. While it is being claimed that he has been 'elected,' a closer look at the process tells a different story. In India, Rajya Sabha members from each state are chosen by the state's MLAs through an indirect election using proportional representation with a single transferable vote (STV). Given that Gujarat's legislature is dominated by BJP MLAs and that Dholakia was fielded as a BJP candidate, it’s hardly surprising that he secured the seat. It does raise the question, though was this a genuine election or just a well-orchestrated move to further his legacy? Charlie (talk) 05:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points, however the issue is that an author or publisher's credibility isn't necessarily the deciding factor in whether or not a book passes notability guidelines or is independently notable of its author or subject. What is the deciding factor would be coverage in independent and reliable sources.
Now as far as sourcing goes, you're correct in that there is an issue with churnalism in Indian news sources. However that doesn't mean that all Indian news sources are unusable. Some are, but others can still be usable - and with others it might be a case of where in the paper the article was published rather than the outlet as a whole. WP:ICTFSOURCES has a pretty good list of what's usable and what isn't. The list is geared towards film, however it should suffice in this situation as well. Offhand with the article, most of the sources are from usable outlets like Deccan Chronicle, The Asian Age, and Outlook India. The Indian Express is usable as long as it's not from their Brand section. DeshGujarat and The Hindu Businessline are kind of questionable. Both would need to go through WP:RS/N to determine its usability even for minor details. What doesn't help with THB is that the film sourcing list mentions them as an example of incorrect reporting. All of that means that even if we remove the questionable sources, that still leaves us with three definitely usable sources, all of which are reviews - so notability is established.
Now instead of arguing notability or bringing up the article's creation history, a better argument to make would be whether or not there's enough information about the book to make an individual article worthwhile or if it's largely redundant to the main article on Dholakia. One common issue with biographies is that sometimes the book fails to get any coverage other than reviews of the work. This means that there's no coverage on the writing process or any other information that would be unique to the book - note that this coverage would include primary sources like the author's website or interviews about the book's development. In cases like this the book may pass notability guidelines, but still not have enough overall information to really be all that useful - so in some cases it ends up that the book can be more or less summarized in a paragraph on the subject's Wikipedia page. Now, I haven't looked at any of the sources so it's entirely possible that this coverage does exist and can be used to flesh out the book article and make it worthwhile. I think that should absolutely be explored. Otherwise it's a case of merge and redirect rather than delete because the book is notable - it's just a question of where it should be covered. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 16:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ReaderofthePack your words leave no room for debate. If this AfD discussion requires a proper and conclusive closure, it must be grounded in the reasoning put forth by you. Thank you for not only guiding this discussion but also helping me understand better. Charlie (talk) 18:05, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No problem! Biographies are kind of a weird area, honestly. Whenever they come up part of me wants to keep them for completionism, but in many cases there's just not a lot of non-review information. If the parent page is particularly large I'll often argue for inclusion because it would be difficult to really include content about the book adequately, but in this case the subject's article is kind of lean and a small section about that would help flesh it out more. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 20:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SK2242 (talk) 03:37, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I found three book reviews last time, that's more than we have for most book articles that come to AfD. This isn't War and Peace, but a biography about a businessman. I'm satisfied with the sourcing given. Oaktree b (talk) 13:58, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Date My Family Nigeria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article's subject does not meet notability requirements. I could not find many reliable sources mentioning it. Most of the references in the article do not seem to be reliable and independent of the subject. Cyrobyte (talk) 02:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is poorly written, has many errors, and does not meet notability requirements. All news I could find are promotional content for the subject. WiinterU 02:49, 31 March 2025 (UTC
Gay Valimont (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Random congressional candidate. WP:NPOL says you don't get a Wikipedia page just for running for office, and I don't see how she meets WP:GNG either. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It is one week until a notable special election that a large part of the nation is watching, especially this Democrat candidate in what was traditionally "Trump country". I want to add that waiting may provide the article for a congressional representative. The article just needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talkcontribs) 04:10, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability" -- WP:NPOL. There are U.S. House special elections every year. I don't see the argument for why this one is uniquely notable. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The special election is soon and deleting it would be stupid, also according to the florida department of state, she is leading in escambia county by party registration and prevented republicans from getting majorities of the vote in the other 3 counties, which hasn't been done by a democrat in the district since 1994. There are also several secondary sources on her. 2600:1006:B33F:26F8:1999:16DC:ED14:F0D2 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stanloona2020 (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus and I'm also reluctant to close a discussion on a political candidate two days before an election when, depending on the results, sentiment could change. I'd also like to discourage editors from bringing strong candidates to AFD on the cusp of an election which could change their eligibility for NPOL. Either nominate them weeks before the election or after the election but not the week before the election is scheduled to happen. Of course, now that this discussion has been relisted, it can be closed at any time a closer can discern a consensus among participants. And if the election results change your opinion, please strike out your earlier "vote".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:29, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The election is literally tomorrow. If she wins, the article is ready for a new congressional representative. There is a lot of notability across the country because the 2025 Florida Special Elections are presenting surprising polling data for congressional districts that traditionally voted Republican. To delete now is bordering to taking a political position in tomorrow's election. Starlighsky (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This user tried to vote twice. Note that the first vote in this discussion was also from them. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 16:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RFA Mollusc (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable salvage vessel. I am unable to find significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (basically all I get is historicalrfa.uk which even if it met all the criteria for SIGCOV, which I am uncertain on, is only one source). I tagged this for notability a week ago, but the author simply reverted the tag without comment and declined to improve the article any further, leaving me with no choice but AfD. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also noting that an attempt to draftify on March 1 was promptly reverted without comment by the article's author. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - article creator is a new editor. As well as the Historical RFA website used as a reference (from which the article can be expanded greatly), there is also Clydesite. The Times draws a blank this time. Mjroots (talk) 12:14, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Does Historical RFA meet our requirements for a reliable source? I've looked it over and can't find any sort of "about us" beyond two people listed as consultants. A trip to rfaa.uk is more promising, but I'm still not getting a clear sense of who their authors are and if the website counts as a reliable source. Forgive me, I am not shipsandotherthings so I'm not as familiar with sourcing in this area.
    If this were a warship, I'd probably have left it in the NPP queue, but a salvage vessel doesn't seem to have automatic notability. Perhaps there's a list article it could be merged to somewhere? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:29, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings: - Given the detail of entries consistently across the site, I'd say yes. However, I'm not a MILHIST expert, it just happens that some ships have MILHIST connections. I'll ask over there, see what the experts say. Mjroots (talk) 06:39, 25 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Having had a look around the usual sources I agree that it is going to be difficult to prove notability for Mollusc. The Historical RFA page is more a list of seaman deaths plus two lines on the salvaging of some items from Falmouth than in depth coverage. Clydeships prove the ship existed but is not much more than a database entry. I think any evidence of notability will come from her later service as Yantlet, especially with mention of this 1667 Dutch warship and the possibility of work during the Second World War. I'm no expert on civil ship service so with have to leave it to others to prove or disprove. Looking at some definitely not reliable sources, it appears Mollusc may have originally been the name ship of the Trinculo-class mooring vessels. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as no one but the nominator has actually cast a "vote" here yet. I'd also like to get this discussion a bit more time in case an editor knowledgeable about ships and shipping can propose an ATD. Too bad there isn't a deletion sort for "ships".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:09, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Walter Steinhart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Stub article on early 20th century motorcyclist who has no WP:SIGCOV beyond brief mentions in a handful of newspaper articles from the 1910s. Fails WP:GNG. MidnightMayhem 01:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there more support for a Merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:55, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Indian Powerplus#Promotion and development. There is still some salvageable content from the article. If not, Redirect to said article. WiinterU 02:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jericho, Tipton County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no significant coverage of this because it never existed. The single source I could find that mentions it with more than a phrase says its location is conjecture because no one ever bought land in the village and the plat was abandoned. Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 01:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Sopher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I responded to a speedy tag this morning as G4, recreation of an article previously deleted at XfD. In the moment, I believed the sourcing similar to that when it was first deleted. After another admin disagreed I was happy to undo the G4. Now I'm asking for re-assessment of this version, since I wasn't given the opportunity to question the SIGCOV in my purely administrative tasks. I assert these sources are marginal at best, and the page creator was blocked for promotional ediitng several years ago. I have no presented reason to believe this wealthy businessman is any more notable than any other wealthy businessman. BusterD (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • He has been covered by Maneet Ahuja in her books and numerous reliable sources, including Reuters, the New York Post, and the Wall Street Journal. As the Chairman of LCH Investments, the world’s oldest fund of hedge funds, he is also responsible for compiling the annual list of top hedge funds. in addition, he holds distinguished positions at notable organizations like the Woolf Institute, Alliance Israélite Universelle, and the Center for Jewish History. If these credentials are not sufficient to establish notability for a hedge fund manager, then what would be? In fact, many existing Wikipedia pages on cite fewer sources than his.Jiuantaui (talk) 11:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We need sourcing about the person. You can be whatever and get an article here if you have enough sourcing. Being notable but having poor sourcing is the issue. Oaktree b (talk) 14:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh Chanda Kanoon Hai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This Indian comedy series fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Legs (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A minor character in the DC Comics continuity. A search was difficult given the generic name of the character, but no matter what key words I used, the only coverage of Legs I found was in conjunction with Anarky, and only as TRIVIALMENTIONs at that. There is no coverage on this character beyond that, making him a WP:GNG failure. A possible AtD redirect could be to Anarky, who is the character Legs is most strongly associated with. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:37, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we have two separate Merge target articles proposed so we have to settle on one for the purposed of our closing technology, XFDcloser.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Phosphorus Rex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An incredibly minor character with basically zero reliable, significant coverage I can find. Complete failure of WP:GNG. I do not mind a redirect, but he seems like such a minor character that I'm not sure if he needs to stick around or not. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:20, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have two different suggested Merge/Redirect target articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Punjab Legal Services Authority (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable GraziePrego (talk) 00:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 01:10, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]