Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 21

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 20	January 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Keep. WP:SNOW; no novel arguments since previous discussion, which was a clear Keep; and proposer has already been blocked for disruptive editing. (non-admin closure)‎ Jpatokal (talk) 04:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delta Air Lines Flight 89

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable aviation incident. While 56 people on the ground were injured, there were no injuries reported on board. Fuel jettison is also required so planes can emergency land. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 23:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 23:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 23:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 23:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 23:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 23:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at very least a re-direct to List of Delta Air Lines accidents and incidents#2020s. Agreed that fuel dumps are a somewhat usual occurrence - 10 to 30 incidents - they don't usually occur over populated areas like LA and result in that many injuries. Not having any injuries on the flight itself doesn't make an article non-notable. And would argue that the article meets WP:GNG & WP:SIGCOV due to already existing article and a brief google search of further lawsuits, and a FAA report to Congress in the aftermath of the event. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this were just a fuel dump then I'd get it, but the article was already resoundingly kept once, and generated lots of SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Captain repeatedly refused advice to dump fuel over water, instead dumped fuel on schools at low level. Disgraceful conduct, likely illegal. Certainly now a notable incident. WWGB (talk) 03:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Completely disagree with the nominator. It really doesn't matter if there or if there weren't any injuries onboard the aircraft. Seemed to have lasting effects and some procedure changes. Had WP:SIGCOV. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 20:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. there were no injuries reported on board has never been a criteria for notability. Pretty much everything else I want to say has already been said above. S5A-0043🚎^{(Leave a message here)} 07:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sourcing is sufficient per WP:GNG. Sal2100 (talk) 20:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. Star Mississippi 03:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sugar Grove, Indiana

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

Sometimes the searches work: this book states that it was a campground/picnic area which operated in the latter part of the 19th century and closed at some unknown date in the early 20th. Apparently for two years they has a post office, which is perhaps why it ended up on the topos. At any rate there's nothing there on the maps as far back as I can get, which in this case is pretty far. Mangoe (talk) 23:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is directly contradicted by the source mentioned above, which says it was a campground for which WP:GNG must be met (and it isn't). It's clearly not a community and nothing is there today. Post office doesn't count for notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1895 Lippincott's pre-dates this. The Baker Hoosier place names book has this on page 315 as a post office, named Sugargrove. Interestingly, I can only find USPS listings for a Sugargrove in Tippecanoe County, Indiana, not Harrison.
However that Encyclopaedia of Louisville entry is both substantial and a good source. George H. Yater was active in several historical societies and an editor of that encyclopaedia; and once one knows about the ferry, indicators of an Old Sugar Grove Landing on the Ohio River turn up. There's probably contemporary news coverage of this, given what Yater mentions, and thus more sourcing to be had. I leave checking the old newspapers to someone else. It's a shame that that encyclopædia shows this article to be utterly false. I have no objection to deleting this edit history, because a proper article would need everything here to be wiped. We have no reason to be publishing total falsehoods to the world.
Uncle G (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Nomination withdrawn. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Pleszczynski

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

Just a brief overview of credits no sigcov. Page is also out of date as it describes a 2014 television episode as recent. Fails GNG Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I note that the nominator gives no indication of a WP:BEFORE search for additional sources - the rationale given here is solely about the content of the article (lack of sourcing and out of date). These are not reasons for deleting. I also note that the article seems to miss out at least one of his films, for which I can find reviews in Newspapers.com - L'Homme Perché (1997), and only mentions L'Espérance (2004), for which I can also find reviews, in the Education and personal life section! I think he probably is notable, but the current article doesn't do a good job of demonstrating it. I'll try to add some sources and info to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does need improvement, so I'll tackle that today — but one of the needed improvements is that the article is actually entirely missing his strongest notability claims, as a Canadian Screen Award winner and nominee, and Directors Guild of Canada nominee, for his work on Flashpoint, Motive and Transplant. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 12 properly WP:GNG-worthy reliable source footnotes in the article now, including the awards (and another two he got early in his career that turned up on Newspapers.com) and sourcing for both of the films RebeccaGreen mentioned above. He's clearly over the bar now. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I clearly need to a deeper look next time Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 18:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Object passes WP:NASTCRIT as it has an HD number. I confirmed this in the bright stars catalog Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:54, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 34880

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find a paragraph on HD 34880 in a paper by I. I. Romanyuk et al (2013),[1] but I could only access the Russian-language version. Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, has a HR number and hence pass criterion one of WP:NASTCRIT. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2006 European Juveniles Baseball Championship

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main article was deleted deleted in October for failing WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. It does not appear that the yearly editions of this tournament pass those either as they rely heavily on a single primary source. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Baseball, Europe, and Czech Republic. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - per deletion discussion of the 'parent page' linked in the rationale, as well as the fact these articles are just regurgitations of the sources published by the organisation running said tournament. No other sources indicates there is insufficient notability. C 679 21:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All per nomination and the reply above. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Wizardman 19:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 procedural keep. AFD is not for redirects - WP:RFD is. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 22:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Félix Valverde

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

The name Félix Valverde has no relation to the target page. Brayan Jaimes (talk) 22:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus‎ and none appears to be forthcoming. Star Mississippi 03:16, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary China Publishing House

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

Doesnt match WP:ORG Pollia (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and China. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. It's a tricky one because it is quite a significant publisher of academic material on China, but we don't have an SNG for publishers and like most academic publishing houses it's very unlikely to meet WP:GNG. It's possible that there might be Chinese language sources out there, but Chinese Wikipedia didn't have anything useful and I didn't have any luck tracking down any Chinese SIGCOV of the publisher. MCE89 (talk) 22:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively, a good merge target would be the Institute of Contemporary China Studies [zh], which probably does meet WP:N. If someone is willing to take on the task of translating that from the Chinese Wikipedia a merge into that article might make sense. MCE89 (talk) 00:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. The sources in the article used by article creator TinaLees-Jones (talk · contribs).
2. Cao, Hongju 曹宏举 (2021-03-30). "当代中国社：忠实记录和展现伟大时代" [Contemporary China Publishing House: Faithfully Recording and Showcasing a Great Era]. 中国出版传媒商报 [China Publishing & Media Journal] (in Chinese). doi:10.28804/n.cnki.ntssb.2021.000362. OCLC 1281909313. Archived from the original on 2025-01-15. Retrieved 2025-01-15.
  The abstract notes: "当代中国出版社在不寻常的2020年，克服种种困难，坚持发展生产，全年主营收入增长68%，利润增长179%，并推出多种双效俱佳的主题出版物，其中，《中华人民共和国简史（1949~2019）》发行100多万册。这些佳绩是如何取得的呢？本报记者近期就此专访了当代中国出版社总编辑曹宏举"
  From Google Translate: "In the unusual year of 2020, Contemporary China Publishing House overcame various difficulties and persisted in developing production. Its main business revenue increased by 68% and its profit increased by 179% throughout the year. It also launched a variety of thematic publications with excellent dual effects. Among them, "A Brief History of the People's Republic of China (1949–2019)" has been published in more than 1 million copies. How did these achievements come about? Our reporter recently interviewed Cao Hongju, editor-in-chief of Contemporary China Publishing House."
3. "当代中国出版社" [Contemporary China Publishing House]. 中国图书年鉴 [Book Almanac of China] (in Chinese). Hubei People's Press. 205. pp. 707–708. ISBN 978-7-216-05728-8. Archived from the original on 2025-01-15. Retrieved 2025-01-15 – via CNKI.
  The abstract notes: "当代中国出版杜成立于年月。以出版当代中国史志、当代中国人物传记、当代中国国情调查为主体框架的多系列丛书为特色。主要出版反映国史研究成果的政治、经济、科学技术、文化教育不含文艺作品、中小学教材等方面的图书、音像电子出版物及重要的国史研究资料出版当代中国丛书。与中国社会科学出版社共同 ..."
  From Google Translate: "Contemporary China Publishing House was established in January 1991. It is characterised by publishing a series of books with the main framework of contemporary Chinese history, contemporary Chinese biographies, and contemporary Chinese national conditions survey. It mainly publishes books, audio-visual and electronic publications, and important national history research materials on politics, economy, science and technology, culture and education (excluding literary works and primary and secondary school textbooks) that reflect the research results of national history. It publishes the Contemporary China series of books. Together with China Social Sciences Press"
4. Xu, Jincheng 胥锦成 (2003-06-24). "打造当代中国出版社品牌". Chinese Social Sciences Today [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-15. Retrieved 2025-01-15 – via CNKI.
  The abstract notes: "本报讯：6月10 日，当代中国研究所召开全所干部大会，我院副院长兼当代中国研究所所长朱佳木出席会议并讲话。朱佳木宣读了院党组关于当代中国出版社社长调整的决定，并就人事调整作了说明，对新的领导班子提出了"
  From Google Translate: "This newspaper reported: On 10 June, the Institute of Contemporary China held a meeting of all cadres of the institute. Zhu Jiamu, Vice President of our institute and Director of the Institute of Contemporary China, attended the meeting and delivered a speech. Zhu Jiamu read out the decision of the Party Committee of the Institute on the adjustment of the president of Contemporary China Publishing House, explained the personnel adjustment, and proposed the new leadership team"
5. Lin, Zhi 林致 (2021-08-13). "当代中国出版社旷世巨著"当代中国"丛书催生一家品牌出版社" [Contemporary China Publishing House: The Monumental 'Contemporary China' Series Gives Birth to a Brand Publisher]. 中国出版传媒商报 [China Publishing & Media Journal] (in Chinese). doi:10.28804/n.cnki.ntssb.2021.001123. OCLC 1281909313. Archived from the original on 2025-01-15. Retrieved 2025-01-15 – via CNKI.
  The article notes: "当代所一成立，即着手筹备组建当代中国出版社，1991年，经中央有关部门批准，在“当代中国”丛书编辑部的基础上，当代中国出版社正式成立。它隶属于当代中国研究所，自成立起就肩负着重要使命，出版反映中华人民共和国史研究成果、当代中国哲学社会科学学术成果和重要研究著作的图书、音像、电子出版物，“以优秀的作品鼓舞人”，服务政府，服务社会，服务大众。"
  From Google Translate: "As soon as the Institute of Contemporary China was established, it began to prepare for the establishment of Contemporary China Press. In 1991, with the approval of relevant central departments, Contemporary China Press was officially established on the basis of the editorial department of the "Contemporary China" series. It is affiliated to the Institute of Contemporary China Studies. Since its establishment, it has shouldered an important mission to publish books, audio-visual and electronic publications that reflect the research results of the history of the People's Republic of China, the academic achievements of contemporary Chinese philosophy and social sciences, and important research works. The works inspire people”, serve the government, serve the society, and serve the public."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Contemporary China Publishing House to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So of the new sources you've presented, (2) is an interview with the editor of chief of this publisher, so clearly not independent, (3) is a brief entry in an almanac, so not SIGCOV, (4) was also published by part of CASS, so not independent, and (5) is at best a WP:TRADES piece by China Publishing and Media Business Daily. Of the four sources currently in the article, the first is not SIGCOV of Contemporary China Publishing House given that it's a 30 year history of China that provides a very brief mention of Contemporary China Publishing (not to mention the fact that it was also published by CASS and is therefore not independent), the second is a set of internal documents and therefore a WP:PRIMARY source, and the third and fourth are both just directories. I'm really struggling to see how any of these could constitute WP:SIRS coverage? MCE89 (talk) 12:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Journalists routinely interview people affiliated with a topic and incorporate their thoughts in the article. This is standard journalistic practice and does not disqualify the source as long as there is enough non-interview content containing independent reporting and analysis as is the case here. The coverage in the almanac "addresses the subject of the article directly and in depth" (quoting from Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria). I will strike the fourth source. China Publishing & Media Journal was listed by CNKI as among "Chinese Newspapers with High Academic Influence in 2024" according to this article. I consider coverage in a highly influential source to strongly establish notability. Cunard (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, no consensus yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 redirect‎ to Procaine. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procaine blockade

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

Fails WP:GNG due to little to no references, as well as being not well known. Procaine is long gone now, but a blockade led to no results on google. BryceM2001 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: Procaine is novocaine, and this is really a thing, a nerve block. [2] Oaktree b (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect. And, just to be sure, the target article would be Procaine, correct?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems discussed by several academic sources [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] etc. That is an obsolete, obscure procedure doesn't make it less notable from our encyclopedic point of view. cyclopia ^speak! 09:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. If you want to try to rescue it, do so and add sources. Bearian (talk) 07:06, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 procedural close. Two AFDs created at the same time. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sergey Macheret

AfDs for this article:

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

Article subject requests deletion (VRT Ticket 2025012110010678); Fails WP:GNG as article subject is a non-notable person. SMacheret

As the article's subject, I'd like to request that the article be deleted.

I am a non-notable, private person, and so the article about me does not meet the notability criteria.

Specifically:

1. This BLP article is already designated as low-importance one. Indeed, although I have made contributions to my field, numerous individuals who have made much more significant and impactful contributions do not have their Wikipedia pages. Although I have been elected a Fellow of AIAA, my professional society, overwhelming majority of 800+ AIAA Fellows and also Fellows of other similar societies do not have Wikipedia pages. There are hundreds, if not thousands, people in my field who are much more famous, have much higher citation counts, are Fellows of one or more professional societies and Members of the highly prestigious National Academy of Engineering or National Academy of Inventors (of which I am not a Member), and have no Wikipedia pages. For example: Prof. Richard B. Miles, Texas A&M University (formerly of Princeton U.), Prof. Mark J. Kushner (U. of Michigan), Prof. Graham Candler (U. of Minnesota), Prof. Alexander A. Fridman (Drexel U.), and many, many others. In short, I believe that my notability is too low for a Wikipedia BLP article.

2. My 'notoriety' stems from the single offence described in the current article as Legal Issues. However, all that notoriety is due to initial police-made accusation of dealing drugs, which was immediately interpreted by the media as a real-life case of "Breaking Bad" TV series. When these bogus accusations of drug dealing disappeared (they were never filed in court rather than "dropped") and only a single misdemeanor offence remained, national and international media immediately lost all interest. Only local media, i.e. a student-run newspaper, a small-town newspaper, and a local TV station reported on the developments since then. As it is, the single misdemeanor offence certainly does not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria.

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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this nomination is the procedural result of a VRT ticket, SMacheret (talk · contribs) did already start a nomination with the same rationale, which SMacheret did add to the daily log and subsequently had its formatting repaired by me, before this nomination page was created. That probably should merit a procedural close here as duplicative, but the VRT aspect may complicate matters. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus‎. Star Mississippi 03:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wilson (pastor)

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

3/6 sources are his organization. Another is dead link. There is only this [9] and apparently a mention in a book. If it should not be deleted it can probably be merged with Metro World Child. 🄻 🄰 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Massachusetts, and New York. 🄻 🄰 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No WP:PAYWALL-compliant argument against notability articulated. Jclemens (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a PDF of the book online. He is only mentioned in a paragraph about Metro World Child. Do you think a sentence in a book about his organization and a local news article is enough for more than mentioning in the article about his organization? 🄻 🄰 19:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Diola Bagayoko

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

A physicist with with no evidence of passing WP:GNG, WP:NACADEMIC, WP:NBIO. I draftified the page during new page review for lack of sources that show notability, but it was immediately returned to mainspace with the edit summary "satisfies WP:NACADEMIC C#5 with distinguished professorship". Not so; NACADEMIC C#5 specifies "a distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research", and there is no evidence that Southern University (ranking 114-141 on the US News rankings for the southern region and not an R1 institution in the Carnegie Classification) qualifies as a "major institution." It is a regional university and I'm sure Professor Bagayoko is a fine teacher and researcher, but NACADEMIC requires demonstration of notability by specific measures. His h-index of 29 is below the average range for a full professor in the physical sciences, and he meets no other qualification of NACADEMIC. As for WP:GNG, there's one qualifying source, but the other sources are either WP:PRIMARYSOURCE interviews ([10]) or affiliated organizations ([11], [12]). Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Science, and Louisiana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even if one questions his pass of WP:PROF#C5, he also passes #C3 as a Fellow of the American Physical Society. Also, discounting coverage by major academic societies as being "affiliated organizations" is insane. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A simple search shows that he was elected a fellow of the American Physical Society in 1918. Professors whose main contributions are in education in their field rather than in research are hard to find sources for, but it this case is it easy to find. StarryGrandma (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971, about the primary references you object to, read WP:NACADEMIC carefully: For documenting that a person has won a specific award (but not for a judgement of whether or not that award is prestigious), publications of the awarding institution are considered a reliable source. Once that is documented then that satisfies notability. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, obviously being a fellow of the APS is a pass. The article previously said only he was a member of the APS, which is not. Withdrawn; speedy keep. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete and redirect‎ to Sex position#With many participants. I wasn't able to find any revision that wasn't a copyright violation, which means there is nothing to merge, and the existing page history had to be deleted. Please notice that removing a valid WP:G12 tag might get you blocked from editing. Owen× ☎ 18:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daisy chain (sexual practice)

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

No decent sources. Also all cut and paste copyvioGolikom (talk) 17:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Important article related to sex position. Multiple articles mention this. Moreover, the article has been copy edited (rephrased) and legitimate citations have been added. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 05:38, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the source you added was to wiktionary - that's not a legitimate citation Golikom (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source has been removed and the article has been completely rephrased. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 14:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sexuality-related stub article. It's an important article related to sex position. Several articles mention this. There's no need to delete it. AimanAbir18plus (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sex Position, as an WP:ATD. sigh, have to pull the incognito mode here to search. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sex position per Miminity. Skyerise (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 23:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salty dog (slang)

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

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. As an alternative to deletion, maybe this could redirect to a Slang section in Salty dog that lists it as a nickname for a sailor or US Marine. BaduFerreira (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Language, and Transportation. BaduFerreira (talk) 16:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pretty clear case of WP:NOTDICT. I've added a Wiktionary link to the dab page, which should more then cover any basic usage. If there's any home for this at all, it would be at an article on naval/maritime slang, which we don't seem to have (Naval slang is a redirect to a section on the British navy, which seems to be more specific than it should be). There's probably an article worth writing there, but until then, what's here doesn't need to be kept. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 12:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. Owen× ☎ 17:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Matthews (playwright)

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

Appears to be non-notable. Created by one of an army of socks. All sources are affiliated, bare mentions, interviews, blogs, or appear to be created from press releases. Google news search only pulled up similar. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Valereee (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neither of the two books mentioned seem to be noteworthy enough to help a WP:AUTHOR case (JSTOR searches for reviews came up with zip). The sources about the plays are too superficial and/or unreliably published to make a case for notability as a playwright. The Physics Essays journal where he published "The Universe Has No Beginning? Doubts About The Big Bang Theory" is a haven for crackpots; publishing there isn't anything to be proud of. Merely writing things isn't enough for notability, and being reduced to writing for Physics Essays is a sign that you are not influential. XOR'easter (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as discussed above and WP:TNT. Being edited by Sockpuppets, messy format, clumsy writing, etc. Bearian (talk) 07:14, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Macedonia, Indiana

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

When this first appears on the topos, it is "Macedonia Sch", but for whatever reason it loses the school part and turns into a spurious community. I can trot out my std. example of how isolated schools are not automatically settlements but I feel a tour through the topos and aerials should suffice in this case. Mangoe (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sourced only to GNIS, no information otherwise. Nothing at the site now. Not a settlement, not significant, fails WP:NPLACE. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in either the Arcadia Publishing book on Corydon or Bulleit's 1906 Illustrated atlas and history of Harrison County, Indiana. The 1896 Lippincott's has no Macedonia in Harrison County. On page 1720 its sole Macedonia in Indiana is "a post-village" in Monroe Township, Delaware County, Indiana.
This isn't in any history or gazetteer that I can find. It's a map dot with no documentation. Ironically, the one in Delaware County, which doesn't have an article, is documented better than this. It gets a paragraph on page 101 of General William Harrison Kemper's A Twentieth Century History of Delaware County, Indiana (Lewis Publishing Company, 1908). If anyone feels like writing: that's a sentence or two on the Monroe Township article.
Uncle G (talk) 10:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. Consensus is now clear; no need to keep this open any longer. Owen× ☎ 14:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WOW! Awards

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

No GNG Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NAWARDS. Very few sources in the article are primary sources and a search conducted to find more sources produced nothing. Mekomo (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per @Mekomo. Fails WP:NAWARDS. Madeleine (talk) 17:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Sources are more than 10 years old. LarryL33k (Contribz) 23:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see participation by at least one experienced editor.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep see Times Magazine, The Atlantic, I don't know about this one from Furniture Today or this one from Scoop NZWarm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 02:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Miminity: I'm fairly sure that all of those articles are about other awards. All of them except for the Furniture Today article are about the World of Wearable Art award, and the Furniture Today article seems to be about a different award from WithIt that I'm pretty sure is unaffiliated with the WOW! Awards. MCE89 (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

strike out my previous vote and change my vote to Delete, kudos to MCE89 for pointing that out Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As indicated in my reply above, there are about six different awards called WOW and I'm struggling to work out which coverage is associated with this award vs one of the identically named ones. But after excluding coverage for the various other WOW awards, I wasn't able to find any independent coverage for this one apart from a couple of local news human interest stories like [13]. This seems to largely be a vanity award that allows companies to release a press release saying that they won an award for customer service — don't think there is any meaningful secondary coverage. MCE89 (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. No coherent, P&G-based argument to keep the page. Owen× ☎ 17:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World-2023 ESN Publications and London Organisation of Skills Development Ltd

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

Gimmick mainly sourced to glorified press releases like this one. No lasting notability. Fram (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, India, and United Kingdom. Fram (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Fram. While the sourcing of this topic could use improvement, I would like to argue that holding a Guinness Book of World Records title does, in fact, meet Wikipedia's lasting notability requirement. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on my previous message, I have not found any rule for Wikipedia in reference to the sources I used being ineligible. Additionally, if you are implying that it's notability would be taken when the record is surpassed, I would like to inform you that the book will still have held the record for every year that it has earned the title. (e.g. World-2023 ESN Publications and London Organisation of Skills Development Ltd held the title for thickest unpublished book between 2023 and 20XX.) Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "glorified press releases": If your argument is that these sources fall under the Breaking News violation, I must point out that every news source that has been sourced in the article was written well after the book won the award, which occurred on July 6, 2023. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 06:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, nothing to do with "breaking news", just that they aren't independent, reliable sources, but WP:NEWSORGINDIA ones. As for being a Guinness record, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources has an entry for Guinness, "There is consensus that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability. Editors have expressed concern that post-2008 records include paid coverage." Fram (talk) 08:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for providing links to your claims. Overall, I think the argument that is being gathered is that the topic World-2023 appears to be surrounded by paid or sensationalist sources. Like I said in my second message, many of these articles were written long after the book's creation, and they all appear to provide consistent claims pertaining to the topic. None of these articles push any form of advertisement, whether it be for a product or an event. Regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA—I must stress that it states that caution should be exercised when using sources such as these, rather than prohibiting it. And for Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Sources, again, this says to be cautious rather than forbidding editors from using this method to prove an article's eligibility. The argument that the Guinness Book of World Records may include paid coverage does not apply here because again, nothing is being promoted. I understand that this may not be your argument, but furthermore, I must stress that both of these sources talk about caution rather than prohibition, and I do not think that being a grey area should be the determining factor when deciding to delete the article. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails GNG and WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Agree with nom. This is a gimmicky stunt more than a book. Covered in sources that are not reliable, and that have the tenor of announcements and public relations. No significant coverage. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there Steve! Respectfully, I'm disappointed to see that you have not responded to any of the claims that I made in my previous response and seem to have just regurgitated Fram's most recent message. In reference to "fails GNG," I would like to direct you here (I'm not citing this as policy notice, just something to keep in mind). As for your second claim, I am going to repeat myself for a third time because it would appear that both of you have only taken cursory glances at the sources. All of these sources discuss the ceremonies thrown for individual participants who won awards for participating in the book's conception, instead of promoting the book itself. They were all written at different points in time, and none were published around the time of the book's reveal, which does not support Fram's "Breaking News" argument. I must emphasize that both of your citations say to proceed with caution when approaching a topic rather than forbidding using these methods to prove notability. I must also lend credence to the point that this is the thickest book known to exist. You are both relying on "maybe, maybe not" arguments to support the need to delete this article, which is ridiculous. Wikipedia does not forbid using the Guinness Book of World Records as evidence for notability. There is no consensus. If you would like further evidence to support this claim, please click here. I appreciate the diligence that both of you have in regard to upholding Wikipedia's reputation, but your claims are not sound. Have a lovely rest of your evening, Steve. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 08:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Guinness record entry on the list of reliable sources literally says there is consensus that it doesn´t count towards notability... Fram (talk) 09:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Fram. Despite what the description says, it is tagged with "no consensus," which heavily implies that it is a case-to-case situation. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus about the general reliability of it as a source, but there is, as explicitly noted, consensus that it should not be used for notability. Fram (talk) 08:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, I did read your "claims" before I responded, and on that note, that is exactly what they are - "claims." In other words, mostly opinion that does not carry the weight for notability on Wikipedia. So, please don' tell me what I did and did not do. And I did not regurgitate Fram's message. I came to my own conclusions. Also, to be honest, I don't care about any particular person being disappointed. I am not here to gain your approval. And being disappointed is not germane to notability criteria so it is a waste of space in an AfD.---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Steve. I would like to note that the argument that you are making towards me can be made right back at yourself, as again, you have not cited any out-right prohibitions, only maybes. You have not brought anything new to the conversation and you have not made any attempt at retorting my counterclaims. I will stand by what I said in my previous message, you sent the same message as Fram, just reworded, and that is does not add anything constructive to this debate. As for your not caring whether or not I am disappointed, I was being facetious. I apologize if that made you upset. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The essay that was linked to entitled "Don't cite GNG" is irrelevant. I am citing that sources for this topic fail GNG, and SIGCOV based on the rationale I previously mentioned. And I do agree with Fram that these sources are promotional. I have been on Wikipedia for quite awhile and I can tell promotional and overblown wording and content from sources that have journalistic integrity. Hence, this topic also fails WP:NOTPROMO. Fran said nothing about Breaking News. The Guinness record entry literally does say that there is CONSENSUS "that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability." If you don't understand consensus that please see WP:CONSENSUS. And my general advice is - please stop WP:WIKILAWYERING ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Steve. "Don't cite GNG" is argument presented by another user in which they claim that using GNG is more of a "rule of thumb" rather than policy. While I understand that this is just an argument, it helps to support some of what I have been trying to explain over these past couple days. Again, for a fourth time now, I do not think that you have done any comprehensive research into the content of the articles, but instead took cursory glances at the names of the sources and then immediately came to your own conclusion. I understand that you most likely have many articles to review here on Wikipedia, and so I do not blame you for doing so. You are correct on the "Breaking News" claim, though, that was my mistake; Fram does not appear to have made any claim about this. Again, like I told Fram, while "that world records verified by Guinness World Records should not be used to establish notability" is the message that appears next to the Guinness Book of World Records, it is still tagged with "no consensus." Finally, I want to end this latest reply by saying I am not on here to make enemies or to start arguments. But if someone is going to terminate something that I have invested my time in, I am going to do what I can to defeat it. I would also like to point out that you violate some of the points in the first couple of bullets in WP:WIKILAWYER as well. Have a lovely rest of your evening. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 00:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding your incorrect reading of the Guinness entry doesn´t make it any truer. There is co sensus about the reliability of Guinness, but there is consensus that it doesn´t count towards notability. Fram (talk) 08:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I want to make this statement in reference to everything that has been said so far. Before I do, I apologize if I have made any of the users in this space upset with my words, it was not my intention to be aggressive, but it is apparent that I came off that way. While I understand that you are both citing technicalities as reasoning for the article's lack of notability, I must not that this is still the thick known physical book to have ever been bound. Regardless of sourcing, I would challenge anyone who does not believe this topic to be notable to provide me with evidence that anything thicker exists. It's existence is evident in the photo that I have provided. Thank you for your consideration. Poxxie-Loxxie454 (talk) 00:58, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is much more than a rule of thumb. That along with SIGCOV are fundamental for presuming a given topic should have a stand-lone article. If these were merely a rule of thumb then Wikipedia editors would have no standards to go by. Also, regarding the Guinness entry — consensus is developing here that it should not be used to establish notability, in spite of the message that appears next to the Guinness entry. Tis is because, in this instance, this topic, along with Guinness World's Records itself, are promoting each other. Additionally, I don't see anyone who has been aggressive here, so please don't think that. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the Keep bludgeoning carries no P&G weight, there is no quorum to delete at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. As others have noted, this is a gimmick sourced only to glorified PR pieces. The fact that a stunt won a Guiness World Record is not a claim to notability, because otherwise Wikipedia would be nothing but articles about made-up records with paid coverage. Clearly no lasting notability or significance. MCE89 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus‎. The final relist generated no improvement in consensus. Basically, I see two solid Delete !votes based on lack of notability, one based on poor content, one unbolded Keep not based on P&G, and one I interpret as a conditional Keep, hinging on a renamed title. Since both the title and the content can be fixed editorially, I do not consider either to be a valid deletion argument, leaving us with no consensus either way. I do note there seems to be a consensus to rename the article to Ó Comáin, which I'll carry out despite it being outside the scope of an AfD. Editors are encouraged to trim down the content so as to remove all WP:OR. Hopefully this can be brought to the point where renomination is unnecessary. Owen× ☎ 16:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commane

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

The term "chiefdom of Commane" is not used anywhere it seems[14][15], none of the "notable figures" bear the name Commane. Basically, "Commane" is one of many names originating with the "Ó Comáin" root, but isn't a notable one and not the name of a "chiefdom" apparently either. Simply moving the page to a different title wouldn't solve these WP:OR or WP:V issues, e.g. the first source in the lead, "Sometimes incorrectly 'translated' to Hurley camán a hurly."[16] doesn't seem supported by that source either. Fram (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, History, Royalty and nobility, and Ireland. Fram (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks utterly unreliable as it is not backed up by the given sources. The Banner talk 10:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're not looking at the correct sources, writing a reply to this now Kellycrak88 (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback on the article. I would like to address the points raised:

Addressing the points raised, at great length

Irish chiefdoms persisted over a long period in Thomond (Co. Clare) during the Middle Ages, partly due to the failure of the Vikings and Anglo-Normans to establish strongholds in the region. As we are discussing the early medieval period, when written records were sparse, scholars have to reconstruct the history through analysis of historical texts, place-names, archaeological excavations and comparative data. The sites of Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun are physical archaeological locations, which further underline the chiefdom's significance.

The chiefdom of Tulach Commáin, centered on its capital at Cahercommaun, encompassed a territory of considerable importance, possibly spanning three residential sites and the Arran islands. Cahercommaun features a trivallate stone fort, serving as its political and ceremonial centre, a burial and inauguration site for chieftains at Tulach Commáin ('Mound of Commane'), and several associated monastic and ecclesiastical sites, underscoring its religious and administrative prominence in early medieval Ireland.

The primary sources for the Chiefdom of Commane include:

- Gibson, David Blair Ph.D. (1990). Tulach Commain: A view of an Irish chiefdom (500 pages on the subject), which has been referenced in several scholarly works, including Celtic Chiefdom, Celtic State, The Evolution of Complex Social Systems in Prehistoric Europe (1995)

- The Rulers of Tulach Commáin (Chapter Seven), From Chiefdom to State in Early Ireland, Cambridge University Press (2012)

----

1. On the Spelling "Commane":

Notes on Irish Names and Spelling: The reader who is unacquainted with Irish culture, history, and language may experience confusion with Irish names due to their many variations in spelling and different names for the same thing, partly due to linguistic development of the Irish language, so the spelling of words and the names themselves vary greatly between texts, especially in the Middle Ages. The article already acknowledges this challenge, stating:

"The various spellings of Commane and its variants can largely be attributed to the lack of Standard Irish until 1948 and the historical practice of English-speaking officials transcribing Irish names phonetically, often based on how the names were pronounced."

Furthermore, the capital city of the chiefdom Cahercommaun is sometimes locally referred to as Caher Commane, (see: https://www.clarelibrary.ie/eolas/coclare/places/the_burren/cahercommane.htm) demonstrating that "Commane" is a primary anglicised variant by the people in the area of the original chiefdom. The Wikipedia article also cites Gibson's book, noting that it refers to "variant spellings throughout: Comáin, Commáin, Comain, etc (different spellings and names are common in Ireland)." This reflects the historically variable nature of Irish names and the necessity of choosing one variant for clarity in an English-language encyclopedia, consistent with Wikipedia's naming conventions for Irish surnames (e.g., O'Brien vs. Ó Briain).

----

2. Historical Terminology:

While the spelling "chiefdom of Commane" does not explicitly appear in primary sources, it reflects the territorial and political structures documented in historical studies Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun (same names, different spellings). Scholars such as D. Blair Gibson and James Frost describe Cahercommaun as a political and ceremonial centre in County Clare, serving as the chiefdom and seat of the sept in the 8th–9th centuries. "Commane" serves as the English variant for Commáin, and the usage of the name aligns with the historical anglicisation of Irish surnames.

If necessary, I am open to renaming "chiefdom of Commane" to "chiefdom of Tulach Commáin" to reflect the documented place-name and avoid ambiguity, even though this spelling was proposed by Gibson and he confesses to different spelling variants.

----

3. Notable Figures:

It should also be noted that the person's original name and chief in the original gaelic would have been Comáin or Commáin (anglicised to Commane) as quoted in the article "as hereditary surnames in Ireland only began emerging between the 9th and 11th centuries" so the the sons would have been Mac or Ó "meaning" son of or "descendent".

The lineage does includes notable individuals such as:

Saint Commán of Roscommon, Saint and founder of Rosscommon a key figure in Irish ecclesiastical history.

Célechair mac Commáin, recorded in the Annals of Ulster and

Annals of Innisfallen, who was of the Eóganacht Uí Cormaic and died in the Battle of Corcmodruadh (704–705 A.D.).

Coman of Kinvara, Saint

Colmán mac Comán the second abbot listed in the Irish annals

Variants such as "Ó Comáin," "Commáin," and "Comáin" are consistently tied to the same lineage, which historical sources document as playing a significant role in Munster's early medieval socio-political landscape.

In 1052 AD there is a mention of spelling Comman in the Irish annals Part 15 of the Annals of the Four Masters.

In the sourced Early Bearers and Historical Records section it clears shows from the off shoots from Ó Comáin:

Laerunce Commane, 1796 in Flaxgrowers List (Ross, Cork);

Maurice O Koman, yeoman, and son Rory O Coman, 1573 in Fiants Elizabeth §2251 (Kanturk, Cork); Note spellings

These variations are consistent with historical naming practices, as highlighted in genealogical studies and sources like the Dubhaltach Mac Fhirbhisigh's 17th-century genealogical compilation, Leabhar Mór na nGenealach (The Great Book of Irish Genealogies), a key source for tracing Irish lineages.

----

4. Sometimes incorrectly 'translated' to Hurley camán a hurly

Yes, my mistake, I added the wrong source reference to the article for this, which I've now updated.

The words Camán and Comán are linguistically different, none of the Commane variants start with Cam, therefore some sources are incorrectly claim the name is linked to Hurley.

Here is a source to the contrary stating it's a mistranslation.

----

4. Verifiability and Sources:

The article incorporates referenced material from primary and secondary sources, including works by historians like Frost, Gibson, and O'Hart, alongside primary annals. The references also highlight the historical prominence of the Chiefdom of Commane (Tulach Commáin and Cahercommaun).

If further clarity is needed, do let me know. In the meantime I will refine the language or include additional references to bolster the article’s verifiability.

I hope this response clarifies the rationale behind the article's naming and content. Please let me know if there are further adjustments you'd like to see.

----

At the footer of the page other sources are noted:

"Annals of Innisfallen." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "Annals of Ulster." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "The History and Topography of the County of Clare." Frost, James. Internet Archive. | "Corpus Genealogiarum Hiberniae." O'Brien, M. A. Dublin Institute for Advanced Studies. | "Irish Kings and High-Kings." Byrne, F. J. Four Courts Press. | "Irish Pedigrees: Or, The Origin and Stem of the Irish Nation." O'Hart, John. M.H. Gill & Son. | "Leabhar Mór na nGenealach." Mac Fhirbhisigh, Dubhaltach. Edited by Nollaig Ó Muraíle. De Búrca Rare Books. | "Cahercommaun Triple Ring Fort." Academia.edu. Academia.edu. | "CELT: The Corpus of Electronic Texts." CELT Project. University College Cork. | "Cahercommaun Triple Ring Fort." Academia.edu. Academia.edu | "Discover Cahercommaun with Archaeologist, Michael Lynch." Burrenbeo. Burrenbeo | "Early Medieval Ireland, AD 400-1100: The Evidence from Archaeological Excavations." Academia.edu. Academia.edu | "Picture Perfect: Using Drone Technology and Photogrammetry Techniques to Map the Western Stone Forts of Ireland." Academia.edu. Academia.edu Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of words to say very little, it seems. No idea why this is at Commane and not at e.g. "Ó Comáin", unless it is because you have some COI with the Commane family you added to Newhall House and Estate or something similar. Nothing you state above contradicts that there is no reliable source about the "Chiefdom of Commane", or that none of the notable persons you listed are called "Commane" (you listed some rather random persons with the name, no one disputes that the name exists). Fram (talk) 13:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fram, I’m honestly just trying my best to address each of your points thoughtfully. To clarify, my "COI" is that I live in Clare and my surname is Hurley, which often gets incorrectly linked to Commane, a widely recognised surname here. The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia. For example, Wikipedia uses "O'Brien" instead of "Ó Briain," consistent with its naming conventions for Irish surnames. While "Ó Comáin" would be more appropriate for the Irish-language version of Wikipedia, it doesn’t mean the history of the name or its variants is unnotable simply because "Ó Comáin" lacks extensive individual articles. I’d really appreciate it if you could take another look at Section 1 of my response, where I’ve outlined the historical and archaeological basis for the "Chiefdom of Commane" and its connection to Clare. That said, I’m open to collaboration and willing to move the article to "Ó Comáin" if there’s a consensus that it’s more appropriate. My main goal here is to preserve the effort I’ve put into the article, as the the sources are valid, and I’d prefer not to see it deleted. If there are specific concerns you feel remain unresolved, I’m happy to discuss them further and make adjustments. I’m just trying to contribute something meaningful here. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as you insist on using "Chiefdom of Commane" when not a single reliable source uses this, I have no interest in even looking at what else you state. Your article seems like a coatrack of everything loosely related to the name, from a long section on a clan or chiefdom to a list of non-notable people named Commane or Comman and a list of notable people not named Commane, and so on. "The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia." Not according to "The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names of Ireland", which doesn't even give Commane a separate entry (or even a "see at" reference), but mentions it once under the entry for Cummins[17], which you are well aware off, since you copied the whole section "Early bearers and historical records" literally from that source. Do I really need to restart the proposal at WP:ANI, considering that the previous problems all seem to persist? @Asilvering: has there been any attempt to get the mentoring or feedback which was supposed to happen after that previous discussion? Fram (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a broad range of sources are on the page, like this:[18] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That source doesn't state that Commane is the standard anglicization either, it seems... Fram (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No communication since, no. -- asilvering (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram, as far as I’m aware, it is not a copyright violation to include a list of names from a source, they help prove root of name. Reporting me (again) unjustly to administrators (whose prior review did not result in any action against me) without fully engaging with my responses is not constructive and only creates unnecessary tension. I have taken the time to address all of your concerns and provide balanced explanations, supported by credible sources. However, your unwillingness to read my response and now your presentation of a false narrative is both unfair and unproductive. I remain committed to improving this article collaboratively. However, given your history of targeting me, I believe it would be more constructive for a third party or another editor to engage with me on this matter instead of yourself. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram I’d also like to kindly ask you to carefully re-read Section 2 of my response, where I state that I am open to renaming "chiefdom of Commane" to "chiefdom of Tulach Commáin." Thank you for your consideration. Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Fram as you've stated you're not reading my responses, Tulach Commáin means in english "The Mound of Commane". I am happy to renaming it to the Gaelic. Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. You are the only one ever to use "The Mound of Commane", in two Wikipedia articles. Reliable sources almost invariably use the Irish name (which is a recent invention anyway), not some translation, and one source uses "The Burial Mound of Commán". Fram (talk) 16:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to buy the 500 page book (available in PDF) and review the source material for yourself:[19] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This [20] is the much more recent book by that scholar, not his PhD thesis, and that book uses "The Burial Mound of Commán" (once) or the Irish name, not "Commane". The term Commane does not appear in that book. Fram (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the quote you just linked to it says Tulach Comma (The [burial] Mound of Comman) notice "burial" is in brackets meaning optional and it's referred to else where without burial. The whole point of my wikipedia article is variations of the name. The same author uses Comáin, Commáin, Comain, interchangeable variants throughout the book and gives an explanation for why which I tried to do on the wikipedia page, it's the same name, I appreciate that's a strange concept from an English perspective.

I have both this book and the PhD thesis which is way more thorough and academic but yes similar.

In the PhD version he calls Tulach Commáin - the latest book version it's Tulach Comman -- same author and name Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin" - really? I'm living in Ireland all of my life, and I have never once heard the name, until today. "Cummins" is the usual translation to English of all of the various forms of the surname listed in the article. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:09, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's predominantly in Muster / Clare (in the area of the original chiefdom) Kellycrak88 (talk) 17:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you make it sound as original research. The Banner talk 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As it stands I wonder if this should perhaps be Draftified. Until some of the sourcing and formatting and WP:OR concerns are addressed. (Certainly, for an article in the mainspace, I was surprised to see a number of relatively small formatting, tagging and tweaking edits that I had made completely reverted. Almost certainly in error. But implying that, perhaps, the title is not yet "fully formed" - to the extent that it's "ready" for the main article namespace.) Guliolopez (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Guliolopez I think we may have been editing the article at the same time, my apologies if I inadvertently caused any issues, it certainly wasn't intentional. Since then, it looks like you've made some recent edits, and I hope everything is now in order. On that note, I originally added several notes and quotes in the citations similar to the ones you've included on the page, to help it make more sense but they were removed by another editor. You can see this in the page's edit history. Regarding your comment in the history section, these topics are being discussed on the Talk page, your input would be most welcome there. Thank you! Kellycrak88 (talk) 15:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly huge amounts of original research, incorrect or poorly-formatted citations, inclusion of barely relevant detail, and much else wrong (if you want examples of all, see the "Variants and distribution" section)—a really very subpar article. Obviously, a hatchet-job is needed even if Kellycrak88 is able to justify notability, but as I cannot see any evidence of significant coverage of the article subject, delete. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree with the assertion that the article contains original research or invalid sources.

The content draws from reliable publications, especially the works of Dr Gibson, a professor of anthropology with a PhD in Irish chiefdoms. His 500-page dissertation (Tulach Commáin: A View of an Irish Chiefdom) and later book (From Chiefdom to State in Early Ireland) are well-respected and often cited by other scholars.

Of course, the article could use some improvements, particularly in formatting and trimming less relevant details. I’m more than happy to collaborate further on this, as I’ve already worked with several editors to refine it.

Given the robust scholarly sources and the historical importance of the subject, I believe the article meets notability standards. I’m open to further feedback and willing to keep working to ensure it adheres to Wikipedia’s guidelines.

(Tulach Commáin translates to "The Mound of Commán," anglicised to Commane, with Tulach meaning Hill, Mount or Fort.)

Lastly, I think this is important: the old English spoken and written 500 or 1,000 years ago would be nearly incomprehensible to us today. The same applies to Irish. This chiefdom was in the 8th–9th century, and variations in the spelling of Irish names, later anglicised phonetically by English officials in Ireland, reflect linguistic changes over time. From an English perspective, this might seem like an odd concept, but it’s an integral part of understanding Irish historical and cultural context. Kellycrak88 (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- But the article isn't about the chiefdom or about the fort (which already has an article, Cahercommaun), it's about the surname. Fram (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Cahercommaun also known as Caher Commane (National library of Ireland and Clare Library.) is an archaeological site and according to Gibson it's the capital of the Chiefdom of Tulach Commáin which is a separate site nearby for burial and inauguration.
  
  One of the spellings Gibson used was Commán (anglicised to Commane) referring to the 8th-century locally revered chief that was buried there, descendants were "son of" which in modern day Standard Irish form is: Ó Comáin.
  
  @Fram if your main objection is the anglicised surname Commane, and it's variants (which is obviously connected with the site and in the citations) - what if we change the title to the Irish Gaelic Ó Comáin, at least it can be agreed all the variants share the same root.
  
  Even though the letter Ó no one will type into a keyboard as this is an English and not Gaelic encyclopedia.
  
  There are mamy examples of historical Irish names using the anglicised version on Wikipedia.
  
  Complex example: CLANCY instead of the Iirsh Mac Fhlannchaidh/Mac Fhlannchadha
  
  Simply example: O'BRIEN instead of the Irish Ó Briain Kellycrak88 (talk) 13:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The objection is that you are treating different subjects together, and have taken a rarely used name as the main topic and have twisted every remotely related thing to be about Commane. Even your reply here, I was not commenting on Cahercommaun vs. Cahercommane at all, but you somehow need to add that one is also known by the other name as if that has anything to do with my post. And even then you can't correctly represent the source material or the facts; it is not "Caher Commane" but "Cahercommane". So no, while changing the title would be somewhat better, my preference remains to simply delete this POV coatrack article, and to let others create articles about the chiefdom and if needed disambiguation ones for the name or names (separately), just like we have at Coman already. But an article trying to discuss at the same time a chiefdom, a fort, and naming origins (with OR about the Irish vs Scottish and so on) is a bad idea, and to have all of it shoehorned into a "Commane is the main form" sauce on top makes it a lot worse still. Fram (talk) 14:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn’t put a space between Caher Commane and "Cahercommane” to highlight for the benefit of the reader on this thread. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it contains original research Kellycrak88. If you disagree, please provide relevant quotations for the "Variants and distribution" section from the books you currently have cited for that section. If you could also cease from using AI-generation in your responses, that would be useful. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was curious, so I pasted my response into an AI detector, and it said “0% of text is likely AI-generated.”

I could go through the citations, but I’m trying to keep my responses short. So in the spirit of collaboration, we can delete that section if it’s causing anguish. However, deleting the entire article feels like overkill.

Yesterday, I picked up a new book from Clare Library with additional information about the Commane Chiefdom, which could warrant its own article. I’m open to creating a separate page dedicated entirely to the chiefdom. But this article is about on the surname, its variants, and origin, which is the chiefdom and this page only has a small section on the chiefdom, there’s a 500 page dissertation and other sources on the subject. Also there are many other irish name pages that have an origin story or history in this style, I’ll get some links to show if required.

Let me know if you’d like further changes. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think this needs input by people who have not commented before. Please avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion to death by replying to everything at length.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment move and trim. Seems to me that the page would be better at Ó Comáin and possibly could be trimmed of the OR. I'm not sure how this could be done, to be clear. JMWt (talk) 11:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt, AFDs can't be closed with a "Move" outcome as that is an editing decision. If you want that result, you need to argue to Keep this article and then a page title change can be discussed on the talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well that seems counter-intuative. I can't !vote for keep as the page currently presents. I could possibly if the name was different. I'll unbold. JMWt (talk) 08:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts: my reasoning is this: the OR in the body of the page appears to extend to the title. And the title itself is an assertion that doesn't seem to be supported by the sources. There are sources that seem to refer to the alternative title which seems barely mentioned in the text. For me, it's a mess. JMWt (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reminding participants that this debate is about the notability of the subject. Both the content and the title can be changed editorially, if the article is kept.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 15:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @OwenX the article has already been relisted twice, many editors have contributed and on the article Talk page there is consensus for collective edits. One of the editors deleted a whole section commenting "per article author's refusal to provide quotes at AfD" I was not refusing, I was already scolded here for my comprehensive replies, so to keep my response short I agreed to the removing that section for reaching consensus. One of the main sources for variations is in Griffith's not to mention the other citations. If you compare it's certainly not original research. @OwenX I believe we've gone through the motions and it should now be published. Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kellycrak88, it is not me you need to convince, but the other participants in this debate. My job here is limited to reading consensus among participants, as viewed through the filter of policy and guidelines. Owen× ☎ 21:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as mentioned I believe we are at consensus, all participants have extensively edited the article and gone through the sources - article seems to be in limbo at the moment with constant relisting Kellycrak88 (talk) 21:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the other participants here to be particularly shy. If they had changed their mind and now agree with you, I'm sure they would have said so here. This type of misrepresentation will not help your case here. Nothing is "in limbo". The AfD will be closed when consensus is clear or when it had run its course. Your bludgeoning will not expedite the process, and might get you blocked from participating here. This is your second and final warning. Owen× ☎ 21:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 23:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talkdesk

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

Doesn't seem to have a second source to meet WP:NCORP, could not find anything more besides churnalism and promos on a WP:BEFORE search. -1ctinus📝🗨 15:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Does not meet WP: GNG. Could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source insufficient to meet WP:ORGCRIT. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matúš Digoň

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

Yet another stub about a Slovak men's footballer named Matúš without evidence of meeting WP:GNG. He mostly spent his career in lower levels of Slovak football and only played 54 minutes of professional match. SME has two sources dedicated to him (2018 and 2019), but those are interviews/quotes without independent analysis. Vranovské Noviny seems to be a transfer rumor. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—Is "STATBOMB" a thing? Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is "STATBOMB" ? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was playing with the idea of a WP:REFBOMB but with stats, hence the "STATBOMB." Anwegmann (talk) 17:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — I found some further sources, but nothing significant. I feel that his name being Matúš does not belong in the deletion rationale, however. C 679 21:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's difficult to explain, but I meant... There were many articles of, say, a Slovak footballer of one name I've nominated for deletion recently. For example... a footballer named Tomáš included Boháčik and Vantruba. That's why I often included the statement (e.g. "Another long-unsourced stub named [Given Name]"). ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sayyid Hasan ibn Azimullah

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

The article does not meet the general notability guideline due to a severe lack of reliable sources that verify its content, and the article contains promotional, irrelevant and genealogical content. The article subject lacks coverage in reliable, independent sources, and the article relies upon primary sources of dubious authenticity that seem to be produced by the article subject’s own organization. Even if the sources were authentic, we have no way of accessing them, and therefore there is no way of knowing whether or not they even verify what is contained in the article. Lastly, this page was nominated for deletion in 2020 [21], and was deleted thereafter. [22] HyperShark244 (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Islam, and Afghanistan. HyperShark244 (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Onel5969: @Kinu: @TH1980: @HistoryofIran: @Izno: @AndreJustAndre: @UrielAcosta: @Drmies: @Kuru: HyperShark244 (talk) 14:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the substance & sources don't seem to have improved over the previous version that was deleted. UrielAcosta (talk) 15:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I'm also 99% sure that the IP that created this is Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Sayyid Mir Israfil. --HistoryofIran (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero in-depth reliable sources. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to severe lack of proper sources that could establish notability. TH1980 (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Salted and deleted‎. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 23:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mockbul Ali

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

Article was previously deleted, no rationale for re-creating it, particularly with the highly promotional version created and maintained by socks in the past. Article was the subject of a WP:COIN discussion that led to the deletion. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 13:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Libya, Bahrain, United Kingdom, Dominican Republic, and Haiti. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt to prevent further recreation. This subject has attracted a large number of SPA socks (for which see here [23] and here [24]) from 2015 to 2025. Until this article (and draft) is salted the same end user (who has been indeffed on many occasions) will just continue to recreate the same article, populated with the same in-house sources, passing mentions, etc. Axad12 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note I've deleted and salted the article per WP:CSG#5 as it was created by a sock account in violation of a block or ban.-- Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 14:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Transit 6539-6549

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

A non-encyclopedic article about a group of 11 buses, with such detail as their license plate numbers. Alansohn (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as utterly non-notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero indication of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:N. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is definitely one of those pages that clearly makes more sense on another wiki and not Wikipedia — and indeed, a good chunk of it was, after this nmination, removed as a copyvio of another wiki. (Even what remains has enough similarities to make me wonder if this should have been a G12 candidate.) There's no way this meets NLIST; indeed, it probably fails NOTDIRECTORY too. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The page is a list article that is not encyclopedic. I personally agree with what everyone said above my message. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced bus fancruft. Does not deserve to have a place on Wikipedia. Ajf773 (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. Consensus seems to be that this is a BLP1E case. Any redirect would need to be from Roger Lynn, without the "Rev.", and that redirect already exists. Sandstein 12:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rev. Roger Lynn

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

Only notable for one thing, the marriage of Jack Baker and Michael McConnell, to which the article should redirect, per WP:BIO1E. Fram (talk) 12:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, and Minnesota. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Regardless of what happens, the proper title for this article would dispense with "Rev.". ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did some searching myself, seems like a clear WP:BLP1E; not much notable coverage that isn't related to the one event. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:BLP1E; no evidence of WP:SIGCOV of the subject at all, just mentions of his role in the ceremony. (The article is also full of original research and the footnotes are a disaster, but that's neither here nor there.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regrettably, the coverage of this individual is less about them and more about an event they were party to. Since they appear to have otherwise been periphery to the relevant movements/events, I don't see a case for individual notability. A shame, too, as someone clearly worked hard on this article. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The story is needed to offer a quick link to learn more about the pastor who dared to perform the world's first legal same-sex marriage.Y6f&tP4z (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. Sandstein 12:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Mašek

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

Unable to uncover significant sources which discuss the subject independently and in detail. C 679 11:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Softball, and Czech Republic. C 679 11:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I don't follow the sport, but agree per nomination. On Czech Wikipedia, the target page actually was a politician from Czechoslovakia, but cs:Pavel Mašek (rozcestník) does not have an article of former softball coach. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:23, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. Sandstein 12:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hajirhat Thana

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

Unable to find sources that show that this meets WP:GNG. PROD was contested. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Police and Bangladesh. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Even when searching with the alternate spelling "Hazirhat" and translating the article's sources from Bangla to English, I couldn't find any sources with significant coverage. This topic seems non-notable. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 03:55, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:16, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarat Adani Institute of Medical Sciences

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

The current article relies on just two sources: one from the college itself and the other from the Adani Foundation's website, both of which lack reliability. Upon researching the institution before nominating the article (WP:BEFORE), I found only routine coverage. This clearly indicates that the article fails to meet WP:GNG. Additionally, it also fails to comply with WP:UNIN Baqi:) (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: India and Gujarat. Baqi:) (talk) 10:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have added some secondry sources which could help in discussion. TheSlumPanda (talk) 07:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Page fails WP:NCORP. No secondary independent sources on the page with any notable significant coverage. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant any significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 21:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NSCHOOL - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. Not a notable artist Dr vulpes (Talk) 10:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shobani

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

Lacks notability. Allegedly charted one week on a local Shazam chart, discussed only in unreliable sources (blogs, "articles" which are just glorified press releases, ...). Fram (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Nigeria, and United States of America. Fram (talk) 10:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "Shobani" article should not be deleted. While I understand concerns about the reliability of sources, I am actively working to add more credible references. Deleting the article would remove valuable content that can be improved. Wikipedia articles are works in progress, and I am committed to enhancing this one. I ask for patience as I continue to update and refine the article. Kyledave2025 (talk) 10:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable musician, a top 21 stream in one American city is not what we use for notability. This found [25], doesn't help much... Very much non-notable. No charted singles, no record releases on a major label, no awards won. Oaktree b (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can find no suggestions that the song is independently notable, or I would suggest draftifying the article. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 15:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 redirect‎ to The Smashing Pumpkins discography. I'll leave it to editors to merge any content that may be appropriate. Sandstein 12:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Early 1989 Demos

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

Lacks all notability, no indepth reliable sources Fram (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and United States of America. Fram (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Smashing Pumpkins discography and create a brief entry there for this album (compilation of three other demos already listed). Early 1989 Demos really is a stand-alone album that was independently released, and it has an AllMusic review: [26]. However that is the only reliable review I can find, so we don't have enough different robust sources to support an article here. At the Talk page, the article creator has protested that this is a repeat of a long-standing article at a Smashing Pumpkins wiki: [27], but that doesn't mean it qualifies for an article here because this is not a place to repeat fan trivia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. Unable to meet notability Dr vulpes (Talk) 10:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Defense Show

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating the article two months after the "no consensus" decision in the second AfD. Reason is same: The exhibition fails to meet WP:EVENT. Lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:DIVERSE. Arguably WP:TOOSOON. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Saudi Arabia. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

Source assessment table
Source	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.worlddefenseshow.com/about-the-show/wds-leadership/		Team information from the official website	✘ No
https://euro-sd.com/2023/06/news/32396/world-defense-show-in-riyadh-announces-surge-in-interest-at-paris-air-show/			✘ No
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ukraine-crisis-delays-ak-203-assault-rifle-deal-with-russia/article65221831.ece		The article is talking about AK-203 and Ukraine war	? Unknown
https://english.aawsat.com/home/article/4065746/saudi-arabia-japan-sign-15-agreements-establishing-qualitative-partnership	~	No mention of the World Defense Show	? Unknown
https://english.alarabiya.net/News/gulf/2022/03/10/Saudi-Arabia-s-first-World-Defense-Show-in-Riyadh-ends-with-7-9-billion-in-deals	~		✘ No
https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/616815/SAUDI-ARABIA/Saudi-Arabias-World-Defense-Show-ready-for-launch-after-selling-out-all-exhibition-space		Seems to be a paid coverage	✘ No
https://www.eurasiantimes.com/thaad-to-guard-saudi-arabia-riyadh-adds-teeth-to/		Trivial mention	? Unknown
https://saudigazette.com.sa/article/635807/SAUDI-ARABIA/Strong-international-demand-leads-to-sell-out-of-second-world-defense-show			✘ No
https://www.timesaerospace.aero/news/events/defence-heads-and-industry-influencers-to-speak-at-world-defense-show		Seems to be a paid coverage	✘ No
https://www.shephardmedia.com/news/defence-notes/sponsored-be-immersed-in-pioneering-tech-innovation-at-world-defense-show-2024/		Seems to be a paid coverage	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per source analysis by TCBT1CSI, Unable to meet WP:EVENT. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Helping this along; this show seems like less of an arms show and more a tourist trap to get defense contractors to come to the country to show off their wares and get the attention of higher-ups; very doubtful that your average Riyadhi is attending this at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 11:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bollajira Aiyappa

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

I removed a chunk of copyvio text from the article that had been copied from the first reference [28]. The remainder does not seem to establish notability under any criteria that might apply, e.g. WP:NACTOR, WP:NBUSINESS (as founder of a publishing house), WP:GNG. Although there are many references in the article as it stands, they are all passing mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV. There are no linked articles in other language Wikipedias, and my WP:BEFORE turned up no reliable sources with significant coverage. It is of course possible that there is sufficient coverage in local offline sources, in which case I would happily withdraw my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 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!} 08:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poor sources with no significant coverage on the subject and the career. Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:NBIO. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Article appears to be notabile and has reasonable sources. Dr vulpes (Talk) 10:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makenna Kelly

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, almost all the cited sources are either primary sources or unreliable sources. Has been identified as such since June 2022, without improvement. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Internet, and Colorado. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2022 AfD discussion was keep, with the condition that the flag on notability was added. I have added some sources, where the best coverage is the 2019 article in the Fort Collins paper (though I note she is from Colorado). She has minor mentions in the Boston Globe and the Washington Post (now in article). I have not replaced all the citations to YouTube, though I agree with the 'unreliable source' flags for them. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I now have access to the Wired magazine article, and that is also significant coverage. My inclination would be to delete the other items that are sourced to YouTube or primary sources, but I think they can remain for now in case someone else finds better sourcing. DaffodilOcean (talk) 07:07, 15 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!} 08:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep sources provided in the article provides a strong evidence for notability. (I.e. the Wired UK, Daily Dot, Indian Times) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All sources are reliable. With the improvement by DaffodilOcean, it is much better now. Tajotep (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NBGI Private Equity

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. Some pdfs, paid or profile nature references. Cinder painter (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Greece, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 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!} 08:17, 14 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!} 08:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I do see a few sources mentioning this. However from what I see they are just stuff like Funding announcement, hiring news, a brief mention of it investing in something and of course it being spun off. So nothing really in-depth. Under this name, the entity has been defunct for over 8 years now. - Imcdc Contact 12:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, although a redirect to National Bank of Greece is acceptable. Bearian (talk) 07:19, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 11:19, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Carquillat

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

Non-notable figure skater. While she did finish in first place at the 2004 Swiss Championships, her score was too low to be awarded the title of Swiss Champion. I found this one article where she was mentioned in passing as now coaching. I'll let the community decide whether that qualifies as "significant coverage". Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is no corresponding article on the German Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some news articles: [29] ("Kurioses ereignete sich bei den Frauen. Cindy Carquillat belegte zwar Rang 1, der Titel wurde ihr allerdings nicht vergeben, weil sie in den Kür-Noten nicht den erforderlichen Schnitt von 4,8 erreichte. Dies ist bei den Frauen noch nie vorgekommen, seit sie 1931 erstmals am nationalen Championat zugelassen worden waren."), [30] (about her qualifying for the Junior Worlds in 2005).
Keep. After all, she did finish first in the national championships. Per WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG too. (She competed almost 20 years ago, she definitely had something written about her in the media back then.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may be something here → [31], but the site doesn't open for me. (I'm tired of this, many sites seem to block Russian IPs, it's impossible to search like this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first source provided has a few sentences, the second one is an article about her, albeit a very short one about her qualifying. The third one that blocked the IP appears to be about changes in the scoring system and is not about her. This SUBJECT appears to be below SIGCOV levels at the moment. In addition I have found a couple of brief mentions in the french media sites la region and arcinfo but well below what is needed to prove GNG. I will have another look later at this one.Canary757 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  There are 94 hits for her on e-newspaperarchives.ch. Most look minor but may need a french speaker to judge as some appear to be longer.Canary757 (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very far from SIGCOV. Both articles mentioned above are routine event results, from the same news site, and the latter is a couple-sentence announcement about a junior career event so is even further from counting toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 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!} 05:19, 14 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!} 08:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. All of the results from e-newspaperarchives.ch are passing mentions. BilletsMauves^€500 12:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If the Swiss Newspaper archive had no SIGCOV then its delete.Canary757 (talk) 12:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 merge‎ to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike

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

Fails NOTNEWS. The article does not contain any sources published more than a day or two after the attack, and a BEFORE check confirmed the lack of LASTING coverage. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Middle East, Israel, and Palestine. QuicoleJR (talk) 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Meets WP:GNG and very obviously notable. This particular strike was mentioned in dozens of WP:RSs. And there is WP:LASTING coverage. This strike was mentioned as recently as six days ago by Doctors Without Borders (see here). Helleniac (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Helleniac: I wouldn't consider a list of every single attack on medical facilities to be significant lasting coverage. Are there any other sources you could cite to show lasting coverage? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Here is another source, this time from CNN, for lasting coverage from about 3 months after the attack (see here). Helleniac (talk) 01:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)~~WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where that source specifically mentions this attack. QuicoleJR (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Attaching excerpt:~~

"On the same day, an Israeli airstrike hit a convoy of ambulances, which hospital authorities said were being used to evacuate the wounded, including one outside the entrance of Al-Shifa, killing 15 people and wounding 60 others. Videos from the scene, verified by CNN, showed about a dozen people lying bloodied and motionless. Garlasco, who analyzed the footage, said that cubic fragmentation could be seen on the ambulance door, as well as the clothes of people killed and wounded, which was consistent with aftermath from an Israeli Spike anti-tank guided missile." Helleniac (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Another WP:LASTING mention of the attack four months after the fact by Human Rights Watch:~~

"Human Rights Watch documented a strike by Israeli forces on a marked ambulance outside al-Shifa Hospital on November 3, 2023, which reportedly killed 15 people and injured 60.[1] Ambulances are protected civilian objects under international humanitarian law and cannot be targeted when used to treat wounded and sick individuals, both civilian and combatant. Israeli authorities said they intentionally struck the ambulance, contending that it was being used to transport able-bodied fighters. Human Rights Watch investigated these claims and did not find any evidence that the ambulance was being used for military purposes." Helleniac (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)WP:STRIKESOCK QuicoleJR (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Zero coverage in any non-news sources that aren't from the time of the attack. They reported on the news, then moved on. I don't think this is different than any other similar attack, is this long, terrible war. Oaktree b (talk) 23:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't WP:INTHENEWS, and similitude to other events does not invalidate the notability of the coverage. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it's the lack of any extended sourcing after the event. Nothing seems to have happened as a result, the individuals involved don't appear to have anything significant happen to them. Oaktree b (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Article is about the strike, the witness, talk of a war crime, then extended coverage about organizations offering an opinion on the event. We need to see WHY this is important, not WHAT people saw or how it made them feel. There's more in the "reaction" section than about the actual incident... This is more of a reactionary article, it appears trying to push a narrative on one side or the other. Few details about the attack, then over half the article talks about how bad it was. Oaktree b (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is going to get deleted but the CNN reference that treats events around Al-Shifa during the war as essentially a single matter (i.e., they're all covered in a single chapter under a single heading) is a good sign-post as to how this should be treated. Once the heat dies down around this conflict probably we should look at merges. FOARP (talk) 11:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b: To be clear, would you be willing to support a merge? Thanks, QuicoleJR (talk) 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if it goes that way, that's fine. Oaktree b (talk) 16:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Events. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This event meets GNG. It was covered extensively in RS when it happened and has been mentioned in reports about attacks on healthcare multiple times between 14 Nov 2023 to 31 Dec 2024. See: HRW, HRW 2, CNN, Journal of Palestine Studies, Forensic Architecture, MSF, UN. The airstrike was witnessed by the journalist Bisan Owda and her coverage was mentioned in December 2024 and May 2024 by New Arab and the Peabody Awards. Photos of the aftermath of the attack have appeared with captions in December 2023 and March 2024 in NPR and Mondoweiss Rainsage (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't favour straight deletion of this but it should be pointed out that HRW is a charity, not news media, they are not independent of the topic. The CNN reference is better, but they clearly treat all the attacks around Al Shifa during the period as a single topic and possibly we should too (e.g., merge them to a single article). The Journal of Palestine Studies article gives this specific attack just a couple of sentences as far as I can see. Forensic Architecture is also an advocacy/investigation group - they're not independent of the topic, and so don't indicate notability. Ditto MSF and the UN - NGOs and international government organisations are not independent of the topic. Photos also aren't significant coverage. WP:GNG isn't the relevant standard - WP:NEVENT is which is why we're looking for WP:LASTING coverage, and even if it is notable we may still merge per WP:PAGEDECIDE. FOARP (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have not heard before that HRW, UN, MSF, and Forensic Architecture don't indicate notability. Can you point me to the relevant wikipedia policy?

If I had to choose a place to merge this article to, I think that Al-Shifa Hospital siege is the best choice.

Many of the sources I cited seem to treat the airstrike and the siege as a single topic, as does this Misbar article from Feb 2024 Rainsage (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant Wikipedia policy is WP:GNG, particularly the requirement that the source be independent of the topic. See also WP:NEVENT. Charities reporting on their own work, or advocacy groups reporting on their own advocacy, or investigation groups reporting on their own investigations, are not sufficiently independent of the topic to indicate notability of it (i.e., they would tend to report on it even if it weren't notable). They are of course potentially useful for verifying facts in articles whose notability is already established. FOARP (talk) 15:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The basic premise of the filing is simply false. Aside from the significant breadth of the coverage, it was already covered WP:INDEPTH as early as 7 November by HRW as a potential war crime. It was then mentioned again on 14 November by HRW, so already much more than "a day or two" after, and the coverage has only continued from there. It is mentioned in this 22 January paper in the Springer journal of Intensive Care Medicine. Rainsage flags many more instances of subsequent analytical coverage. If a WP:BEFORE check was indeed performed for this page with 35+ RS references, it must have been perfunctory and ineffectual. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Does being referred to by Medecin San Frontieres or HRW count as actual coverage in a reliable source for analysing notability - these are both advocacy groups/charities, right? I'd be looking for SIGCOV in a reliable, notability-indicating source a few months out from the event to show WP:LASTING, not just a mention. Do we have that? The Springer reference seems better, but it's' still just one paragraph as far as I can see, which is borderline for WP:SIGCOV. I can see two paragraphs in the CNN article (one long, one very short) which is again a bit borderline.

I'm inclined to give this one the benefit of the doubt since at some point history books are going to be written about this war and this is likely to get a paragraph or two in them. I just don't think we should be treating the output of NGOs and aid-agencies as if they were news sources when analysing notability: accurate or not, their coverage does not indicate notability because they aren't independent of the subject matter.

Long term probably the events around Al-Shifa can be bundled in to a single article for more encyclopaedic coverage (this is how the CNN and Springer references essentially treat it) but that's not an issue for AFD. FOARP (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge somewhere not a standalone article. It was one attack in a multi-front battle. Andre🚐 02:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war? QuicoleJR (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CNN treats all the events around Al-Shifa during the war as a single topic, so maybe that's a pointer? Anyway, put me down as Merge too. FOARP (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Merge. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:50, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndreJustAndre, FOARP, and Zanahary: Would you support my proposed merge target of Attacks on health facilities during the Israel-Hamas war? Asking to make sure these Merge !votes get counted, per Liz's comment below. QuicoleJR (talk) 14:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would support it as an improvement over the present status. FOARP (talk) 14:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Springer article talks about an attack on a hospital, our article about an attack on a convoy. Al-Shifa is mentioned in both and the date matches so I suppose that both try to address the same. That said, is the Springer article individually (as Springer is a good publishing house) a reliable source? I do not see that the article is quoted by us. Also why is our article called Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike if the attack was on a convoy? Not saying any of this must be wrong; just trying to understand some more before forming an opinion. There are a lot of variables in the mix. gidonb (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is based on the sources that exist on a topic both on the page and out there in the ether. This is noted explicitly at WP:BEFORE. Re: convoy Vs ambulance, it was a convoy of ambulances, so there is no contradiction there. Ambulance is just not recognisable, while convoy is rather ambiguous. Iskandar323 (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding! I understand and appreciate that there are many sources from the time this happened, however these sources do not refute the concerns of the nominator. Nominator makes the case of NOTNEWS and LASTING, known concerns with events that are not solved by the GNG. The Springer article is the main argument supporting a LASTING impact, however, it is very different from our article and it may not be a good source itself (not withstanding the Springer reputation.) Next, how was this attack on a convoy of ambulances the Al-Shifa ambulance airstrike? Not clear from the article, the references, the sources, or from your appreciated (!) response. It strengthens the case of NOTNEWS. gidonb (talk) 00:14, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Gidonb: The strike took place just outside of the gates of Al-Shifa hospital involving ambulances associated with the hospital, hence the association. Iskandar323 (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the red crescent ambulance was on its way. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (weak) -- vaguely agree with nominator. However, I would, alternatively, second Andre in that a merge would be perfectly appropriate. MWFwiki (talk) 00:02, 21 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!} 08:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Message to participants, if you are going to argue for a Merge or Redirect, you must supply an existing target article at the same time or your argument can't contribute to a decision. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war per WP:MERGEREASON#4. BilletsMauves^€500 12:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war. While the article can easily pass WP:GNG, that is not the argument here. The event described was horrendous, but per WP:PAGEDECIDE, Sometimes, a notable topic can be covered better as part of a larger article, where there can be more complete context that would be lost on a separate page. From that perspective, I think merge would be the best option at this time.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war per WP:PAGEDECIDE. FOARP (talk) 14:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (selective) to Attacks on health facilities during the Israel–Hamas war per WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:LASTING. See why these apply in and under my comment above. I prefer merge over redirect as this deserves a bit more attention at the target. gidonb (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baked Alaska (livestreamer)

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

I question whether this person is notable for any particular reason and wonder why his BLP was created in the first place. soibangla (talk) 06:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SK#3 -- nominator has presented an invalid reason for deletion, seemingly a case of "I don't like it". While unfortunate, the subject is notable; the multiple sources covering him that are already in the article reflect this. The nominator has also provided no refutation, or indeed source analysis at all, of the multiple reliable sources about him. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:20BC:5415:7424:8B2A (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep a glance at the sources will suffice to ascertain that this person is notable for being, between 2016 to 2020, a prominent figure of the alt-right movement. One may argue that he is more notorious than notable, but he is still well-known enough to warrant a Wikipedia page. He seems to have kept a low profile since he was sentenced over his participation in the Capitol riot, but he was notable enough at the time for the New York Times to report his arrest and publish a piece about him. Psychloppos (talk) 09:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Conspiracy theories, Politics, Internet, Alaska, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep and Close per WP:SNOW per IP above and the fact that the article's sources provided sufficient notability. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the nomination contains a valid reason for deletion: an assertion of lack of notability; speedy criteria #3 does not apply. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nomination did not give a valid reason for deletion. Partofthemachine (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, sources provided clearly indicate notability. ★ The Green Star Collector ★ (talk) 15:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus‎. Sandstein 12:27, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noémie Silberer

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a three-minute video [32] on the Tribune de Genève website. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Here's a news article: [33]. One more: [34]. One more: [35].
A news article in German about her retiting: [36]. (Just one paragraph, but it's like a mini biography.)
And there are lots of sentence examples featuring her on Linguee.fr: [37]. Sentences from skating.cn and swissolympic.ch. Certainly, there were some articles mentioning her on the internet long ago, but they got deleted since. --Moscow Connection (talk)
Comment: Looking at the sources provided in this discussion, the first article is WP:SIGCOV as it provides multiple paragraphs of coverage about the subject, but the rest of the sources appear to be merely mentions or lack any depth (a couple of sentences at most are actually about the subject). Without evidence of actual significant coverage, we can't have an article on a BLP. Let'srun (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added updates and removed the outstanding issues in the article.

Nayyn (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I disagree that the first article has SIGCOV, as it is almost entirely just reporting what Silberer said/felt. Only the first sentence and part of the penultimate sentence contain secondary coverage. Everything else is routine news or non-independent. JoelleJay (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As I noted earlier in my source analysis, this BLP appears to lack the requisite WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: We have a divide regarding whether sources are sufficient for a standalone article. Is there any possible ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what ATD means, could you please elaborate? Thank you.

The article is well cited, the text is accurate and the sources are appropriate. There have been many deletions of female skaters lately. Deleting makes it a lesser Wikipedia. Nayyn (talk) 18:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ATD = alternative to deletion. Mostly merging or redirecting, sometimes adding something to a list. Geschichte (talk) 22:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thank you, Geschichte. An "alternative to deletion", through merging, redirection or draftification, serves to preserve some of the content, at least in the page history if not elsewhere but also removes a standalone article from main space. For example, we have many articles that are written about non-notable songs and those articles are often merged or redirected to the article for the album. I hope this explains the shorthand, "ATD". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Zheng

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

Does not appear to meet notability. One link is dead, the other reads like a promotional press release. Searching Google yields very little worth mentioning. QuiteBearish (talk) 04:58, 21 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 21. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He holds a named chair, Sprint Eminent Scholar Chair & Professor, Electrical Engineering. This is usually a sign of notability. I found an Internet Archive copy of the broken link and added it. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Florida. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has moved from the named chair at Florida State noted above to being SUNY Empire Innovation Professor at the University of Buffalo, so that's a double pass of WP:PROF#C5. He is also a Fellow of the National Academy of Inventors and a Fellow of the IEEE, so that's a double pass of #C3. The article as nominated was a badly written stub that said none of this, but see WP:BEFORE. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS also heavy citations [38] give a pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An easy pass of WP:NPROF notability, meeting multiple criteria when only one is needed. Let's fix problematic articles, not just delete them. Qflib (talk) 21:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve made some edits which hopefully have improved the article. Qflib (talk) 12:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 redirect‎ to Arvind Krishna (actor)#Filmography. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:33, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shukra (film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Some sources are simply the trailers, and nearly all of the cited reviews are listed as generally unreliable on WP:ICTFSOURCES (123telugu, IndiaGlitz, FilmiBeat), or don't provide enough coverage (Telangana Today). No idea about the reliability of the 10tv.in review, but the theprimetalks.com source looks more like a blog. It is entirely possible that I missed some coverage in Telugu, so please ping me if more sources are found. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 04:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arvind Krishna (actor): A film requires two full-length reviews to pass WP:NFILM. We have one from Filmibeat which although considered an unreliable source, was written by a seemingly reputable journalist, Rajababu A. There is another review from NTV which has a byline. The remaining reviews available online do not have bylines. I believe the film was released during COVID19, so there'll be less coverage compared to others. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @ARandomName123 This is Sazh, and I had the privilege of working with team of Shukra. As noted, the film was released during the COVID-19 period, which significantly impacted its promotional activities due to limitations faced by the PR and digital marketing teams, and my sincere thanks to @Jeraxmoira for identifying the review from NTV. Considering these unique circumstances and the challenges in sourcing comprehensive reviews for the film, I kindly request you to review the provided sources and issue the clearance! Thesazh (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not advisable to create articles in which you have a conflict of interest, nor is it advisable to reveal your identity. The promotional activities by PR and digital marketing teams will likely have no impact on a film's notability because the criteria for inclusion are very different. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeraxmoira I understand the concerns regarding conflict of interest and the importance of adhering to Wikipedia's neutrality and notability guidelines. My intent in mentioning the promotional challenges was to provide context about the film's limited media coverage during its release period, not to justify its inclusion based on PR efforts. Thesazh (talk) 10:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ARandomName123 @Jeraxmoira Shukra -Film - Telugu Wikipedia Thesazh (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Redirect. If any editors have located any additional reviews, please bring them to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: as suggested is fine, seems to be a good alternative. Oaktree b (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arvind Krishna (actor)#Filmography: listed there; a more or less standard alternative to deletion when the director has no page; the other possibility being List of Telugu films of 2021 (but not yet listed there, so would be a merge, technically). Suggesting this if really the reviews at ntvtelugu and Filmibeat + those in IndiaGlitz and 123Telugu (two sites that were judged more or less acceptable not so long ago) are not deemed suitable to establish notability, by all other users; if they are judged OK, not opposed to Keep. Opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 01:19, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arvind_Krishna_(actor)#Filmography. Poor to unreliable sources on the page. After carefully analyzing all reviews under reception, only one maybe reliable (still questionable) by 10TV and rest all unreliable or didn't have review. Since multiple reviews are needed to meet criteria for WP:NFILM, this page does not have it. If anyone can find more reviews from reliable sources, please let me know. RangersRus (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 04:02, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glokk40Spaz

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 01:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Charitably it is too soon. In his first AfD about a year ago, he got one "weak keep" vote because he is signed to Columbia Records, but that is not enough. He is listed at the company website: [39], but with no supporting info ("Read More" leads nowhere). I can find no information from the label about any promotion of his releases or if they even released anything by him yet, despite what this article says. Meanwhile, he has no coverage in reliable music media and his stuff remains self-released on the usual platforms. Good luck to him if that big label puts in some effort, but nothing has yet happened to generate material for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some coverage in reliable sources: [40][41][42][43]. Still not sure if it's enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO though. मल्ल (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD. not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support out there for Deletion. It would also be nice to get another review of sources recently brought to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - the HipHopDX and HNHH sources make this scrape past GNG. SK2242 (talk) 07:21, 14 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: According to https://www.hiphopdx.com/contactus, Managers, Publicists & PR Professionals are encouraged to reach out to request coverage of the artist they represent, so I don't think we should count HipHopDX as an independent secondary source, and not an indication of notability. The rest doesn't seem to be quite enough to establish notability either. Falls a bit short of having significant independent coverage, I think. Mlkj (talk) 23:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO. LibStar (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 04:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh Jubo Odhikar Parishad

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

Non notable youth organization. There are some references in the article, but they are all passing mentions and not in-depth coverage. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources about this organization that are independent of the subject, it fails WP:ORG, WP:GNG. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese

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

This person doesn't seem notable enough to me. I cannot find any news coverage about her. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish her notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moopaz (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only "vote" is from an account that was created today. I'd like to hear more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think she meets WP:CREATIVE #3: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews". Apart from her other work, she co-wrote and co-executive produced 3 seasons of See Dad Run, and that has been the primary subject of multiple independent reviews. Some of the references from the See Dad Run article could be added here. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:59, 14 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, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Patrick_Labyorteaux#Personal_life: she is mentioned there and she co-~~wrote~~[created/produced; no writing credits: https://variety.com/2012/tv/reviews/see-dad-run-1117948533/] See Dad Run with him. I am not opposed to the Keep RebeccaGreen is suggesting if she and other users really think her role in the series was essential. -Mushy Yank. 18:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC) [Edited; see below][reply]
I would not consider co-creating and co-producing a 3 season TV series part of her husband's personal life! RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
D sure, that work is not part of her husband's personal life (although it is part of his professional life, because the second co-producer is him) but still she can be mentioned [and redirected] there. If you prefer it can be redirected to the series itself. Again, if you and other users agree she's notable for having co-created/produced the series, not opposed to K. -Mushy Yank. 10:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect either to Patrick_Labyorteaux or perhaps to See Dad Run directly. I'd otherwise lean against keeping.. I agree she meets WP:CREATIVE #3, and she definitely deserves credit for her work. But I see those additional criteria more as something that strengthens a case (and a reason to expect that we might find significant coverage). But I'm having a hard time finding much beyond her IMDB. Even if someone is important for their work, we really can't write much in a WP:BLP without WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources Mlkj (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, no, if you really think she meets Wikipedia:CREATIVE or Wikipedia:PRODUCER, it's a perfectly valid path for inclusion. -Mushy Yank. 10:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per RebeccaGreen. Topic meets WP:NCREATIVE#3. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:41, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:42, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh at major beauty pageants

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

Procedural refiling of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand at the Big Four beauty pageants * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and ~~Thailand~~. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC) Erroneous addition struck by Paul_012 (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For convenience, User:Bri's rationale from the previous nomination was as follows. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
...merely reiterates material found at Miss Bangladesh, Miss Earth Bangladesh , Miss Universe Bangladesh, and Miss World Bangladesh and, in fact, redundant tables for each of those appear at #International pageants
Because the contents are pretty much identical (side-by-side presentation of data on participants at the Big Four international beauty pageants, even with identical formatting and all) consensus is pretty much rock solid for deleting them as WP:IINFO and WP:SYNTH, and due to the consensus shown by the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belize at major beauty pageants precedent and 100+ subsequent debates over similar "Country at major beauty pageants" articles, some links at Special:Permalink/1036690997, Special:Permalink/1037877047, and Special:Permalink/1038545583 especially 87 pageant country articles bundled under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/France at major beauty pageants.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, hoping for more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are right now ZERO arguments for this article, there is not even a deletion nomination. So, unless participants show up and weigh in, I see closing this as an uncontested Keep. Also, since this was previously at AFD, Soft Deletion is not an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I could see how this is potentially adjacent to a notable topic, but as it stands, it's not clear what this article is supposed to be about. The article's current contents are WP:SYNTH of national beauty pageants in Bangladesh and Bangladesh's performance in international beauty pageants. Even if someone attempted to clean it up, it's unclear what would be left (again, the title does not make any clear indication). — Anonymous 05:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant content fork as discussed. Not a significant topic either. Za-ari-masen (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 redirect‎ to List of provinces of Balhae. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

美州

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

Meets neither WP:DAB nor WP:NONENGLISHTITLE requirements. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Japan. – The Grid (talk) 18:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/神戸駅. Cunard (talk) 12:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the explanations given by @Adumbrativusand @KylieTastic on the Related AfD:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/神戸駅. - Adumbrativus makes an excellent point re this disambiguation being necessary specifically because it’s impossible to pick which English version to use - it is specifically disambiguating different spellings in “English” (romaji really) of the same kanji, and Kylietastic shows that many disambiguation pages of this type exist - enough for an entirely seperate category to be appropriate Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Absurdum4242: except that first 2 entries fail MOS:DABMENTION. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I lean delete. I appreciate the friendly citation to my comments on the other AFD; I think this case is more difficult. The connection between the search term and the targets is a bit thin. The disambiguation page currently says that 美州 is abbreviation for the two blue links, Mino Province and Mimasaka Province. According to the corresponding Japanese Wikipedia pages, ja:美濃国 and ja:美作国, their usual abbreviated names are 濃州 and 作州 respectively, while the alternative 美州 wouldn't distinguish them well. I don't know how accurate that information is, as I'm not familiar with these topics and not sure where to verify any of this. It's believable, at least. Overall a non-English term for a disfavored abbreviation starts to sound pretty obscure. Adumbrativus (talk) 08:26, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of provinces of Balhae, which is the only mention in Enwiki, and corresponds to the 3rd entry on the current disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. I'm giving this another week rather than closing this as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per comment by Adumbrativus. There’s no evidence that a reader of English WP would enter these characters looking for ~~any of these topics, especially~~ either of the Japanese provinces.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect to List of provinces of Balhae as alternative to deletion. Per WP:ENGLISH Redirects from native and other historically relevant names are encouraged. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 05:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of provinces of Balhae per Shhhnotsoloud. Adumbrativus's comment convinces me that the Japanese topics seem too implausible to be worth listing here, so the only relevant target is the one mentioned in the list article. Tag with Template:R with possibilities (zh:美州 cites three sources, and I think it would probably be presumed notable per WP:NPLACE). —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 04:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of provinces of Balhae per others above. Toadspike [Talk] 13:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of provinces of Balhae per WP:ENGLISH as cited by MYCETEAE. The article barely has any information, and I agree that readers of English WP are unlikely to enter those characters when searching for a topic. Redirecting will preserve the info, as little as it is, so it will be readily available in case someone does enter this search term.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 redirect‎ to Zana (band) as a viable ATD Star Mississippi 03:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dodirni mi kolena

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

Non-notable album. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 14:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Serbia. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all the covers have to indicate at least some level of long-term significance, at least for the eponymous song. Did you check those sources that appear in a Google Books search for Zana "Dodirni mi kolena"? --Joy (talk) 09:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Joy: Per WP:THREE which is best practice, can you post them up there so I can have a look at them. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 10:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually care that much to argue either way, I'm just asking if that was part of your WP:BEFORE routine. --Joy (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Looking at the Google Books references (to address the above discussion), only one book mentions the subject twice; the others all only mention it once. I don't see the subject passing WP:SIGCOV. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The album and several singles were, and still are, highly popular in the former Yugoslavia. Under the legacy section, it is noted that songs from the album have been covered by other artists and achieved significant success with listeners. — Sadko (words are wind) 23:12, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The fact they popular doesnt' give them an automatic right to Wikipedia article. Is there coverage per WP:COVERAGE per WP:THREE. The gbook passing mentions are insufficient. This is place were discuss notability. A simple keep !vote doesn't cover any longer and hasn't since 2006. If you have evidence post it up. scope_creep^Talk 11:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Sadko is right ngl 14:16, 13 January 2015

NovaExplorer37 (talk) 13:16, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. We are looking for souces that provide SIGCOV, that's what Keep arguments need to show. Would a Redirect be an acceptable ATD?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above (more useful than deleting, in my opinion). Strong oppose keeping as none of the keep votes have provided a legitimate rationale. — Anonymous 05:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that the original poster is ignorant of the existence or significance of the album in a language he is ignorant of so he can't understand the listed sources about an album that went DIAMOND - is not an argument nor reason for deletion of a perfectly functional article. In fact, it is elitist, privileged and borderline racist. Hint: English is NOT the only language on the planet nor is English speaking world be-all end-all of culture and history. E.g. Original poster maintains a whole list of articles about people who, were they Nigerian instead of British, would be considered non-notable - the tenth Chief Medical Officer of the Home Office of the United Kingdom is not even a pop-quiz question, it is dust in an archive. But he was British, so it is notable. Were he from Yugoslavia the article would already be deleted. 109.175.105.19 (talk) 23:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunately true that the English Wikipedia has a systemic bias in favor of North American or Western European subjects, but reliable sources are not optional.

That being said, you raise a good point about music certification, specifically criteria 2 and 3 in WP:NALBUM. Can you point to one reliable source, as defined in WP:Reliable sources, that states that the album appeared in a country's national music chart and/or it received a gold or higher certification? If so, I might switch to a keep or a merge to Zana (band) per WP:NALBUM: Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged into the artist's article or discography.

I'll also leave a separate message on your talk page that's not related to the article. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, are you aware that Wikipedia has projects in hundreds of languages, some of which have different standards for notability than the English Wikipedia? Perhaps you could focus your efforts on improving them. — Anonymous 04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This above comment a non !vote since it doesn't address policy. There isn't a single reference presented here per WP:THREE to prove its notable. Its should be deleted. scope_creep^Talk 00:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. I checked for sources and was unable to find any. There are hits for a paddleboat in Indiana named Dixie but clearly that is not what we are working with here. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie, Indiana

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

No sign that this was anything other than a short-lived pre-RFD post office, though searching is heavily impeded by people naming every old thing "Dixie"-something. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The name Dixie didn't appear on USGS topo maps until 1962, long after the post office was gone: [44], and at the time was three buildings. That's not a community. There are more than three houses there now, but we need more than the name of a post office that closed 120 years ago to say this location "is" anything. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the right time frame to be in the 1895 Lippincott's. Checking page 1041, however, and none of the Dixies there are in Indiana. Nothing in the Arcadia Publishing book on Corydon. Nothing in Bulleit's 1906 Illustrated atlas and history of Harrison County, Indiana. This isn't in any history books or gazetteers that I can find. It's one table row in a 1894 USPS directory listing, and that's it. There's no substantial documentation for this at all. Uncle G (talk) 10:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 no consensus‎. ✗plicit 04:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Egekent 2 railway station

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

Nothing in the Turkish article shows it to be notable Chidgk1 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Chidgk1: I stumbled upon the article out of luck, and fail to see how it is not notable. In general, a railway station on a mainline is often enough to warrant an article on itself — especially if the system is a major one, like Marmaray or in this case IZBAN, there is almost always a coverage on the Commons & newspapers. Not having any sources on the article doesn't make it non-notable automatically, there are few but growing interest about maintaining transportation articles these days. And the article had been expanded and cited now, thanks to the efforts of @Central Data Bank and @Erdem Ozturk 2021. Strong keep I'd say. ahmetlii ^✉ _{(Please ping me on a reply!)} 15:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahmetlii: Is it on a mainline? If so where is that cited in the article? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:17, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:48, 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!} 03:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. The nom withdraw the nomination (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:00, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian literature translated into English

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

This strikes me as an non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:CROSSCAT; perfectly appropriate for a category but failing WP:NLIST under WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE given the massive volume of potential entries in this list. In a WP:BEFORE I find discussion of the concept of Ukrainian literature in translation but not a discussion of these subjects as a group (and the selection of them, if not indiscriminate, appears to be an exercise in original research). Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC) Withdrawn; see below. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Literature, Lists, and Ukraine. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I looked online and there is a lot of SIGCOV about the topic, as noted above (happy to share if needed). I think that the better discussion may be a page split and/or a rename, rather than a deletion, to address to concerns about the page being too long. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please share what you found that covers the grouping of items as a set per WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Almost trivial and dubious criteria. Lorstaking (talk) 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; potentially enormous list of little encyclopedic value, better handled with a WP:CAT. Carguychris (talk) 15:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the list can be made manageable, for example, by limiting entries to works that are notable enough for their own article. As a topic, it seems relevant that Ukrainian literature has historically been isolated and received limited English translation until it received more international attention following the Crimean invasion in 2014 and has been increasingly translated into English.

The best Ukrainian literary classics available in English translations, provides SIGCOV on the history of English translation of Ukrainian literature

UKRAINIAN LITERATURE IN ENGLISH is a comprehensive bibliography of Ukrainian literature in English published by the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press

Just glancing through Google, there are many articles giving recommendations for the best Ukrainian works that have been translated into English (e.g.6 great Ukrainian fiction books available in English, Kyiv Post, Love Ukraine as You Would the Sun: 10 Ukrainian Books Worth Reading in English, Literary Hub)

Photos of Japan (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet. It would be great if other participants could respond to the request for sources. Thanks to those that did.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and keep it manageable by limiting entries to works that are notable enough for their own article per above. BilletsMauves^€500 12:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It appears "keep" !voters are largely in favor of limiting the list to notable works, which does largely address the concerns about indiscriminateness. I'm going to WP:BOLDly change the article to reflect this and will thus withdraw my nomination with a keep !vote. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. I was unable to find other sources that would support this as notable. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabani's School of Accountancy

AfDs for this article:

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

Only sourced with its official website. Non-notable accounting school, fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Info - Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was speedy keep.

Previous discussions: 2014-05 (closed as ✓ speedy keep)

--Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No WP:SIRS sources in either English or Urdu as far as I could tell. No article on the Urdu Wikipedia either, although it seems like it may have had one in the past? I see no indication that this passes WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 13:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. All "keep" opinions must be discounted: Bearian has struck theirs, Helleniac is a blocked sock, CyberTheTiger is merely "per Helleniac", and Snowycats does not address the reasons for deletion. Sandstein 12:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Zone

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

Fails WP:GNG: this is a press release and other articles just briefly mention it. ~~I think WP:TOOSOON applies.~~ Gheus (talk) 16:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The network launched six years ago; was this rationale meant for another nomination? Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "too soon", I mean, the topic could become notable in the future since it involves a TV station, and such channels often receive coverage in academic sources; however, there is currently no coverage. But I linked the wrong essay. Gheus (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think a proper search for sources was done. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I always check other languages' articles for additional references. See the Urdu article, which I can't read, but ironically considering the subject itself, has sources translated from the English language. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian you can read it in English on this link. I did my searches via my Google CSE of Pakistani sources and it lacks significant coverage. Most of the coverage like the launch of channel comes under WP:ORGTRIV. Are you willing to change the !vote? Gheus (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has existed for seven years and seems to have a considerable following per my research. The article has issues and needs thorough editing, not deletion. Helleniac (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per @Helleniac. Cyber the tiger 🐯 (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CyberTheTiger. Please update your rationale. Helleniac's comment has been striked. Gheus (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:TOOSOON seems late to the party here. I see no reason to delete. Snowycats (talk) 03:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Snowycats As stated above, I nominated it because it fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Can you share references which you think meet WP:CORPDEPTH criteria? Gheus (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We just have two sources that are reliable but I doubt it is earned media. This is a "news desk" report and this is an article without a proper byline. WP:SIGCOV requires high-quality references with proper bylines and these two references also fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. Gheus (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, based upon new information, especially a good search and the translation of the article from Urdu provided by Gheus. There are only two reliable sources now, but both just briefly explain how the channel received a government license. That's not significant coverage for a corporation. The individual TV shows might be notable, but not the network. Bearian (talk) 04:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 00:43, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Norman (basketball)

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

I am unable to find enough in-depth coverage from third-party sources to meet WP:GNG. The most I found was routine coverage like this game recap from the Grand Forks Herald or this short piece from Mid-Utah Radio. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, North Dakota, and Utah. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 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!} 02:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep‎. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akane Okuma

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

Cannot find WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. After this article was draftified, it was returned to mainspace with one additional source, but it's a database source that is not SIGCOV. Entirely possible I can't find something here due to the language barrier so please ping me if there's something I missed. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, and Japan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning ~~delete~~, notability is not indicated per the 0 senior games and no included significant coverage. Draftification was a good avenue, but was challenged, so here we are. Geschichte (talk) 12:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google News yields no result for both the Japanese and Romaji name. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Weak Keep per sources belows, I've reviewed them and the Gekisaka (owned by Kodansha), Yahoo News is a good one, but I'm skeptical of the reliablity of myfuna.net. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 22:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Okuma has played for the Japanese U20 national team several times, and has recently been added to the senior Japanese national team, leading to articles like this one, a full profile of her as a player who played all seven games in a recent tournament for the U20 Japan squad, keeping European teams scoreless in some of those matches, and who is expected to make her mark as part of the national squad both now and in the future as the team is currently going through a turnover of veteran players. Absurdum4242 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Absurdum4242 Do you have a second example of WP:SIGCOV to get her over the threshold for WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT? If you do, happy to withdraw the nom, but with only the article you supplied, we aren't there yet. Expected to make her mark is not a criterion for notability, and the article can always be recreated in the future when/if she meets the threshold. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dclemens1971 The “expected to make her mark” was part of me summarising the article for those who refuse to use google translate rather than my opinion, but sure, here’s another article by a different outlet, also a profile of her as a new member of the national squad. Whereas This article is more a profile of her domestic career. I’m thinking three articles should maybe be enough? But honestly, the idea that a professional football player, who has already played at junior international levels, and is then called up to the national squad wouldn’t have gotten enough coverage along the way, even if they are a woman, seems unlikely to me just in general, especially given the “coverage only needs to exist, not to be currently cited in the article as written”. Absurdum4242 (talk) 15:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Draftify~~ – The player in question has just been called up to the Japan national team for the first time, a good chance of reaching WP:SIGCOV in the coming months. Svartner (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per new sources presented. Women's football is relevant enough in Japan to guarantee the article of an International footballer. Svartner (talk) 02:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep based on the additional sources supplied by Absurdum4242. Pinging GiantSnowman, Geschichte, Miminity to review. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above which (allegedly - AGF!) show notability. Giant Snowman 18:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources presented. DCsansei (talk) 14:46, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The subject appears to be notable, but the current article is poorly done. Keep and expand article to include the notable sources mentioned here. Eelipe (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by draftification being the best option, per the severe shortcomings of the existing article. Geschichte (talk) 13:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ LibStar (talk) 08:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Greg Young (planner)

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

An orphan article with a lot of grand claims but only 2 citations. He is an adjunct professor and not full professor (which would grant him notability from WP:PROF), a google scholar search yielded little, there is a namesake in the USA. Fails WP:AUTHOR and WP:PROF. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~. He seems to have several authored/edited academic books with respectable citations (eg Reshaping planning with culture (Routledge; 2008), The Routledge Research Companion to Planning and Culture (editor; Routledge; 2016)) and there are several other books listed in the article -- most likely source of notability will be as an author. ETA: The article highlighted in the article looks to be "The culturization of planning" (in Planning Theory, 2008) which has 52 citns in GS; I don't know the area well enough to know if that's significant or not. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the 3 reviews below for Reshaping Planning with Culture there is JSTOR 26165901; the co-edited Ashgate/Routledge Research Companion to Planning and Culture (most citns are of the Ashgate edition) has doi:10.1177/0739456X16675470 & doi:10.1177/0265813515620979 (via Ebsco). I'm leaning keep as a diligent search in databases more planning focused than JSTOR/Ebsco is likely to find more reviews. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is false that being a full professor would grant notability. Full professors are often notable but it is not an automatic consequence of their title. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looks like he passes WP:NAUTHOR — here are three reviews of his book "Reshaping Planning with Culture": [45] [46] [47]. This was just a quick search based on one of his books, so I expect there are probably reviews for his other books out there. MCE89 (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR. I added the five reviews described above as references to the article, together with one more for Reshaping Planning With Culture and two for Paddington: A History. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. I reviewed the sources and was able to find some that were in the article. I did WP:BEFORE and was not able to find new sources. The translations from Turkish to English were not very helpful. I don't believe that this article passes WP:GNG at this time or in it's current state. If the author wants to recreate this content it might be beneficial to add the battle to another article to bring in a greater understanding of the historical context. Dr vulpes (Talk) 06:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Arbijan

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

Likely hoax or misreading of sources. I searched in English Arabic and Turkish and found no sources at all. Creator has a record of writing dubious battle articles that get deleted. The second isbn number is dummy and the first one is real but inaccessibile. Mccapra (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Islam, and Uzbekistan. Mccapra (talk) 20:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not misread the sources and I share them on sites like X as much as I can. Since some of the books are printed in Turkish, their English pages may not match, but I can prove this with visuals. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[48] Kurya Khan (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see, I have confirmed the sources I provided. It is not true that the information I gave is a scam. If you wish, you can read the links I sent you and see that I wrote the truth. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

712 Battle of Samarkand.. Kurya Khan (talk) 20:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HistoryofIran I have provided links to Turkish and English sources regarding the battle, and i can give you more if you wish. It is a completely inadequate conclusion that the article is a hoax and i request that it not be deleted Kurya Khan (talk) 20:44, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant to tag Mccapra? The first two links are Twitter posts and the third is a page of a book which doesn't even mention Arbijan. HistoryofIran (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter links because this is how I was able to post Turkish sources with visuals. The third one says that the Turks were defeated in Samarkand in 712. Kurya Khan (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:CITE, WP:VER and WP:NOTABLE. HistoryofIran (talk) 23:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no need to post a twitter link to a photo of a page of a book if the book is published by a respectable publisher. There will generally be a google books version and sometimes other online-readable or downloadable versions. If you post links to those in this discussion we can all review them. There are plenty of people who can read Turkish in English Wikipedia. Mccapra (talk) 07:41, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mccapra's comments. --HistoryofIran (talk) 10:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing... Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:52, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mayors of places in Wyoming

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY that fails WP:NLIST. Lists such as these are hard to maintain since local offices frequently change. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete per WP:NOTDIR and as the nominator says, just common sense: it's likely to be inaccurate. Also, one does wonder where the sourcing is.... Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Lists of people, and Wyoming. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We've established a consensus against this kind of thing (see e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current mayors in Oklahoma, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of mayors in Alberta, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of council leaders in the United Kingdom), precisely because (as noted above) the information can become quickly outdated: it's likely to get updated quickly if a mayor of Casper or Cheyenne resigns or dies, because that would almost certainly be reported as news widely enough that somebody will see and update it promptly, but mayoral changes in small towns like Byron, La Barge or Ten Sleep are much more likely to get missed due to a lack of widespread coverage and attention. We've routinely seen that when such lists have been attempted in the past: the major cities whose mayoral changes get reported by major media as news get updated promptly when a mayoral change occurs, but the small towns whose mayoral changes only get reported in the local pennysaver without making it into major media do not, causing the list to quickly become inaccurate and out of date — so we just don't do this, because we can't guarantee the ability to stay immediately on top of every future change for every place in the list. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 delete‎. ✗plicit 00:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Impact of COVID-19 on Asian American Women

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

This reads as a WP:RFORK of Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic with respect to the section on Asian-Americans in the United States, and is a implausible redirect. Barely different enough to not qualify for WP:A10. -1ctinus📝🗨 00:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Ethnic groups, COVID-19, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry, you lost me at "authentic Chinese food". This reads like a bad high school essay. Sufficient coverage in other articles about the pandemic, as explained. Oaktree b (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an essay, not an encyclopedic article. Also, women aren't mentioned in the body of the article at all. pburka (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it was written as part of a university course assignment, valiant effort on the student's behalf, but sadly doesn't meet wiki standards for a stand-alone article. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Pburka. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @Oaktree b, @Pburka and WP:NOTESSAY. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 02:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, extremely poorly written. Sushidude21! (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - More about racism than covid: "Despite a relative decline in some types of prejudice in recent decades, persistent biases still exist and have had a substantially detrimental effect on communities of color—particularly a few Asian American-related small business models" — Maile (talk) 03:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this inappropriate student contribution, and encourage @Brianda (Wiki Ed): to make sure that the students on the course are being taught properly (icnluding being encouraged to put note on article talk page), so that they will have a positive experience of editing. PamD 09:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- The class ended on January 18, so based on past experience, I would be surprised if we ever see the students from this course edit Wikipedia again. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes, this article misses the mark. If anyone is interested in this area, they should also take a look at the article of which it's a WP:RFORK, Xenophobia and racism related to the COVID-19 pandemic. The main article, instead of being a good overview of the background, the interaction of xenophobia/racism and covid during the pandemic, governmental responses to the xenophobia, sociological issues that arose from it, etc. (with links to good secondary sources), is just a random rag-bag of headlines grabbed from newspapers as the pandemic unrolled (note the copious use of present tense, and sentences referring to "now", "has been charged" etc. instead of indicating when the event happened). It contains such treasures as: "On 30 January 2020, a postgraduate student walking alone while wearing a face mask on West Street in Sheffield city centre, towards the University of Sheffield, was verbally abused and nudged by three people." - no doubt a horrible experience for the person who got nudged, but I'm not quite sure what it's doing in an encyclopedia. Elemimele (talk) 17:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While delete is not cleanup, there are no literature for this specific topic to warrant an inclusion. I would be willing to change my !vote if sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:12, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 21

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · View on Wikipedia