Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 7

< January 06 January 08 >

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 delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni Antonaglia

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

Created by a single purpose editor. Searching in google news and google books yields very little, as well as Australian database trove. Fails WP:BIO. Having a medal of the Order of Australia does not confer automatic notability. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 7 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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Buckingham's Light Infantry ("The Sky Blues")

[edit]
Duke of Buckingham's Light Infantry ("The Sky Blues") (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been trying to hold back on nominating articles for deletion given my history of inadequately searching beforehand, but this seems like a really obvious deletion to the point where I probably should have just prodded it. Not only does the specific fictional element appear of dubious notability at a glance, but I can't even find any information about these alleged novels themselves (the name of the series is not given, and I don't see results online for either of this article's two sources). The author, John Mackenzie appears to be a genuine historian, but all of the works of his that I'm finding appear to be nonfiction. While this article seems like an obvious delete regardless, I'd still be very curious if someone could manage to track down the series this is from. Anonymous 22:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete — (very strong) — The creator Hotspur23 is an active editor. Perhaps they can explain. Looking through the edit history, “volume one” was at one point described as “?” It is now named The Swan on the Bugle Horn and “volume two” is Gideon's Sword Bearers, neither of which return any results on Google. I’m just at a loss. This is either a series which is so non-notable that it doesn’t have any returns whatsoever (pretty rare) — in which case a fictional regiment within such a series would most certainly not be notable — or it’s patent nonsense, which I find hard to believe. Or perhaps it’s incredibly old? Is historian Professor John M. MacKenzie the author? This is my first “delete” vote that I’ve ever classified as “very strong.” I’m honestly slightly shocked it’s survived this long, no offense towards Hotspur23 intended. MWFwiki (talk) 20:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless Hotspur can come forward with a good explanation on what this is. As it stands it seems to be on subjects in a subject we can't even verify the existence of, let alone be able to get SIGCOV out of. Best off deleted for now given the distinct lack of coverage and overall obscurity of these guys and their series. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Very surprised this stayed up for so long, but I suppose better late than never. Madeleine (talk) 18:00, 14 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. I see a consensus among participants to Keep this article despite two editors offering arguments for Deletion. Editors can debate proper comma usage in article titles on the article talk page. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash

[edit]
2018 Crozet, Virginia, train crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. Train-truck accidents are very common in the United States. The only reason this specific incident got so much coverage is because there happened to be some politicians on the train. CutlassCiera 21:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Epluribusunumyall: The second comma is correct - see MOS:GEOCOMMA. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535 I get what MOS:GEOCOMMA is trying to relay, but my reading of it is more in regards to sentences within an article and not the title of an article. For a title it doesn't really make grammatical sense - in my opinion - to have the second comma create a parenthetical of just "train crash," as it leaves context lacking from the rest of the title sentence. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 06:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. According to NOTNEWS, "not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." Yes, this event has been shown to be verifiable by this discussion, and nothing more. Verifiable does not equal suitability for inclusion.
In fact, the sections entitled "Crash" and "Investigation and criminal charges" are packed with banal and detailed information just like news reporting. This shows that there is nothing derived from the sources that shows a notable impact. It is as if Wikipedia had a news reporter on the scene.
At the same time, Wikipedia has adopted a summary style for its articles, and this is not that. NOTNEWS specifically says "...most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." And notice, news style is specifically linked to this notability criteria and so correlates with this portion of the ISNOT policy page. So, this demonstrates a contradiction with the notability criteria related to this topic and discussion.
Also, LASTING is not satisfied here. There are two news articles about the inebriated truck driver about a year after the crash. This does not fit the criteria for LASTING. To be LASTING per the notability criteria "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else. This may include effects on the views and behaviors of society and legislation". No such effects have been described in relation to this accident.
Additionally, LASTING says, " Events that have a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance are likely to be notable." Sorry, but two articles on an inebriated truck driver a year later, does not appear to demonstrate that this crash has resulted in "a permanent effect of historical significance." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree - WP:LASTING is usually interpreted as having an impact longer than just the news cycle of the event, which is clearly the case here. I've never actually seen the text from WP:LASTING quoted, and it's also not exclusionary. The Crash and Investigation and criminal charges sections you malign are also exactly the type of sections train crash articles have. This really isn't a difficult keep. SportingFlyer T·C 17:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreement is fine - it is just your personal opinion and doesn't speak for fulfilling notability criteria. And having an "impact longer than a news cycle" is not at all what LASTING says, or indicates or or implies. And that view is not the consensus view. The consensus view is the the wording of LASTING. However, anyone is welcome to open a Wikipedia wide RFC to change it to the preferred version that is being presented.
Also, two trivial news articles on an inebriated truck driver does not show any kind of impact that resulted in a lasting effect. The essence of LASTING is there has to be sourced notable impact(s). How is the story of the inebriated truck driver, the lasting impact from the previous year's collision between a train and a truck? Where's the course of history that was changed? Where is the legislation that was enacted? And so on?
So, in other words the course of history that was significantly altered was a drunk truck driver (who was not charged with anything). That does not make sense at all. It's as if we are being told that one plus one equals thirty-five. Also, comparing this article with other articles doesn't satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria — no matter what sections of other articles say. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're interpreting the policy too literally versus how it's typically applied at AfD. There was a death, six people were injured, and the event received news discussion long after the event occurred. All of those help to satisfy LASTING. SportingFlyer T·C 04:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While common occurrence this one stood out and had a notable coverage. However the article title needs work. Onikaburgers (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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! 22:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bretz Mill, California

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

Long-defunct sawmill magically transformed into an "unincorporated community" by the notorious Carlossuarez46. PROD was removed on the basis that several sources exist that mention this place (see article talk), but all of these very clearly describe it as a sawmill and not a community, e.g. [3], which was written contemporaneously with the mill. Mills are subject to WP:GNG or WP:NCORP which are categorically failed here, because all coverage is passing mentions, nothing significant about the mill could be found. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:35, 7 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 Lists of hospitals in Europe. Liz Read! Talk! 23:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Jersey

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

Garbage article. A list article is clearly not needed to list two active hospitals and one former hospital. Elshad (talk) 21:53, 7 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. Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abduction of Jack Carter Rhoads, Jake and Callum Robinson

[edit]
Abduction of Jack Carter Rhoads, Jake and Callum Robinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT. Almost nothing past the week this happened. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 7 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. I'm going to note for the record here that "the subject seems familiar" was not factored into this close as that is not in any way a valid argument to keep an article. If this hadn't already been relisted twice I would have done that instead. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corentin Rahier

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 17:24, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep: The subject seems familiar, I suggest the article be worked on instead given the references provided by Liz
Cameremote, I don't know what you are talking about, I didn't provide any references, I just relisted this discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kolano123, the subject "seeming" to be familiar is not a reason for Keeping an article. This is also what Cameremote stated. What did you think of the sourcing? Did you search for any additional sources? If you are not going to spend time investigating the article and its sources, please do not comment. Liz Read! Talk! 00:23, 12 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! 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
West of Scotland Schools Symphony Orchestra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Last AfD was 17 years ago and no consensus. I'm not seeing any extensive coverage to meet GNG or WP:BAND. LibStar (talk) 18:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not enough WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources. See below. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Google Books link above produces false positives only. Google News link above produces single sentence mentions, or people claiming to have been part of the orchestra. Searched The Wikipedia Library, no results for WSSSO, one result for the full name, which is a single sentence mention in this article. Google Scholar produces three results, of which both the second result (download link) and the third result both only mention the orchestra twice while referencing the research done by the first result. The first result is the only SIGCOV I could find. The researchers administered an online survey to 41 WSSSO youth in 2009 containing many Likert-style questions about their experience, and three open-ended questions: "why did you decide to take part ... why do you continue to take part ... what would stop you taking part? The article is entitled "Advanced youth music ensembles: Experiences of, and reasons for, participation", so it seems to discuss the experiences of being in an ensemble, rather than being a comprehensive history of WSSSO. starship.paint (talk / cont) 14:51, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Update - found 32 results on Newspapers.com. First result is SIGCOV, founding of the orchestra. But the rest of the results are more sketchy and WP:ROUTINE - advertisements, concert announcements and single sentence mentions (Person X is joining the orchestra / the orchestra is performing at location Y). I do not think this is enough. starship.paint (talk / cont) 08:02, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already brought to AFD before so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:17, 7 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. asilvering (talk) 04:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frog Detective (disambiguation)

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

No topics with the exact title. GilaMonster536 (talk) 21:16, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:13, 7 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mirpur district, India

[edit]
(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)

These articles do not satisfy WP:GNG as there is insufficient independent and in-depth coverage in reliable sources to justify their existence. The claim of the districts being part of India de jure primarily relies on sources mentioning the Indian government’s release of maps in 2019 depicting the districts as part of India. Separate articles are unnecessary for this aspect, as the existing Mirpur District, Muzaffarabad District and Kashmir conflict articles can address India’s inclusion of these districts on its maps as part of the broader Kashmir dispute. These articles were previously CSD’d, but the author has repeatedly restored them. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:59, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Simply put, the boundaries of the districts are not the same. India's boundaries reflect those pre-1947 in the area, whilst Pakistan has redrawn the boundaries since then. To respond to your point, China's Medog County claims the territory that India administers largely as the Upper Siang district, yet both articles exist separately. Furthermore, there aren't any maps from Pakistan showing district level boundaries beyond the LoC, so the debate about why they haven't been created is moot. --Rvd4life (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you formatted this AFD correctly (which is often done incorrectly in bundled nominations so kudos on that) but you didn't tag the article with an AFD tag. If you find it a challenge with Twinkle, in this case, you could cut and paste the AFD tag from the primary article under discussion here. But since the discussion has gone on for a week and I'm not sure if the participants considered the second article, I'm going to relist the discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting discussion as there is not a strong consensus and to consider both articles for deletion consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:12, 7 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. Dclemens1971's argument is interesting but doesn't seem to have convinced anyone. Happy to userify for anyone who wants to have a go at that, but do consider Steve Quinn's argument first. asilvering (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Pennsylvania Turnpike crash

[edit]
2020 Pennsylvania Turnpike crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:LASTING and also WP:NEVENT CutlassCiera 23:34, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Again, this is not a question of if YOU think this subject is notable but what reliable sources say. Our own opinions are not relevant. A source review would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:35, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 21:11, 7 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. Complex/Rational 21:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gurukul (film)

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

Author and main contributor of this article is directly connected to the subject of said article. This article has minimal citations which would make it fail WP:NOTE. TansoShoshen (talk) 20:02, 7 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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connolly Mill

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

Only reference is to source the history of the county in which the mill was supposedly located, can't find any references that support the place actually existed. Definitely fails WP:GNG. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:20, 7 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. Complex/Rational 21:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York Post Presents: Luigi Mangione Monster or Martyr?

[edit]
New York Post Presents: Luigi Mangione Monster or Martyr? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any coverage in non-WP:PRIMARY sources. मल्ल (talk) 20:20, 7 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. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyner Rushing

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, notability for actors is not automatically passed just because they've had acting roles -- the test doesn't hinge on listing acting roles, it hinges on showing reliable source coverage about them and their performances to establish the significance of those roles. But this is referenced entirely to unreliable sources that are not support for notability -- IMDb, a YouTube clip and a Q&A interview in which she's answering questions in the first person -- with absolutely no evidence of third-party coverage about her shown at all.
Obviously no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she has a stronger notability claim than just existing and better sourcing for the significance of her career, but working actors are not automatically exempted from having to pass WP:GNG just because they exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey thanks again for helping me make the page more credible. To sum up, I added about 10 references - credible news coverage showing she is an actress of notability and needs a Wikipedia page. She is a lead on my favorite Apple TV television show. I propose we remove Tyner Rushing from the deletion discussion list. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, a lot of work has gone into this article, can we have a review of newly added sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 19:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In my first go at the page, I listed 5 references. About 13 more have been added by myself and others since then. News articles, press interviews, Deadline and Variety casting announcements make up the majority of links. Slamdunkeroo (talk) 00:50, 8 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Mishra

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

Non-notable Karate coach, no coverage in reliable sources. Declined by Bonadea see [14] and just after the decline the Draft was moved to mainspace by the creator, see [15]. Previous deletions can be checked here, [16]. Taabii (talk) 17:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete It does appear to be a likely COI. More importantly, I can't find what I would call significant independent coverage of him by independent sources. I found no mentions of him at the WKF website or in the results of any major adult karate competition--not Commonwealth, continental, or world championships. I see no evidence of him meeting any WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 00:12, 9 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Intresseklubben antecknar

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

Nonenglish dicdef for a rare Swedish slang phrase --Altenmann >talk 17:16, 7 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 Doctor Who characters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omega (Doctor Who)

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

My BEFORE yielded practically nothing for Omega. News yielded only content farm articles explaining lore, theorizing about the series, or trivial mentions of the character (The bulk of which were unreliable or belonged to WP:VALNET). Some reviews for his titular episodes were included, but do not include significant coverage that extends beyond the episode itself. Books yielded nothing barring plot summary, trivial mentions, and some brief BTS info, none of which contributes to notability. There's one brief-ish hit in "Religion in Doctor Who", but one source is nowhere near enough for notability. Scholar yielded nothing. The current article sourcing state primarily utilizes PRIMARY sources, trivial mentions, content farm content from Valnet, and one bit of dev info that doesn't contribute to notability. This subject fails WP:GNG and has no WP:SIGCOV. There's a couple different potential articles that can be used as AtDs, such as List of Doctor Who supporting characters and Time Lord, but I am admittedly unsure of which works best. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The subject fails WP:GNG and is deficient in WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 19:14, 7 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 Four Nationals Figure Skating Championships. Daniel (talk) 22:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Three National Figure Skating Championships

[edit]
2010 Three National Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
2011 Three Nationals Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2012 Three Nationals Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2013 Three Nationals Figure Skating Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable articles that have been around for over a decade and never had a single source/reference that established notability for these yearly events. Every single edit since creation never had a source added. No in-depth coverage exists and all criteria of notability are not met.

Very similar to a bunch of national figure skating articles nominated in recent days. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:48, 7 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 with hope that the sources found here get incorporated into the article. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kdan Mobile

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

No properly reliable sources, seemingly written by someone affiliated. Found a profile on CommonWealth Magazine (Taiwan), but that is not enough for company notability. IgelRM (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Yan, Lou-you 顏漏有 (2022). 新創成長的關鍵：解開台灣新創企業從0到10億元的祕密 [The Key to Startup Growth: Unveiling the Secrets Behind Taiwanese Startups' Journey from $0 to $1 Billion] (in Chinese). Taipei: Business Weekly Publications 商周出版. ISBN 978-626-318-392-6. Retrieved 2024-12-29 – via Google Books.

      The book notes: "創業之初,正好抓住App發展初期,競爭者不多,當時蘋果應用程式商店 ( App Store)上的App總數還不到一千個,但凱鈿可以開發出上百個不同的 App,營收穩定成長,但沒多久,他們的發展、成長開始出現瓶頸。除了越來 越多新進開發者及大公司投入App開發,加上免費App的選擇變多,競爭加劇, 若要吸引使用者,勢必要加大行銷投資。另一個本質上的問題在於,使用者是 採取一次性付費買服務,但公司仍要持續提供維運,長久下去,不利於公司成長。"

      From Google Translate: "At the beginning of the business, Kdan caught the early stage of App development and there were not many competitors. At that time, the total number of Apps on the Apple App Store was less than a thousand, but Kdan could develop hundreds of different Apps, and the business Revenues grew steadily, but before long, bottlenecks began to appear in their development and growth. In addition to more and more new developers and large companies investing in App development, as well as the increasing number of free App choices and intensifying competition, it is necessary to increase marketing investment if you want to attract users. Another fundamental problem is that users pay a one-time fee for services, but the company still has to continue to provide maintenance and operation. In the long run, it is not conducive to the company's growth."

      The book notes: "然而,過去的模式主要靠著多樣化產品在支撐,精簡後,營收規模自然大 受影響,公司營運陷入極大困境,幾位創辦人不得不向員工承認錯誤,抵押、 賣地、信用卡借款,這些創業故事中常見的情節,也在凱鈿發生。"

      From Google Translate: "However, the past model was mainly supported by diversified products. After streamlining, the revenue scale was naturally greatly affected, and the company's operations were in great difficulties. The founders had to admit their mistakes to the employees, resorting to pledging assets, selling land, and borrowing on credit cards—common scenarios in startup stories, which also occurred at Kdan."

    2. "新創的國際化策略及管理精準掌握海外企業需求,他擁800萬會員走向B2B" [The Internationalization Strategy of Startups and Management: Precisely Understanding Overseas Business Needs, With 8 Million Members Moving Towards B2B]. BusinessNext 數位時代 (in Chinese). December 2020. pp. 50–51. Retrieved 2024-12-29 – via Google Books.

      The article notes: "2015 年,除了商業模式「轉彎」,凱鈿也開始收斂 App的開發數量,蘇柏州當時梳理出3個主要產品 線,包括 Document 365、Creativity 365 及Kdan Cloud。 直到 2019 年,團隊才又端出另一條產品線:點點簽 DottedSign。自高峰時期1年52款App,到深耕3~ 4款系列產品,他們開始專注於產品的整合,以提供更 好服務來維持用戶。2019 年,凱鈿訂閱戶的續訂率達8成、截至目前也 累積了 800 萬註冊會員,其中有約3萬筆企業客戶名 單,成為他們推廣SaaS服務的起點。"

      From Google Translate: "In 2015, in addition to the "turn" in its business model, Kdan also began to curb the number of app development. Subazhou sorted out three main product lines at that time, including Document 365, Creativity 365 and Kdan Cloud. It wasn’t until 2019 that the team launched another product line: DottedSign. From the peak of 52 apps per year to 3 to 4 product series, they began to focus on product integration to provide better services to maintain users. In 2019, the renewal rate of Kdan's subscribers reached 80%, and it has accumulated 8 million registered members so far, including about 30,000 corporate customer lists, which has become the starting point for them to promote SaaS services."

    3. Li, I-Ju 李宜儒 (2023-12-03). "台南億級APP一哥1／累計超過2億次的下載量　從閱讀器打造生態系" [Tainan's Billion-Level App Leader: Over 200 Million Downloads, Building an Ecosystem from a Reader]. Want Weekly (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.

      The article notes: "CTWANT記者調查，Kdan，其實是2009年在台南永康起家的本土APP軟體公司｢凱鈿」（Kdan），以APP搶快搶多求生，但在免費APP海量出現後險遭滅頂，轉而聚焦PDF工具用程式，並推出訂閱制服務，定期根據用戶反饋進行更新，獲得用戶好評，在2016年起獲得天使投資新台幣4000萬元，2018年完成A輪募資500萬美元（約新台幣1.5億元），由美商中經合集團、達盈管理顧問及日本Accord Ventures等共同投資。"

      From Google Translate: "According to CTWANT reporter's investigation, Kdan is actually a local APP software company "Kdan" (Kdan) founded in Yongkang, Tainan in 2009. It used APPs to grab the quickest and the most in order to survive. However, it was nearly wiped out after the massive emergence of free APPs, and it instead focused on PDFs. Tool program, and launched a subscription-based service, which is regularly updated based on user feedback, and has won praise from users. Since 2016, it has received angel investment of NT$40 million. In 2018, it completed the A-round fundraising of US$5 million (approximately NT$150 million). Yuan), jointly invested by the US-China Economic Cooperation Group, Daying Management Consultants and Japan's Accord Ventures."

    4. Lin, Joyce (2020-10-05). "The Top Taiwanese App Company You Never Heard Of". CommonWealth Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-11-14. Retrieved 2024-12-29.

      The article notes: "Lman Chu (朱宜振), the founder and CEO of blockchain startup BiiLabs, said Kdan’s choice at its inception to develop “tool apps” was smart because those apps resonate across borders, helping penetrate overseas markets and build overseas teams. Not coincidentally, Kdan has focused mainly on users in Western countries. At present, the United States is Kdan’s biggest market, accounting for 40 percent of its revenues, with another 25 percent coming from Europe, 20 percent from China, 5 percent from Japan, and 10 percent from the rest of the world. Kdan’s apps have gained strong followings in the West because users see them as native English-language products."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kdan Mobile (traditional Chinese: 凱鈿; simplified Chinese: 凯钿) 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) 10:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for searching:
1. Mentions Asia America Multitechnology Association, does not appear particular independent?
2. A trade source, I found this about page.
3. Covers Kdan Office, Generative AI and Hancom, a bit about Kdan and an interview with chair 蘇柏州.
4. (I will note that I had already linked CommonWealth mag in my nomination).
So I don't think the sources here are extraordinary.
Edit: Had accidentally swapped 1 and 2. I found a profile on chinatimes.com, a rather promotional article on businesstoday.com.tw and one comparison to Adobe by Techcrunch. IgelRM (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I consider the first source to be independent. It is unclear to me where Asia America Multitechnology Association is mentioned and why this would mean the source is not independent. BusinessNext is a business magazine focused on the technology and Internet sectors, which has a much broader scope than a trade magazine dedicated to a particular field. I consider it to be sufficiently independent to establish notability. The third and fourth sources include enough independent reporting and analysis about Kdan Mobile to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1. The description on GBooks says: "AAMA台北搖籃計畫十週年的智慧傳承
顏漏有校長首本著作". I'm unsure if I understand correctly but AAMA refers to aforementioned association.
2. The magazine appears specifically about startups and management, so I'm unsure how to evaluate but I agree it contributes.
3. It also needs to be WP:SIGCOV of the company specifically. The Chinatimes profile (by the same publisher) is certainly but I don't know how business profiles are evaluated.
@Madeleine961 Could you look into this again?

Edit: I am asking because the founder is listed on AAMA Taipei. About Cradle Project IgelRM (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I've stricken the first source as based on your explanation as it may not be independent of the subject. Cunard (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like further review of these new sources. Remember, they do not have to be "extraordinary", just sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found some sources such as

Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS: Techcrunch is situational and funding news doesn't give company notability. AWN is about the animation software and the last two, unsure if reliable, about the PDF software, specifically. IgelRM (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article needs to be supplemented with references found as above, but in general it demonstrates the company's importance through credible sources and contributions --Kej Keir (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC) Editor blocked for advertising/promotion Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - At least for now. IgelRM raised some valid concerns and asked if this could be looked at again, but there has been no further work. In the meantime a load more sources were added. The relist comment requests a source review. Here is mine.
    This is a company therefore WP:NCORP requires multiple deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information on the company per WP:ORGDEPTH. Per WP:ORGIND, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That is, references cannot rely only on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even where such information has been reworded. If it isn't clearly independent content then it fails ORGIND. My analysis of all the sources provided in this AfD follows:
Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Secondary? Overall value toward ORGCRIT
New Creation and Growth - Unravel the secret of Taiwan's startups from 0 to 1 billion yuan [18]
 Yes Yes Published by Business Week Publishing apparently. That would make it generally reliable for business news. No This appears to be a very short mention in a book attempting to survey Taiwan's startup landscape. There is some information about their products, but it seems to be quite limited. When discussing ORGGDEPTH, NCORP discusses coverage that meets the guideline. It says: Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. That is not what we have here. It may be there is more in this book, but I don't read the language and don't have the book. But I expect this is all there is Yes
Business Next Issue 319 [19]
 Because of the source it is not certain this meets WP:ORGIND Yes Apparently a book but actually a magazine. A trade source. No As for the above, WP:ORGDEPTH is not met with the level of coverage here which is primarily about the apps and not about the business. Yes News reporting aspects are primary, but the question being asked of this source would make company information secondary. There is just not much there.
I cannot tell if this is independent or not as I do not speak the language and investigating only with Google Translate. I would give it a pass if it were a clear pass elsewhere, but it is not. Yes Appears to be a reputable and bylined publication in an edited magazine (probably web only). No Once again, mostly about products and the little about the company does not meet ORGDEPTH. Yes It appears to be relying on some other reporting and is not itself news reporting.
Yes Bylined Joyce Lin, who has authored multiple articles. Web only article, but no indication this is not independent Yes As far as I can see this is a web only article from a reputable outlet with an editorial process. No obvious reliability concerns. I note that this profile was mentioned in the nomination. Yes Meets WP:ORGDEPTH Yes
TechCrunch [20] [21] [22] - Multiple articles from the same source count as one under WP:SIRS
 – Partial. Startup funding reporting is independent, but the third article, in particular, is based on information coming from Kenny Su, and does not meet [{WP:ORGIND]]. Yes I believe they are considered reliable. Trade source. – There is little information about the company that is independent. What is independent is not significant per ORGDEPTH. No Three news reports about the startup. These are news reports - primary sources.
TechinAsia [23]
 – Partial. The article is occasioned by a bit of news (and that information is primary), but what Kenny Su says about the company is not independent. Yes I believe it is reliable, although I haven't fully investigated. No Founded in 2009, Kdan Mobile provides digital productivity and content creation platforms. This is followed by a quote from Kenny Su and a product plug, but that is not independent. This, therefore, does not provide SIGCOV at CORPDEPTH. – This source is occasioned news report for series B funding. The news report element is primary, but analysis would be secondary. Nevertheless, what we have does not meet ORGIND, which is a general problem for series B funding articles. These are startups promoting themselves.
AWN [24]
 No "Source: Kdan Mobile". Although it is bylined, this appears to be based ona. press release, and the download link has a cimmission based tracker link. – It is reliable for reviews about animation software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any. No All about "Free Animation Desk App Available for Download". There is no information at all about the company, let alone any ORGDEPTH coverage. Yes Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company
Techworm [25]
 No Download link has a tracker to generate commission – It is reliable for reviews about Windows software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any. No All about KDAN PDF Reader, and nothing at all on KDAN the company. Just Yes Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company
Windows Report [26]
 No "We may get a commission if you buy through our links" – It is reliable for reviews about Windows software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any. No All about KDAN PDF Reader, and nothing at all on KDAN the company. Just Yes Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company

So we have one good source (already mentioned in the nomination), but we need multiple sources. The first of Cunard's might be worth revisiting, or there may be more elsewhere, but at this point we are not past WP:NCORP. I would like to revise my opinion, but I do not see the sources yet. Hopefully more can be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: The BusinessNext and Want Weekly articles discuss the company's history and several of its products. If the sources just focused on a specific product, that would not be significant coverage of the company. But when as is the case here, the sources provide an overview of the company's products while profiling the company, the sources provide significant coverage of the company. Here are additional sources I found:
    1. Chu, Yung-kuang 朱永光 (2016-11-01). "〈薪火新苗〉本土App商冒出頭 打造亞洲Adobe" [〈New Sparks and New Shoots〉 Local Taiwanese App Developer Emerges, Aims to Build "Asian Adobe"]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B4.

      United Daily News's Yung-kuang Chu writes the column "New Sparks and New Shoots" (Chinese: 薪火新苗), which is published every other Tuesday. I found a copy of this column in the United Daily News archives. There is a copy of the column on a blog which says it has been "reproduced with the permission of the author". The article notes: "曾獲選美國Apple App Store年度最佳娛樂與工具類應用廠商，所開發的產品多次以最值得購買、蘋果員工最愛、熱門精選、主題推薦登上App Store首頁，預計今年底將突破全球1億下載量，如此亮眼的成績，是來自台南的台灣本土開發商凱釹行動科技（Kdan Mobile Software）。"

      From Google Translate: "Kdan Mobile Software, a Taiwan-based developer from Tainan, has been recognised as one of the best entertainment and tools developers on the U.S. Apple App Store. Its products have repeatedly been featured on the App Store's homepage, including as "Most Worth Buying," "Apple Staff Favorites," "Popular Picks," and "Recommended Themes." The company is expected to surpass 100 million downloads worldwide by the end of this year. This impressive achievement is the result of the efforts of Kdan Mobile, a local Taiwanese company founded in 2009."

      The article notes: "成立於2009年，創辦人蘇柏州早年任職於工研院，在App Store推出後不久，看准其發展潛力及商業模式，即著手投入研發此一新程式語言。有別於其他App開發商，凱釷長期深耕行動閱讀、多媒體創作、繪圖與影像編輯等領域，以「亞洲Adobe」的定位進軍國際市場，鎖定喜歡塗鴉及從事創作的族群，打造完善的數位內容創作工具。"

      From Google Translate: "Founded by Su Bo-Chou, who previously worked at the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), Kdan Mobile started developing mobile applications shortly after the App Store's launch, seeing the potential and business opportunities in this new development platform. Unlike other app developers, Kdan Mobile has focused on areas such as mobile reading, multimedia creation, drawing, and image editing. It has positioned itself as "Asia's Adobe" and aims to serve the international market, targeting users who enjoy doodling and creative work, offering a complete suite of digital content creation tools."

      The article notes: "相較於以PC為主的Adobe，凱釷更早打入行動裝置市場。旗下主力產品NoteLedge、PDF Markup、Animation Desk、Write-On Video、Pocket Scanner，簡易、直覺式的操作界面是最大特色，大幅降低使用者的學習門檻，即使沒有受過專業設計訓練，也能輕鬆上手、享受創作所帶來的樂趣。"

      From Google Translate: "Compared to Adobe, which is mainly focused on PC-based software, Kdan Mobile entered the mobile device market much earlier. Its flagship products, such as NoteLedge, PDF Markup, Animation Desk, Write-On Video, and Pocket Scanner, feature simple and intuitive interfaces, making them accessible even to users without professional design training. This approach lowers the learning curve significantly, enabling anyone to easily start creating and enjoy the process of content creation."

    2. Peng, Tzu-hao 彭子豪 (2021-11-17). "凱鈿業務專一 入選 新創明日之星" [Kdan Mobile's Focused Business Selected as the "Next Big Star" of Taiwan's Startup Scene]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. C8.

      The article notes: "為讓台灣新創企業能立足國際及展現能見度，國發會推動NEXT BIG新創明日之星計畫，首波9家新創在總統蔡英文的站台下公布，其中軟體服務商凱鈿行動科技備受矚目，其因該公司是南部少數別具規模的軟體開發商，2009年成立至今軟體下載更累積超過2億次。"

      From Google Translate: "To help Taiwanese startups gain a foothold internationally and showcase their visibility, the National Development Council (NDC) launched the "Next Big Star" startup program. The first batch of nine startups was announced under the patronage of President Tsai Ing-wen, with Kdan Mobile Technology, a software service provider, receiving significant attention. The company, one of the few sizable software developers in southern Taiwan, has accumulated over 200 million software downloads since its founding in 2009."

      The article notes: "隨著Adobe進入行動服務、蘋果iOS開放對於PDF檔的支援，下載量下滑成為當時凱鈿行動科技的一大挑戰，為此在2012年公司獲資策會旗下資鼎創投基金，加上公司現金水位還不差，進而加強產品深度外，積極參加國內外各大、小軟體賽事，無形中提高公司能見度，並於2013至14年間推出跨平台文件管理服務。"

      From Google Translate: "However, as Adobe entered the mobile service market and Apple's iOS began supporting PDF files, Kdan Mobile faced the challenge of a declining download rate. To address this, the company secured investment from the Institute for Information Industry's (III) Vanguard Venture Capital Fund in 2012. With strong cash flow, the company deepened its product offerings and actively participated in both domestic and international software competitions, raising its visibility. In 2013 and 2014, the company launched a cross-platform document management service."

    3. Chen, Hui-chen 陳惠珍 (2014-03-20). "微型創業－創業心法創業就是做自己擅長且喜歡做的事。 凱鈿App開發 行動玩家按讚 蘇柏州成功挺進歐美，成立５年來全球下載突破2,000萬次，下一步強攻陸、日市場" [Micro-Entrepreneurship – The Mindset of Entrepreneurship: It's about doing what you’re good at and passionate about. Kdan App Development – Mobile Players Show Their Support. Su Bozhou Successfully Entered Europe and the U.S., With Over 20 Million Global Downloads in 5 Years; Next Step: Aggressively Targeting the Chinese and Japanese Markets]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.

      The article notes: "手機應用程式（App）市場競爭激烈，由蘇柏州所創辦的凱鈿行動科技設計公司，5年多來，已推出30多款跨平台的手機應用程式，至今已創下全球2,000餘萬次下載佳績，還曾獲得「最值得購買」、「蘋果員工最愛」等評語，受到全球不少手機使用者的推薦。工研院出身的創辦人蘇柏州，因看到Apple推智慧手機及App Store的成立，因而發現App開發的契機，進而觀察到切入世界的接口。"

      From Google Translate: "Competition in the mobile application (App) market is fierce. Kdan Mobile Technology Design Company, founded by Su Baizhou, has launched more than 30 cross-platform mobile applications in more than five years, and has achieved more than 20 million downloads worldwide so far. It has also received reviews such as "Most Worth Buying" and "Apple Employees' Favorite", and is recommended by many mobile phone users around the world."

      The article notes: "然而，現階段歐美市場，佔了凱鈿總銷售70％上下，在邁入全球突破2000萬下載量的新里程碑下，不僅已證實創立公司所設定的佈局策略是正確的，未來也有能力，將挑戰化為經營特色的實力。目前，依靠擁有完善的行銷團隊，除了歐美市場經營外，另針對中國與日本地區從事行銷規劃，並且逐步配置在地行銷人員，藉由他們可以精準地跨越語言的隔閡，把公司想傳達的產品構想，傳遞給潛在客戶群。"

      From Google Translate: "However, at this stage, the European and American markets account for about 70% of Kdan's total sales. As it reaches a new milestone of exceeding 20 million downloads globally, it has not only been confirmed that the layout strategy set by the founding company is correct, but also has the ability to do so in the future. The ability to turn challenges into business characteristics. At present, relying on a complete marketing team, in addition to operating in the European and American markets, it is also engaged in marketing planning for China and Japan, and gradually allocates local marketing personnel, through which they can accurately overcome language barriers and convey the products that the company wants to convey. idea and pass it on to the potential customer base."

    4. Lai, Chao-nan 賴昭男 (2016-07-30). "職場達人－凱鈿行動科技創辦人兼執行長 蘇柏州App創業 從iPhone 3G開始" [Workplace Expert – Founder and CEO of Kdan Technology, Su Bozhou, App Entrepreneurship Starting with iPhone 3G]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.

      The article notes: "2009年3月，蘇柏州正式成立凱鈿行動科技。公司只有5個人，除了蘇柏州和另1個台灣伙伴，其他3個人來自大陸。蘇柏州將技術開發部分交給大陸團隊負責；在網路公司裡，這種遠距合作模式很常見，透過分工，蘇柏州也更能專注在市場研究上。"

      From Google Translate: "In March 2009, Su Bozhou officially founded Kaidan Mobile Technology. The company had only five employees: Su and one Taiwanese partner, while the other three were from mainland China. Su delegated the technical development to the mainland team. Remote collaboration like this is common in internet companies, and it allowed Su to focus more on market research through division of labor."

    5. Wu, Chun-i 吳俊毅 (2022-09-21). "將上百種 App 整合成 3 大訂閱服務，凱鈿在 B2B 市場看到什麼機會？" [Integrating Hundreds of Apps into 3 Major Subscription Services: What Opportunities Does Kdan See in the B2B Market?]. 經理人 [Manager Today] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.

      The article notes: "凱鈿行動科技成立於 2009 年，打造上百個 App，其中「PDF Reader」更成為台灣「億」級商用工具軟體；在 2015 年轉型「軟體即服務」（SaaS）廠商，短短數年間，服務和產品累積下載超過 2 億次，全球會員突破 1000 萬，今年更與微軟、LINE 合作，力拚成為台灣下一個新創獨角獸。"

      From Google Translate: "Kdan Mobile Technology was founded in 2009 and has created hundreds of apps, among which "PDF Reader" has become a "billion-dollar" commercial tool software in Taiwan. In 2015, it transformed into a "Software as a Service" (SaaS) manufacturer. In just a few years, Its services and products have been downloaded more than 200 million times, and its global membership has exceeded 10 million. This year, it has cooperated with Microsoft and LINE to become Taiwan's next new unicorn."

    Cunard (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your effort but I find it strange that you didn't mention that 1st author "朱永光" is part of an investment organization (美国中经合集团董事总经理).
2. looks good, although I cannot verify it online and is industry related.
3. and 4. perhaps push this over the edge. I couldn't find these easily during my WP:BEFORE as they are offline now.
5. is filed as an interview. IgelRM (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote that column in his role as a South China Morning Post columnist. I don't think his being part of the investment organization prevents his column from contributing to notability. Thank you for reviewing the sources. Even when excluding that source, I think that with sources 2, 3, and 4 (combined with the sources discussed here), there are enough sources to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria. Cunard (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that commission in reviews per se don't make sources not independent as a popular blog like The Verge also uses that. IgelRM (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this comment in the correct place? Should it be under this comment, which mentions commissions in the source table? I don't think any of the sources I listed have commission links. Cunard (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's for @Sirfurboy:. It's confusing but I think it's indented correctly with the reply tool. Edit: Did I ping @Madeleine961: correctly? IgelRM (talk) 14:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the ping. My job makes it difficult to respond in a timely manner, but I have read through the debate. I still believe that the subject meets bare notability per Cunard's most recent source findings, so I suppose I will change my !vote to a Weak keep, though if the article gets deleted I am not opposed to a Draftify. Madeleine (talk) 17:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors have provided counterposed assessments of sources and their depth of coverage. Comments from additional editors would help assess consensus regarding the sources in discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 15:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I concur with Sirfurboy's source analysis and IgelRM's analysis of the subsequent sources, excluding (3 and 4) added by Cunard, but these are not sufficient. Source 3 contains excerpts from the founder and source 4 reads like a press release. Many of the sources include interviews or excerpts directly from Kdan, which fails the WP:SIRS check. Adding to the fact that we have three driveby voters raises concerns about the reliability of the sources. It is well known that UPE articles often include fabricated sources that mimic genuine coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 22:48, 14 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 Andrew Tate#Political party launch. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BRUV Party

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

Redirect to Andrew Tate#Political party launch. There are only two reliable sources for this, both of which are reporting on the launch announcement, neither of which appear particularly significant either.[27][28] So per WP:EVENTCRIT, this does not amount to widespread coverage nor a diversity of sources. This also comes under WP:INHERITORG, given that the only coverage is due to Andrew Tate's announcement, as well as the subsequent reaction. I've otherwise stated my opinion on the two sources here, and after an extensive search only found a satirical site and other unreliable sources. The London Economic is the only other source that could be deemed reliable imo, but still the coverage is only based on one event, and is far from in-depth to be considered WP:SIGCOV. CNC (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Only when it will be official, the article can be reinstated. For now it seems pretty vague if it will actually come into existance and be in elections. DerEchteJoan (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect There doesn't seem to be any party organisation yet, and there is essentially no coverage of it separate from that of Tate. This is definitely not ready for an article. Gust Justice (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's tons of reliable sources now that mention the party HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 19:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there are tons, can you name any for us? CNC (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CommunityNotesContributor Daily Star https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/andrew-tates-new-bruv-party-34436430 Daily Beast https://www.thedailybeast.com/andrew-tate-musks-campaign-against-sex-trafficking-culminates-in-him-backing-alleged-sex-trafficker/ and Times of India https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/hes-not-wrong-elon-musk-backs-alleged-sex-trafficker-andrew-tates-bid-for-uk-prime-minister/articleshow/117033961.cms and more articles are probably being written right now. I know you might not like Tate, but one of the biggest social media influencers, one of the most googled men in the planet a few years ago, launching a party to try and get into politics is notable. HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daily Beast is not SIGCOV. TOI doesn't discuss the subject. WP:DAILYSTAR is unreliable. CNC (talk) 20:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.joe.co.uk/news/andrew-tate-mocked-after-launching-bruv-party-in-hopes-of-becoming-uk-prime-minister-470457 https://www.financialexpress.com/world-news/andrew-tates-uk-election-bid-hits-a-snag-his-party-bruv-gets-suspended-on-x/3709440/ HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See nomination. CNC (talk) 20:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/andrew-tate-s-new-political-party-is-called-exactly-what-you-d-expect/ar-AA1x6nfX?ocid=ob-fb-frca-1617134617825 HumansRightsIsCool (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftily until there are third party sources Braganza (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BRUV is just a political stunt and image white washing. Delete this article. NAUser0001 (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect – The organisation itself has to be notable and covered in-depth to warrant an article. The act of Tate creating it is not notable in itself; it's notable because of who Tate is, which merely warrants it being on his article. Yue🌙 09:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete The organisation isn't even registered as a party (in the UK). Limited reliable sources for the organisation. At the moment, as it's not a party and limited WP:RS, redirect is probably the best option here. Knitsey (talk) 14:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now Redirect to Andrew Tate#Political party launch. I think it is too early to create a page about this party. It is not legally formed in any way and has not yet participated in any elections. But I support the creation of an article about this party if it is registered and has at least some success in the elections. Until this happens, this page should be a redirect.  PLATEL  (talk) 12:44, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete The article has changed from suggesting it as a self-proclaimed party to a proposal of a new political party. Wikipedia:CRYSTAL It is nothing more than a prediction that this party will exist. The only purpose of the page now is to advertise a non-existent party, which could potentially be a gimmick for attention.
Journalist Matt Shea, who has made documentaries about Tate for the BBC, reckons there are ulterior motives behind Tate’s Prime Ministerial bid. “He's one of the most successful people at monetizing attention. And increasingly, how you gain attention is by being controversial, because that is what the algorithms prefer,” Shea says. “This is likely a stunt in order to pump the value of one or more crypto products that he holds.” https://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/andrew-tate-bruv-political-party-prime-minister-manifesto-b1204092.html
Could also refer to the decision made to delete the page for Birthday Party, a 'political party' created by Kanye West Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday Party (U.S. political party) Jeremy Hulber (talk) 19:37, 12 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 see a clear consensus here. Owen× ☎ 13:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STONEX India

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Page is promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per WP:REOPEN as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity, per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_6#STONEX_India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete A lot of this material looks like the sort of undisclosed promotional content warned of in WP:RSNOI although the Adobo article does, in fact, look legit. That being said a single good source is insufficient to establish sustained and lasting notability. Willing to change !vote if additional reliable sources are brought forward. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There is no independent coverage of this company. All we have are some interviews with the founders, partnership announcements, database listings and press releases. None of these sources pass the WP:SIRS check, so they are ineligible towards GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the sources meet WP:SIRS. I agree about the Adobo article singled out by Simonm223; still, it's about a single commercial and is not useful for establishing notability. It actually isn't possible to write a reasonable and non-promotional article on this topic using these sources. I can't find any better sources.—Alalch E. 12:55, 11 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 14:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Malcolm (Canadian farmer)

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

Non-notable biography that fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. No real claim of notability; the subject is described as a "successful farmer... minor entrepreneur and innkeeper". (As with non-notable grandson Bill Malcolm, this also fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY.) None of the sources show WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. We have:

Nothing else qualifying turned up in a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 7 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 14:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abanny

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

I go to AFD as PROD may be contested and the article has been draftified before. The subject of the article didn't show any notability. The only reference that showed some notability is the soundreloaded.com.ng source, but I didn't think that particular article is enough to show notability per WP:GNG.

Other references are not good references as they are blogs, and some even referencing to government sites, definition of mathematics per Britannica or places that he studied.

Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lot of problems here and a WP:GNG/WP:NBIO/WP:NMUSIC failure. Likely an autobiography (compare creator's username with the subject's middle name). The sources are a mess, consisting of links to his own music ([35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40]); and WP:USERGENERATED sites like SoundReloaded, AfrikaLyrics and a Blogger site. Finally, then the creator has added non-sequitur links that prove no claims in the story: The Britannica definition of mathematics to validate his degree in math, a link to the homepage of his supposed digital marketing school (I previously deleted that as WP:REFSPAM and will do so again), links to the homepages of Nigerian local governments and a news homepage ([41], [42], [43]) to "validate" the claim that This song became popular in various Nigerian cities. It's probably just outside the edge of another speedy deletion, but it absolutely fails any notability guideline we might apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG, and clear WP:COI. Spiralwidget (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Promotional article that did not even take the step of purchasing some WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA content first! At least we learn that "He's doing well now since he works so hard on himself to improve his Afrobeats skills" 🄻🄰 14:20, 14 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 14:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Collins (footballer, born 2003)

[edit]
Ted Collins (footballer, born 2003) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One EFL league match. Fails GNG, routine articles only Canary757 (talk) 12:09, 7 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 14:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JN Data A/S

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

Not notable IT company; no reliable sources Cinder painter (talk) 12:06, 7 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 14:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Million Model Catwalk

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

Google news, plus other web search engines and tools show that this is not notable topic (campaign) and should be removed. Cinder painter (talk) 11:55, 7 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 14:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Localgiving

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

Could not find additional sources; the existing two are poor and event-based (e.g., launching of the platform). Cinder painter (talk) 11:52, 7 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 14:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xperedon

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

Not notable initiative, no reliable sources or general notability. Cinder painter (talk) 11:48, 7 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 14:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sinitus

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

Dead links mainly and no rs. New online search did not bring reliable sources; should be removed Cinder painter (talk) 11:44, 7 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 14:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rabitabank

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

Lacking reliable sources to meet notability guidelines; the references are primarily from the bank itself. Cinder painter (talk) 11:34, 7 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. Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 19:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Ramachandran (politician)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:NPOL. The article was proposed for deletion few days ago, but the author removed it without addressing the concerns or demonstrating how the article satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Idoghor Melody (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep:S. Ramachandran is a politician who is the secretary of the Tamil Nadu unit of CPIM which is one of the only six national parties of India [This can be soon become one of the only five national parties because BSP is on the verge of losing the status]. Besides the article has some reliable sources and secondary sources and hence it meets the general notability guideline and Wikipedia:Core content policies. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Besides multiple Wikipedia articles having less citations or having no citations stay on Wikipedia. But it has already 3 reliable sources and secondary sources and more can be added. An improvement tag can be added but deletion is not right. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please tag those articles, we need to review or remove them as well, that would be a help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 7 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 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Marjan Island LLC

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I find some references about the island (which is still in development), but nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT for this company which is involved in the development. CNMall41 (talk) 09:23, 7 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 09:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mallzee

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

Mallzee shut down in 2021. The article was flagged for neutrality and promotional content in August 2017, it is written mostly like a self-interested ad, and with the lack of any changes to rectify those issues or any edits to indicate the business shut down evidences minimal interest in article. At present, I feel the article doesn't provide encyclopaedic value and given the years of opportunity since the closure of the business without as much as an update indicating such, I doubt the quality of this article will improve. ~ Chip🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it passes WP:NORG, even considering some articles, the coverage was incidental. ~ Chip🐺 08:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 09:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete: An article setting out the proposition of a former retail e-business, which in its time attracted a stushie of predictions of a great future - which didn't happen, showing once more the perils of a crystal ball. It may be arguable that these several predictive items provide the multiple sources to demonstrate notability - and then that notability persists. Against that, though, pitching on Dragon's Den, raising funds, doing deals to present your app on a vendor's platform, etc., are not unusual start-up actions and don't confer notability in themselves. To demonstrate notability we need evaluation rather than predictions, to be able to concisely answer "Why was this firm notable?" and here I think it is a struggle. AllyD (talk) 14:14, 8 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 09:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FXORO

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

The sources are poor and unreliable; press coverage is almost nonexistent, and many citations come from the company’s own website. BoraVoro (talk) 08:46, 7 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 09:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coinme

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

Very small crypto exchange, no direct sources with in-depth media coverage. Mainly press coverage on people or events somehow connected to the crypto and the company. BoraVoro (talk) 08:44, 7 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. Original AfD has now been reopened. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_6#STONEX_India. Owen× ☎ 14:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STONEX India

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
STONEX India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not meeting NCORP; relisting again after delreview BoraVoro (talk) 08:39, 7 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! 08:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Embrun Highway 417 pileup

[edit]
Embrun Highway 417 pileup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NEVENT, lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. All sources are from February 2006. Article claims a legacy of being Canada's second-deadliest multi-vehicle collision, but it's cited to WP, and I can't find any other sources discussing this event in that context. ~ A412 talk! 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Canada. ~ A412 talk! 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As always, it isn't Wikipedia's mandate, mission or goal to maintain an article about every single thing that happens in the world — the key to establishing notability here isn't to verify that the accident happened, it's to show that the accident had some kind of enduring impact that would satisfy the ten year test — by comparison, the 1999 Ontario Highway 401 crash documents major changes in MTO regulations and safety improvements to the stretch of highway where it occurred, lasting well into the 2010s, which is precisely the kind of thing we need to see. But this isn't documenting anything of the sort, and is basically just "thing that happened, the end", which is not enough. Also, note that the title had a spelling error in it, as the town is called Embrun, not Embrum — but the creator moved the article to the correct spelling shortly after I pointed that out here, so I've updated the above header links accordingly (though I haven't moved this discussion page). Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This event’s uniqueness stems from the rarity of the amount of vehicles involved. Multiple vehicle collisions involving deaths are a rare occurrence in Canadian history, this one being the second deadliest. A list of ‘Canada’s deadliest traffic accidents’ has its own wikipedia article citing this, however you are correct, there is no external literature referencing this. The title was easily changed. Capnwilly (talk) 17:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Simply claiming a size rank doesn't constitute permanent notability on its own. We would need to see enduring impact, which the number of cars that were involved in it doesn't satisfy in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If there were secondary sources from after the event discussing the event in the context of its rarity or legacy, then we'd have a case for notability. For example, 1999 Ontario Highway 401 crash has [50] on the 20th anniversary, [51] on the 25th. However, for this event I can't find anything of the sort. (Aside, some amusing citogenesis in that first article, It's a crash so devastating it has its own Wikipedia entry) ~ A412 talk! 19:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there is a secondary source that cites this, the 'Canadian Disaster Database' lists all major accidents in Canadian history by fatality, if this event were on it, which it should be, it would notably be the second deadliest 'multi vehicle collision' in Canadian history after the 401 crash. (The citation has been added). When the 20th anniversary is due next year, more sources will become available in a similar fashion to the 401 crash. 209.196.232.22 (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The remembering.ca source is from February 2006. The Canadian Disaster Database source doesn't contain this incident. ~ A412 talk! 18:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find much lasting sourcing, what's given is about all there is. Being the second deadliest traffic accident would be notable, if we had sourcing beyond simple news reports from the time. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 7 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! 08:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patric Elder

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

This is a WP:BLP that was rejected at AfC for a lack of notability. Of additional concern is WP:NPF: half of this article of a BLP is an unsourced "Controversies" section (the only inline source is the IBO academic integrity policy). CMD (talk) 07:52, 7 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! 07:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bananana

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

Neither List of programmes broadcast by ntv7 nor List of programmes broadcast by 8TV (Malaysian TV network) mentions anything named Bananana. Also, Banananas Music is a partial title match. So, a disambiguation page like this is not needed. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The disambiguation has limited utility, with only two entries, one being a partial title match and both topics can be addressed within their respective articles.
Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion currently does not have a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:12, 7 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. Liz Read! Talk! 06:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jut (topography)

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

This metric is really cool but I don't think it's notable, since I can only find the unpublished arXiv source, a couple blogs and other websites that don't meet Wikipedia's RS standards. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 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) 06:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baarmutha, Victoria

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

Non-notable place, and not a real locality. Contains only a single source, and according to both google maps and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this place does not exist. Likely a historical place that does not exist any more and thus doesn't meet requirements for notability. I don't like deleting articles relating to georaphy as Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." however, Baarmutha is not legally recognised and it seems the area it is purported to be in, is part of Beechworth. Viatori (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this book: [52], but I don't have access to it. Would that be enough for notability? I would tend to think a place that had a post office for that long would be at least somewhat documented, but maybe post offices work differently in Australia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most places did have post offices, under names that don't exist today, but they don't seem to meet the notability requirements and thus don't have articles. The only remnants of the name today are businesses that still use the name. Viatori (talk) 00:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ghost town and former gold mining area. The 1907 Victorian Municipal Directory and Gazette calls it a township with a school, a library, and a population of 100. [53] There's not a lot of mentions, but it passes WP:GEOLAND and comes up in some historical scholarly articles and in agricultural information. SportingFlyer T·C 04:29, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Google Maps and the Australian Bureau of Statistics are not the official place names register for anywhere in Australia. To determine if a place name is official, then the place to check is the relevant government's register. For Victoria, the official place name register is VicNames. It is somewhat annoyingly more aimed at providing map info, but if you use their download button, you can get the register entry in a spreadsheet format. It does indeed list Baarmutha, so it is an official name. And, as commented above, historic locations are notable if sources exist. VicNames mentions a books and a website. A quick search of the State Library of Victoria's catalogue reveals a number of photos, books, etc exist. Looking at Trove, there is plenty of newspaper coverage (ok, not all of it is useful for a Wikipedia article, but it demonstrates it was a place of significance in its time). Having written some of these kinds of articles myself, I would suggest a more accurate first sentence might be "Baarmutha is a former town and now neighbourhood within the locality of Wherever, Shire of Whatever, Victoria, Australia." Kerry (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Kerry. WP:GEOLAND states that "Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." As Kerry said, there is a lot of coverage on Trove, from which it's clear that there was a Baarmutha Tennis Club and a Baarmutha park with a race track, cycle, track, football oval, memorial gates, etc. The Victorian government produced a map of Baarmutha in 1977. No doubt the book The Baarmutha Story (published 2011) contains that information. There is also a book published in 1992 called Rural living area structure plans : Baarmutha, Wooragee. The article should be kept, and could certainly be expanded. In terms of being part of Beechworth, many small towns and townships have been incorporated into larger cities or are now considered suburbs of them - it doesn't mean they are not notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:28, 13 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. (non-admin closure) BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Smith

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

Non-notable figure skater. No way do those passing mentions in the provided sources meet the standards of "significant coverage". The first simply verifies that she finished 4th at the U.S. championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:00, 7 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 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Equestrian Trade Association

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Currently defunct.Seems to have been created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, does not begin to satisfy WP:NCORP. Specifically:

The only content in the page actually supported by any of the three sources cited is that at least one show was held in Baltimore. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 7 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. The article's author was a sock of the blocked user Sabupusi, WP:G5 applies. Girth Summit (blether) 10:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singaporean 2nd Infantry ambush

[edit]
Singaporean 2nd Infantry ambush (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a ChatGPT-generated article about a purported ambush. That includes the AI searching out the references itself. This can be seen on the nlb url in the first version, and otherwise confirmed by the users various talkpage posts, and a similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaccan-Siamese war. Now, while it appears there was indeed some military incident that did kill 8 people, I am unsure if it is notable as a standalone incident. Some of the sources listed are just photos with none of the supposed information, others are broken gbooks links with no preview (based on other now deleted articles and drafts, I am fully confident the AI just made the book references up and the author never checked them anyway). Others do mention an incident did occur (eg), but they date it to February 28, so ChatGPT got that wrong. At a quick BEFORE, I do find the incident mentioned elsewhere (eg), but nothing I'd be happy to say is in-depth coverage. In any case, even if there is sustained coverage (who knows, it might be in a book), the made up text and sources probably mean this is a WP:TNT case that would need to be written from scratch anyway. CMD (talk) 04:43, 7 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! 00:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCoffee Club

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: informal networking meetings over coffee are about as routine an activity as you can get, nothing about this stands out as notable. I'm going to get a coffee after making this comment, not going to write an article about DnB's Morning Brew. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:53, 7 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! 03:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Omoha

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

Only one source passes WP:GNG while the rest are either personal website like this, or about his foundation likethis and press releases. All the awards too are run-of-the-mills. A WP:Before showed nothing than his visitations to prominent people Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: In my opinion, there are no valid secondary sources to prove sufficient notability under WP:ANYBIO to warrant a Wiki article on the subject. Here is an excerpt from "Washington Morning", source #1 for this article, this is taken word-for-word, directly from the first line of the first paragraph: "In recents, a prominent Nigerian Newspaper Guardians released a reports edition on Nigerians business tycoons contributing to the country over 200 million population Gross Domestic Product in 2021, with the tag titled “Special Focus on 50 Most Impactful and Award Winnings CEO’s that contributed to Nigeria GDP Growth in 2021." Mamani1990 (talk) 00:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete once again I agree with Ibjaja055 but even the lone "GNG worthy" source seems to fail WP:NEWSORGNIGERIA as blatantly promotional. 🄻🄰 13:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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 Junaid Memon. Liz Read! Talk! 03:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green TV India

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

Fails WP:NCORP as there are no sources I can find that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Originally i though this was related to Green Entertainment Television but seems these are two separate entities for anyone searching name variations. CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh. Good catch. I think that would be an acceptable WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:26, 9 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! 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ademola Adesina

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

Apart from this puff piece from Londoner's post , all the sources are either pass mentioned, interview or nothing at all. Therefore all the remaining sources fali WP:GNG and WP: SIGCOV cannot be established. Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:31, 7 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! 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Romanko

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable individual. Article created for PR from a disposable account. Deleted twice in ru-wiki. Кронас (talk) 01:21, 7 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). Redirecting as an ATD. This is typically the closure from non-notable albums from bands with articles. Liz Read! Talk! 03:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natrag Na Voz

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

Non-notable album. References are junk. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Repeatedly rejected at WP:AFC. scope_creepTalk 00:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

these references contain proof NovaExplorer37 (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both those references are non-RS. That means they are unreliable. IMDB is unreliable per WP:IMDB. The other one is a directory listing and is junk. Similar to discogs. You should not be writing articles. There is clearly a WP:CIR issue here. When this is all finished, I will be taking you to have a chat with an administrator. scope_creepTalk 22:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
added a reliable source that’s from a book. 77.119.210.127 (talk) 17:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its a passing mention, a single sentence not about the album. scope_creepTalk 19:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
still i see it counts NovaExplorer37 (talk) 22:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NovaExplorer37 I asked you 4 days ago to read the general notability guideline, but it doesn't seem like you've understood it. Mentions are not enough. If there is no reliable source that provides significant coverage, then the article should be deleted. Filling the article with references to short mentions isn't going to prove that it belongs on Wikipedia. --Richard Yin (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Yin thought everybody is right with "Wikipedia is a site where you can create everything" doesnt seem like it ig? as you said that i need to read the "general notability guideline" to declare this i did read it (a bit) well what can i say i tried my best finding everything about the album Biographies, News Articles etc etc! those references aren’t reliable you say but some others use them for articles too ak. Discogs, Imdb, FM etc. there are also 2 wikipedia pages about this album, (and they have mostly the same exact information) and i mean every wikipedia is the same. NovaExplorer37 (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was never that and its not case you can create anything you want. Wikipedia is not blog or a website. Every article must be verifiable per WP:V. Both of these wikipedia articles will be deleted and its non-notable. Lastly its not pages, its articles. scope_creepTalk 07:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NovaExplorer37: Wikipedia is described as "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", not "a site where you can create everything". This does not mean it is a free-for-all; those edits are still required to meet Wikipedia's standards.--Gronk Oz (talk) 08:46, 11 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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · View on Wikipedia

Developed by Nelliwinne