Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 13	January 15 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Waikanae Park

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

I can't find any sources apart from the council. I believe that the article Waikanae should instead have a couple of sentences about it. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and New Zealand. ―Panamitsu (talk) 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Waikanae. Nothing to justify a stand-alone article. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 00:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gardening (disambiguation)

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

This disambiguation page is all partial title matches and some related topics. I don't believe there's any real need for disambiguation on this one; the search results can do their job. Cremastra (u — c) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Cremastra (u — c) 23:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom Asteramellus (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only useful disambiguation is the one for Gardening (cryptanalysis) which is covered by its parenthetical disambiguation and a hatnote on the primary article. No need for a DAB per WP:ONEOTHER. The listed styles of gardening are mostly covered by List of garden types, Template:Horticulture and gardening and Category:Types of garden. YuniToumei (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like we could have a WP:TWOOTHER situation instead (see below), yet I still would opt for covering it by hatnote. However, if the DAB is kept, all entries but these two should be removed.YuniToumei (talk) 08:41, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the page after finding out bout Lunar gardening. I expected there to be a disam page, to see if here were other types of gardening that weren't actual 'garden' gardening, I already knew of the style of writing. It's an attempt to make wiki easier to navigate, I think the cryptanalysis, Lunar, writing and forestry are more useful in the disam page than not.Halbared (talk) 09:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, good point on impact gardening. I'm seeing at least two sources listed in the further references section that seem to occasionally refer to it as just "gardening". Can you confirm whether this is commonly done so in astrogeology? As for all others except this and the cryptanalysis concept, I don't think any of them would be referred to as just "gardening", and thus would still net no risk of confusion per WP:PARTIAL. YuniToumei (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya Yuni, thank you for explaining. I was watching a video on the subject and the scientist referred to gardening and then explained what lunar gardening is. I'm not knowledgable in this field so I cannot answer your question, I had never heard of it before. Writers refer to how they lay out plots as 'gardening'. That's a term I've heard commonly used among that group.Halbared (talk) 19:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the entry regarding the writing technique was removed in the recent cleanup by the nominator, presumably as it does not have an own article and breaks WP:DABNOLINK and WP:DABDIC. YuniToumei (talk) 08:26, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only actually ambiguous term is Gardening (cryptanalysis). The others are, or should be, linked from Gardening in the body or See also section (or are WP:PTMs that can be found with Search). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

V. Irai Anbu

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

Promotional article about a chief secretary in a state government. Not important enough for an article. 🄻 🄰 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. 🄻 🄰 20:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep This person is obviously notable. Adeline2018 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a promotional article. He has been a popular figure in Tamilnadu among youngsters, as a motivational speaker and also has been a key bureaucrat in Tamilnadu for years so nothing wrong in having a page for him. Maybe we can reduce the contents in the page but not a promotional page for sure. Vishwa Sundar (talk) 21:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the page has been getting more than thousand views per month which shows people look this article to know more about him. So we need a reliable source for people who want to know about him Vishwa Sundar (talk) 21:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's clearly not a valid reason for keeping the article. Badbluebus (talk) 14:56, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, but the article is promotional and needs cleanup. - The9Man ^Talk 07:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the list at Chief secretary (India), most of them do not have an article. Why is this one different? 🄻 🄰 11:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We don't arrange notability by subtraction. If you are concerned you are welcome to add articles for these people. Adeline2018 (talk) 14:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Adeline2018 (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

— Duplicate !vote: Adeline2018 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above. (striking duplicate vote Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - when the work has been done to fix the issues identified, then we can consider WP:HEY. As is my usual practice at AfD, I won't !vote until the rescue is done. Bearian (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I've gone ahead and removed most of the article as promotional and unsalvageable. There's enough material in Google News that the subject seems to me to pass WP:GNG. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the coverage in Google, most of it seems to be only mentioning him in the context of being chief secretary and the rest seem to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA. What are you seeing? 🄻 🄰 14:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as editors arguing for a Keep are not basing their statements on policy or sourcing. Few people are "obviously notable" and this one isn't or the article wouldn't be nominated for deletion consideration.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Sighetu Marmației explosions

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:LASTING, no sustained coverage Cutlass ^Ciera 21:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no WP:LASTING impact or coverage to meet WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Mexican drug gang attack Twitter hoax

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

This is a permastub incident that took place 13 years ago. Unlike what was said at the previous AFD, it had no lasting consequences. This article is rarely visited as it is linked to nowhere since it was a minor incident. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Internet, and Mexico. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disregarding all news attention, received quite a bit of academic attention for its legal considerations and relation to drug trade/ internet usage. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], for a random selection. Quite a bit more if I looked harder. That it is a stub is of no consideration for notability, as stubs are not against the rules. Could very well be linked to several pages if expanded. Seems quite the unique incident and much could be written on its background/impacts/events from these sources, so it does pass WP:NEVENT. Very clearly not a permastub, as it can be expanded. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PARAKANYAA. Relatively extensive contemporary news coverage + a fair bit of ongoing attention in academic sources is enough for me. MCE89 (talk) 23:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Stafford Jones

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:BLP1E and fails WP:NPOL, exclusively known for minor political scandals, we have no article on the event to redirect to. He is a WP:BLP so there are extra problems in this article consisting of criminal allegations for which he was never convicted - and there is nothing else, and the allegation sourcing isn't even strong. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see what the keep !voters in the last AfD saw - this seems like a negative WP:BLP article about a relatively unknown person, albeit one who was in a position of power. SportingFlyer T·C 22:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are sources spanning 9 years, so BLP1E doesn't apply. There was an exception to that exception: when Jimmy Wales would get involved to protect marginally notable office holders. Bearian (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All the mentions prior to the 1E are extremely brief or passing, so it is still a BLP1E case. And again, this is a BLP based entirely on unproven negative allegations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even then he doesn't really pass GNG - he's an unelected local politician. I don't agree with the source analysis of the previous AfD, either - they aren't really significant coverage of him but just discuss his role in local proceedings. SportingFlyer T·C 16:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Agree with Bearian's position on this AfD. Onikaburgers (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Software entropy

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

I WP:BLARd this to software rot about a year ago, but was just reverted. Software entropy (this AFD) seems almost identical to software rot, and software entropy doesn't have much content. Recommend redirecting to software rot. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. –Novem Linguae (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on redirect. I've added a section on software entropy to the software rot article to migrate some of the information as suggested in the revert, but the rest of this article looks to just be OR or less well worded duplicates of information already there. Chaste Krassley (talk) 23:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My Dao method

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

I cannot find anything to suggest this topic is notable, and it reads entirely like a promotional piece. Fails WP:GNG CoconutOctopus talk 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. CoconutOctopus talk 22:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tricky one to find sources for since most results are either for "DAO" (the crypto thing) or for "my Dao" in the generic sense. The article seems to just be a summary of a couple of studies carried out by one group of researchers, which received relatively few citations and don't seem to have been discussed or replicated elsewhere in the field. I don't see any reason to think this is notable. MCE89 (talk) 22:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procaine blockade

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

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

A Tourist Guide to Lancre

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

A WP:BEFORE search shows only unreliable sources or bare mentions. This article has not passed WP:SIGCOV. A redirect target could be Discworld. Jontesta (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Discworld#"Mapps", which already has similar content for the subsequent book (Death's Domain). I don't see significant coverage to meet WP:NBOOK requirements for a standalone article. Jfire (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard's sources and expansion would make a merge WP:UNDUE, although I concur with PARAKANYAA that an article on the Mapp series would be ideal. In the absence of that, however, keep. Jfire (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to above target. I afded another book in this series a while ago. I think the best solution would be an article on the Mapp sub series, but we do not have that yet, so to here they go for now. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per sources by Cunard. I now think that this is enough to be undue weight merged to its target and to support notability. However I don't think it would be undue weight on a "Mapps" article still, so if an article on that got made I would perhaps support merging it there. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. I was surprised a while ago that some of this Discworld spin-offs are notable (User:Cunard found the refs), but this one, in the current state, is a pure catalogue entry with zero indication of notability. I could change my vote if sources are found, but I am not seeing any in my BEFORE. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the ping, Piotrus (talk · contribs). I've provided some sources below. Cunard (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ to Discworld#"Mapps" (a future Discworld Mapps article notwithstanding). I does appear here and there in secondary sources, but in my limited search I did not find enough content for a stand-alone article. In case anyone finds more secondary sources, please let me know. Daranios (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: I have found one source that mentions A Tourist Guide to Lancre (http://hdl.handle.net/1946/35081), but it doesn't provide SIGCOV; rather, it uses the book to discuss a separate topic. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Butler, Andrew M. (2007). An Unofficial Companion to the Novels of Terry Pratchett. Oxford: Greenwood World Publishing. p. 373–374. ISBN 978-1-84645-001-3. Retrieved 2025-01-10 – via Internet Archive.
  The book provides 434 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Subtitled A Discworld Mapp Including a Pyctorial Guide to the Lancre Fells and a description of a picturefque and charming walk in thys charming and hospitable country. It was originally published by Corgi in an edition of 75,000 and has been translated into Czech. It was devised by Terry Pratchett and Stephen Briggs, with a view of Lancre painted by Paul Kidby. The third Discworld map, this time depicting Lancre, an area in the Ramtops which is notable for its Witches. As usual the pattern is an illustrated booklet relating to the area in question, and the map itself. This time there is no explanation as to the process of mapping, but then unlike Ankh-Morpork and the Discworld there was less evidence to reconcile."
  The book notes: "It also contains 'An additional Vue of Lankre' by Nanny Ogg which offers further description of Lancre and its witches, and reads as if it were dictated to a scribe — as no doubt it was, for the sum of a dollar. This is supplemented with her account of Lancre folk lore, such as the Lancre Oozer, A Mummers Play and the Witch Trials."
2. Alton, Anne Hiebert (2014). "Coloring in Ocarine: Visual Semiotics and Discworld". In Alton, Anne Hiebert; Spruiell, William C. (eds.). Discworld and the Disciplines: Critical Approaches to the Terry Pratchett Works. Critical Explorations in Science Fiction and Fantasy. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. pp. 62–63. ISBN 978-0-7864-7464-6. ProQuest 2134885875. Retrieved 2025-01-10 – via Google Books.
  The book provides 321 words of coverage about the subject. The book notes: "Like the ﬁrst two Discworld maps, A Tourist Guide to Lancre: A Discworld Mapp includes prefatory material written by Pratchett and Briggs, along with short essays serving as introductions to the area by the ﬁctional champion walker, Eric Wheelbrace, and Gytha Ogg, as well as a lengthier extract from Wheelbrace’s A Pictorial Guide to the Lancre Fells and a concluding note by Nanny Ogg on Folk Lore of Lancre. Their essays are decorated with a few small illustrations of items such as a compass and a set of wire-cutters—indicating Wheelbrace’s habits and attitudes towards the thorny issue of right-of-way in the countryside—as well as a stone footbridge, a well, and a view (subtly presented from the side) of the Long Man."
  The book notes: "The Lancre map provides an excellent sense of the sheer verticality of the Kingdom, as well as presenting a better awareness than the novels do of the distance between Granny’s cottage and Nanny’s house in town. Like the other maps, by indicating a sense of geographic proportions it reinforces the idea of the geographic space of the Discworld, however imaginary."
3. Less significant coverage:
  1. Burrows, Marc (2020). The Magic of Terry Pratchett. Yorkshire: Pen and Sword Books. ISBN 978-1-52676-550-5. Retrieved 2025-01-10 – via Google Books.
    The book notes: "Two more 'mapps', A Tourist Guide to Lancre and Death's Domain, followed in 1998 and 1999, though neither sold as well as the first two, with the final mapp receiving a print run which was less than half of the first. Rather than true maps, the Lancre and Death's Domain fold-outs featured detailed aerial views with artwork handled by another addition to the Discworld family, Paul Kidby."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow A Tourist Guide to Lancre to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 12:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per others. The finds by Cunard are decent, but primarily are just summaries of what the book is as well as some minor commentary on sales figures. Works on Wikipedia need to be covered in a non-summary style that show their impact, which the demonstrated sources don't provide. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Jontesta (talk · contribs), Jfire (talk · contribs), PARAKANYAA (talk · contribs), Daranios (talk · contribs), Piotrus (talk · contribs), and Significa liberdade (talk · contribs), I expanded and sourced the article. I think there is enough secondary commentary and reporting to support a standalone article and that a merge to Discworld#"Mapps" would be undue weight. Would you take a look at these new sources and the expanded article? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 10:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. While the reception still is not enormous, I think together with the history section it fullfills the requirements of WP:NOTPLOT and we have a non-stubby, fully referenced article, therefore fullfilling the notability requirements. Thanks for taking improving! Daranios (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you and PARAKANYAA for reviewing the expanded article and the sources! I've moved the striking of a "merge" comment to the correct place. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ups, apologies for striking the wrong merge !vote. Daranios (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow the pinged editors and others to consider Cunard's improvements and provide input as to whether the 'new' version is merge or keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Cool

Stub breaks WP:NOTNEO; it should be a Wikitionary entry, not an article. The exception would be if it was a frequent-use neologism, whereas this term is not frequently used in WP:RSs. See WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Essentially the entire text of this article is already repeated in the second part of the lede of Jihadism. --OrebroVi (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the rationale. This was merely a fleeting neologism that never gained serious currency. The timing is probably key. A few sources mentioned it in 2014, and then ISIS took off, so there wasn't anything remotely cool about the popular conception of Jihad any more and the term swiftly died a death. If later sources existed that examined this demise, it would make for more of a subject. As it is, it's simply a meme that never really took off and doesn't really merit a standalone page. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Politics, Terrorism, Fashion, Internet, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to wikitionary, then. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom; should be on wiktionary, if anyhere. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 03:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DICDEF. I see a mix of good and terrible sources. If you take out the unreliable New York Post, Washington Times, and social media, you're left with less than a bare stub. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (The nom is a multi-account block evader - now blocked - who is abusing AfD.) The article currently has EIGHT sources in the reference section; plus many more are available in books and papers. I would add them, but it would be ref bombing. The article does not require "serious currency" to be a notable. In fact, it's an academic concept, which rarely have serious currency. The reference to "Cool" is intentional because that is the concept at work, but it's not a term coming out of pop culture itself nor intended by part of pop culture ie. to have serious currency. This Wikipedia article was cited in the book Compassionate Counterterrorism (2019), so presumably our deletion here would negatively effect the academic literature on this topic. It has significant coverage in Barnhart's Never-finished Political Dictionary of the 21st Century (2016), The Future of Terrorism (2018), Committee on Homeland Security (2014). The point here is that notability does not expire, even if you believe the term never caught on. -- GreenC 03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those works are from reputable academic publishers. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are reliable sources. GNG doesn't say "source must be a reputable academic publisher", whatever that means anyway. -- GreenC 14:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When you claim something is an academic concept you need to produce academic sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To establish consensus either way on GreenC's defence offered, which Iskander323 has replied to. Further input on this issue by other editors would be great and might allow for a clearer consensus to be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 22:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Computer Access

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

Non GNG Kaptain Kebab Heart (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary China Publishing House

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

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

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

Dylan Bachelet

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

Even appearing in a highly visible television show neither makes this person a high-profile person nor prevents him from being subject to WP:BLP1E or WP:BIO1E. Sure, he became a chef de partie at a Michelin-starred restaurant. Nonetheless, with all achievements he has made so far, I'm doubtful that he would meet either WP:GNG or WP:NBASIC, no matter how many sources have been used to verify info about him. Much of relevant info should be merged into List of The Great British Bake Off finalists (series 8–present)#Dylan Bachelet. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Food and drink, Television, and United Kingdom. George Ho (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. This article fits the brief. (Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 23:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akili Kids!

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

Doesnt match WP:GNG no one good source Pollia (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Kenya. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of the sources I found (currently 13) are from Kenyan websites, with two American sources (an American university where one of its alumni helped set up the channel; and Kidscreen), as well as websites regarding technical developments in the television industry and Kenyan newspapers. RandomMe98 22:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roofer.com

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

Doesnt match [WP:ORG] Pollia (talk) 21:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'd have hoped for a more robust nomination statement, but the sources are a mix of WP:ORGTRIV, WP:TRADES publications, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS and other non-qualifying sources, and the subject fails WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 21:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Live

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable live show from 2010. Fails WP:SUSTAINED, as there is no coverage following its October 2010 airing, and there is minimal coverage from beforehand. No notable reviews, reception, or analysis. All hits for Doctor Who Live in Books and Scholar discuss other events with similar names, such as Doctor Who Live: The Afterparty and Doctor Who Live: The Next Doctor, and not this show. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 21:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

External Revenue Service

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

I don't believe this meets the notability criteria. The "proposed agency" was mentioned by Trump in a social media post, so it's not clear it will actually be created; no other politician or policymaker has seriously discussed the proposal, and no legislative action has been taken to create the agency. CatoTheWiseAss (talk) 20:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Likely WP:TOOSOON for mainspace as a future planned US government department [sic], but Draft:External Revenue Service should be developed with relevant material in case this becomes a real plan. Novemberjazz 20:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Social media trends aren't reliable sources and this feels like a joke rejected by Merry Melodies c. 1939 that we've all made once and then said 'never using that joke' again. Nate • (chatter) 21:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Chico

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

As a city councilman, fails WP:NPOL. The sourcing does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Chicago city councilors are assumed notable under longstanding consensus. Chicago is literally the example of notable city councilors at WP:POLOUTCOMES. R. G. Checkers^talk 23:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ostrów, Tuchola County

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

Likely does not meet WP:GEOLAND, not included in TERYT. Malarz pl (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Poland. Malarz pl (talk) 20:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nad Kanałem

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

Likely does not meet WP:GEOLAND, not included in TERYT. Malarz pl (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Malarz pl (talk) 20:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete There is a resort a bit to the west but otherwise this is a blank spot on the map. Mangoe (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lipce, Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship

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

Likely does not meet WP:GEOLAND, not included in TERYT. Malarz pl (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Malarz pl (talk) 20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Onu (pronoun)

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

Can't find any reliable sources that cover the topic in depth, so the article fails WP:GNG Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Poland. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Air Force Knowledge Now

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

The article has no citations actually about the subject except for primary sources. Non-government/non-department of defense sources aren't about AFKN, they're about knowledge management. Fails WP:GNG. v/r - T P 20:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management and Websites. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Connor Glennon

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

Tennis player never ranked inside top 900. Some stuff on gotigersgo regarding his collegiate career but failing GNG. Canary757 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and England. Canary757 (talk) 17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Played one ATP Tour doubles match and lost, only existing reference is actually about the upgraded seats in the stadium that the tournament was played at and only mentions him in one sentence. The only coverage I can find about him is on a website for the college he attended, which from other AFD discussions I have read, does not count as independent third party coverage. If that is not the case, and that coverage is allowed, then I would change my vote to keep as there is an extensive biography about him and another article on him being named the American Athletic Conference men's tennis player of the week.
Shrug02 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No sourcing of any kind found for this person. The plastic chair article isn't a suitable source. Oaktree b (talk) 20:16, 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.

Florian Gârz

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

First, let’s deal with the Nobel Prize nomination. For starters, any one of thousands of people can nominate anyone else, so a nomination by itself doesn’t mean much. Second, I really doubt the “G. Floran” on page 3 is our man Gârz. For one, he didn’t even begin publishing until the early 1990s, and the nomination is from 1974. For another, Eugène Ionesco, the nominator, was a diehard opponent of the Romanian Communist regime — while at the very period of the nomination, our man Gârz was a faithful acolyte of the regime, serving as a loyal officer in its secret police. So unless this was an elaborate Absurdist joke, Ionesco did not nominate an unknown apparatchik for the world’s most prestigious literary award.

Second, let’s quickly dispense with this. Anyone can publish anything on academia.edu. Unless we have evidence that this piece appeared in a peer-reviewed journal or similarly prestigious publication, it’s not quotable.

Finally, let’s have a look at the three remaining sources. For starters, they appear in a magazine nobody has heard of. I know this isn’t the most scientific way to measure such things, but it has under 800 Facebook likes; by contrast, the leading Romanian popular history magazine has 656,000. It’s basically a one-man show revolving around its founder, who occasionally writes articles, together with some of his friends. Our man Gârz (who, by the way, died three years ago, as one of the links attests) was basically a second-rate spy with third-rate opinions, such as: “I came into the world in that ancient land of Transylvania, where words like ‘fatherland’ and ‘ancestor’ are learned together with ‘mother’”; or “No American politician since 1950 has entered the White House without the approval of the military-industrial complex”.

In sum, far from being a contender for the Nobel, our man Gârz, once he got around to writing in his late 50s, was the author of a series of dubious books published with obscure houses. Aside from three articles in an utterly marginal magazine, he never garnered any attention from anyone, certainly not from respectable outfits. There is no reason we should keep around his biography. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Military, and Romania. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I respectfully accede to the speedy deletion of the article. Thank you! JB Hoang Tam 2 (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Ivory Williams Jr.

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NENTERTAINER. While the article breathlessly claims Williams Jr. as a pioneer in the evolution of Contemporary Gospel music and Jazz fusion, this just isn't borne out by the available sources. The cited sources do not adequately provide secondary coverage of Williams Jr.'s life or accomplishments, and throughout the article claims of significance are backed up by listings in discographies (e.g. [6]) and the like.

Doing my own search for sources, I was able to find coverage of Williams Jr.'s evidently more-notable father, Williams Sr., which mentions Jr. briefly ([7]) and mere-mentions in catalogs (e.g. [8]), but nothing that would satisfy ntoability guidelines. The article's primary editor has a COI, which was acknowledged on their user talk page. I think that redirecting this page to Jr's notable father, Harold Ivory Williams, is appropriate here. I believe this still merits consideration at AfD rather than WP:BLAR, as it has been repeatedly been submitted and declined at AfC prior to being accepted by a reviewer. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Ivory Williams is listed as a pioneer by virtue of the time period of the birth of the

both the Fusion (1959-1990) in particular the added element of Gospel (Harold Ivory Williams being the first to add the Organ with Gospel structured chords) on the "On the Corner" project with Miles Davis) and the transition of the conventional Golden Era Gospel to Contemporary Gospel as evidenced on of his solo performance at the Carnegie Hall) to Contemporary Gospel. Traditional Jazz did not have the element of electronic instruments (in particular the Fender Rhodes introduced in the 70,s as an example) as Fusion. The timing of the references demonstrates that he was one of the pioneers in that era and the first to add gospel element. In fact Miles sought him out because of that. Like wise, the Golden Era of Gospel that my father was a part of evolved in the late 60's but the jazz element began in the 70's. I attempted to demonstrate those claims with projects in the specific time frames. I used the word pioneer ^[1] because that is what a pioneer is according to your own definition. (Involving accomplishments or activities that have not been done before, or developing or using new methods or techniques) Someone that is a participatory factor in the beginning or birthing period. Both Miles Davis official website and James Cleveland's Carnegie Hall performance validate that claim.

As the author of the article, I would like to thank Wikipedia for allowing me to contribute. I vote keepWilliamsivy (talk) 18:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The argumentation you provide here would be reasonable for a magazine article or research paper to make. Wikipedia, however, is not a publisher of original thought; we want existing reliable sources to directly state what the subject is or isn't, not to infer it by association. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As a regular WP user, I found the article - about an artist unknown to me who contributed to some of my favourite songs - very informative and I thank the author. If anything, maybe delete the opionions or parts that do not seem to be to be within WP's bounds only or maybe and some sources. 95.98.136.193 (talk) 19:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am gathering sources that show that every musician on Miles Davis projects that include Harol Ivory Williams is given the respect of being recognized as a contributing pioneer to Jazz Fusion. Even many approved articles here on Wikipedia. Why would/should Harold's pioneering contributions to the evolution of Jazz Fusion be excluded or dismissed? Even Miles estate recoognizes his contributions to Fusions behinnings. I will list my claims later today in hopes that efitors at leady see the contridiction in acknowledging some on Wikipedia and denying others. I need to format my claims according to wiki preferences. Williamsivy (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive my typos. Williamsivy (talk) 10:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just read the definition of COI and felt that I should explain my position. I am the last of the Williams bloodline, the executor of Harold's Ivory Williams estate, and the last to tell the story of their accomplishments. My brother fell ill on the cusp of international fame. He was recognized and validated by many greats as my parents knew most of them and his talent opened doors. I am still gathering documents to validate those claims. Their is no one else to tell the story. Once again, I am a believer in Wikipedia and a contributor, so I respect and graciously accept what looks like the decision to delete. I would also say that the categories that he would fit in contain the names of many that he mentored and worked along side who's only claim to fame was that they too established themselves in the genre. On another note; We need Wikipedia's contributions to the world and I will fight along side many others to protect and maintain it's right to exist. Williamsivy (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should the unsung deserve being dismissed? Williamsivy (talk) 11:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for his Grammy Participation certificates on 2 separate projects. Would having a Grammy Certificate be considered notable? One is for the solo performance at Carnegie Hall as noted in the profile page. Williamsivy (talk) 15:45, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pioneering

Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of notable subjects with notability established by set by criteria established via consensus of the community. Additionally notability is WP:NOTINHERITED by virtue of working with notable people. Not having a Wikipedia article is not a "dismissal" of anyone. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:34, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of the pages listed as the following: Category: American jazz pianists, Category: American male pianists, Category: Jazz fusion pianists, Category: American organists, Category: American keyboardists, Category:1949 births, Category: Musicians from Baltimore, Category:20th-century American pianists, Category: Jazz musicians from Maryland. I am genuinely confused as to why some qualify as notable and other do not. Surely he fits in those categories at the least. Williamsivy (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are for sorting and organization, they have no bearing on notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Czech and Slovak Figure Skating Championships

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

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) 15:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Skating, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no option to redirect these articles (the Three Nationals Championships began in 2009), they can be DELETED. The medal coverage is already included at both Slovak Figure Skating Championships and Czech Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Fanny Hardwick

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All source is breaking news or trial stuff, no retrospection, after the execution it was seemingly never discussed again. Interestingly, not a case of recentism (all sourcing is from 1901). There is one very brief mention in an academic article from this year in an article about Australian executions, but otherwise nothing. If we had some article like "list of people executed by Australia" I would suggest a redirect to that, but we do not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of people legally executed in Queensland. There are a couple of sources from after 1901, but agree that it's not enough to meet WP:NEVENT. MCE89 (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@MCE89 For purposes of consensus building I agree with redirect (I would have suggested it if I knew that page existed...)

Out of curiosity what are the other post-1901 sources? Some stuff on Trove? PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah nothing much, just a couple of articles from 1902 [9] and 1904 [10] that strike me as basically that era's equivalent of sensationalised true crime stories. Nothing to suggest any real notability, and they're close enough to the murder that they don't really suggest any lasting coverage. MCE89 (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the article mentioned above in addition the redirect. Or at least an inclusion of the references.Topic does not seem to have lasting importance. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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!} 23:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Leon-Chisen

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

No independent sigcov to establish notability. Search hits are either self-published or routine references to her book. Jdcooper (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty of passing mentions, but no solid reliable sources with significant coverage to establish notability. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment I found it very difficult to work out what on earth she did. Its about code and its written in code. So she is a computer programmer? a cryptologist?... no. It appears she sorts diseases and ailments into neat piles and publishes guides so that everyone is talking about the same medical detail. Valuable job. I've added a few links but it needs to be translated in to basic scientific descriptions. Delete or link all the acronyms. Victuallers (talk) 11:58, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Women, and Medicine. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like delete, but we don't really have a quorum here. Even one more !vote would help.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 20:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable individual, zero sourcing, The ICD codes used are what hospitals in the US use to bill patients, the disease classifications, also use for statistical purposes with the UN as I recall. She's an office person in charge of this code system it sounds like. Might have a pass at AUTHOR if reviews of the book can be found, but highly unlikely, it's too specialized. Oaktree b (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This doesn't show notability, but explains what we're talking about [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 20:22, 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.

Eric R. Gilbertson

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

This is essentially a resume. The person doesn't appear to pass general notability guidelines. A re-direct to the school is possible, but I question if having a redirect to a small school for every one of their past president is necessary. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about his retirement and public speaking events after that, nothing really showing notability. Primary sourcing is used in the article now, so that's not helping. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (of ERG article): It seems to me that the central question is whether C6 of WP:NPROF is met by ERG due to their having served as the president of Saginaw Valley State University and of Johnson State College (now part of Vermont State University). Since the former school offers a significant number of master's degrees and three doctorates (DNP; see https://www.svsu.edu/graduateprograms/), it seems to me that that the answer is yes. I qualify this as a weak keep because this is not an R1 university and does not appear to be historically significant. I do agree that WP:GNG is not met, and if the page is to remain it needs significant editing so as to not present as a resume. I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF. The other page (about JMR) should be considered on its own merits; I am unsure whether we are supposed to be discussing both of them here. Qflib (talk) 19:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Qflib What academic accomplishments and citations does he have? that would qualify under NPROF? My position is that he doesn't qualify under "a significant accredited college or university, director of a highly regarded, notable academic independent research institute or center (which is not a part of a university), president of a notable national or international scholarly society, etc." I believe "significance" or "highly regarded" of this school is subjective and in mine, it's not. Graywalls (talk) 21:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Only one of the 6 criteria of NPROF need to be met in order to establish notability; please read it carefully. I specifically pointed out that I was referring only to C6 of NPROF, so academic citations are immaterial. I also specifically pointed out that "I see no way for this particular subject to satisfy the other criteria of WP:NPROF." I stand by my weak keep recommendation; if other senior editors come on here and convince me otherwise, I am open to input. Qflib (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I buy the WP:NPROF C6 rationale, as president of a mid-sized college/university. I additionally note that I found several local newspaper sources: [12][13][14]. He was involved in a minor scandal regarding a football hazing incident [15][16]. It's weak for a GNG case, but it helps support the NPROF case. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep of both. Even if not technically passing the PROF test, the presidents of medium size state colleges probably will get significant coverage in their state's media. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the repeated use of the word weak, consensus looks like keep but also looks weak so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Still a !delete for me, not passing PROF, the rest doesn't help. Oaktree b (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Land of Vietnamese

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

Non-notable, as there are no WP:RS to back this up, nor does web searching find anything signifcant to suggest it circulated in the West — The Anome (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Vietnam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Vietnam. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato Bank

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

I don't see how this defunct Chinese bank passes WP:NCORP. No reliable sources or significant coverage Cinder painter (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Royal Business Bank, at least partially. One of ~100 California chartered banks folding is not insignificant. Brandon (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Daysog, Rick (2006-11-09). "Isle company weighs $31M bid". The Honolulu Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "A California banking company on an expansion spree has made an unsolicited $31 million bid for a majority stake in the parent company of Honolulu-based Finance Factors. ... TFC is the parent of Alhambra, Calif.-based TomatoBank, which operates five branches in the Los Angeles area and has about $350 million in assets. The bank, known as InterBusiness Bank until it changed its name in August, was founded six years ago by Los Angeles physician Stephen Liu. The bank specializes in lending to Los Angeles' Asian-American and Hispanic communities. ... The bid for Finance Enterprises underscores TomatoBank's aggressive growth strategy."
2. Kuehner-Hebert, Katie (2006-08-14). "Fruit? Vegetable? Neither; CEO: New name appeals to target markets". American Banker. Vol. 171, no. 155. pp. 1–5. EBSCOhost 21948502. Factiva AMB0000020060814e28e00003. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "Dr. Stephen Liu likes to compare the bank he co-founded six years ago to a tomato. ... In fact, the medical doctor-turned-banker likes the comparison so much that last week the $350 million-asset InterBusiness Bank in Alhambra, Calif., officially changed its name to TomatoBank. Dr. Liu, its chairman and chief executive officer, said he had always thought the old name was too generic, and he has been trying to persuade the board to change it for years to give the bank more visibility in the ethnic communities it targets in and around Los Angeles. The new name is not a complete stretch. The bank has used a tomato as its logo since its inception, and its Web address has been www.tomatobank.com since 2001. Dr. Liu said the word "tomato" resonates with Asian-American customers, because banks in Asia are often named after fruit, vegetables, or flowers grown in their region, and Asian-Americans particularly love tomatoes. ... Richard A. Soukup, a partner with the Chicago office of the consulting firm, Plante & Moran PLLC, said that the TomatoBank name is "refreshingly innovative" and will definitely be a conversation starter. "But time will tell if it has legs and branding appeal." Ted Salame, the president of BrandEquity International in Newton, Mass., thinks it will. ... Dr. Liu's bank actually had done quite well under the InterBusiness name. Its assets have nearly doubled in the last two years. Last year its net income rose 83%, to $3.7 million. Its efficiency ratio, its return on assets, and its net interest margin are all above average for banks in its asset class, according to Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. data."
3. Allen, Mike (2007-10-01). "TomatoBank Targets Latino Customers, Opens Chula Vista Branch". San Diego Business Journal. Vol. 28, no. 40. p. 3. EBSCOhost 27088532. Factiva SDBJ000020071026e3a100006.
  The article notes: "In the world of bank names that are mundane and commonplace, Tomato-Bank, which recently opened an office in Chula Vista, stands out. The Alhambra-based commercial bank was formerly known as InterBusiness Bank until last year when it rebranded itself. ... The change appears to be working as Tomato's total assets sprouted up 26 percent over the year ended June 30 to $445 million, while its loans increased 36 percent over the same period to $341 million. ... Buoyed by the bank's growth, it decided to open a branch in the San Diego area, the first branch outside Los Angeles County. ... To attract its targeted customers, TomatoBank's first branch is housed inside an El Tigre Supermarket, a supermarket chain based in Escondido that caters to Latinos. ... Hans Ganz, chief executive of Chula Vista-based Pacific Trust Bank with some $770 million in assets, had not heard of TomatoBank, but said their strategy could be effective. Ganz said other banks have been successful at targeting specific minority groups, such as Nara Bank in Los Angeles, which targets Korean Americans."
4. Tanaka, Rodney (2007-02-25). "Banking with a personal touch". San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Factiva xKRTGB00020070227e32q00001. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "Step into TomatoBank in Alhambra and you may not realize you're in a bank, since you don't wait to interact with a teller standing behind Plexiglas. ... The company also focuses on community service. The bank's latest partnership is with the Urban Education Partnership, which focuses on helping high-poverty, multi-cultural Los Angeles County schools with academic achievement. ... The bank, which has 75 employees, has grown 40 percent to 50 percent each year, he said. The company has six offices and plans to open two more in Arcadia and San Diego."
5. Schachar, Natalie (2015-11-11). "In Merger, Interesting Name of TomatoBank to Disappear". Los Angeles Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "The parent company of L.A.’s Royal Business Bank announced Tuesday that it has signed a definitive agreement to acquire the parent of TomatoBank. Assuming the transaction is completed as expected in the first quarter next year, what may be L.A.’s most interesting bank name will disappear thereafter. TomatoBank, which operates six full-service branches in Los Angeles and Orange County, primarily serves Asian-American communities, the same demographic focus of Royal Business Bank. TFC Holding Co., TomatoBank’s parent, reported assets of about $488 million, deposits of $421 million and shareholders’ equity of $60.5 million as of Sept. 30. All TomatoBank branches will eventually be converted to Royal Business Bank."
6. Tanaka, Rodney (2007-05-30). "Ripe investments". San Gabriel Valley Tribune. Factiva KRTGB00020070531e35v0002t. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "TomatoBank planted its latest seed, opening a new branch in Arcadia Saturday. TomatoBank has eight branches, including regional offices in Industry and Alhambra. ... Founded in 2000, has about $410 million in assets and is expected to approach $1 billion by the end of the decade, according to the bank. ... TomatoBank is also active in the community, providing summer internships through the Urban Education Partnership and sponsoring financial literacy programs for the American Junior Golf Association."
7. Daysog, Rick (2006-11-22). "Finance Factors' owner rejects TFC takeover bid". The Honolulu Advertiser. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
  The article notes: "Finance Enterprises Ltd. said its 12-member board voted unanimously last week to turn down TFC Holdings Inc.'s $1,000-per-share offer for 31,000 shares, or 51 percent of the company's stock. ... TFC is the parent of Alhambra, Calif.-based TomatoBank, which has $350 million in assets and operates five branches in the Los Angeles area. TomatoBank, known as InterBusiness Bank until it changed its name in August, was founded six years ago by Los Angeles physician Stephen Liu. The bank specializes in lending to Los Angeles' Asian-American and Hispanic communities."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Tomato Bank (traditional Chinese: 宏基銀行; simplified Chinese: 宏基银行) 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) 02:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Cunard (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nordea Bank Norge

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. The notability banner has remained unresolved for 12 years. Cinder painter (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Large bank in Norway, but redirect to Nordea for the time being. Geschichte (talk) 09:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 138573

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This star has gotten some attention for its similarity to the Sun, but is mostly discussed together with other Sun-like stars and not individually (e.g. in 1, 2, 3). In a previous AfD it was redirected to Solar analog#Solar twin, but recreated a few years later; if not kept, that redirect should be restored. SevenSpheres (talk) 20:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, a basic search show this star has gotten some coverage by some studies, given that it is among the closest solar twins. Might pass WP:NASTRO. 21 Andromedae (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: it does show evidence of notability from multiple studies. I'm curious why it's listed as older yet is more magnetically active than the Sun? Praemonitus (talk) 06:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like keep, but an additional view would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 34880

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did find a paragraph on HD 34880 in a paper by I. I. Romanyuk et al (2013),[17] but I could only access the Russian-language version. Otherwise, there doesn't appear to be significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 13:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

HD 174569

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars in Aquila, where it is already listed. The system lacks any significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 13:28, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep, has a HR number and hence pass criterion one of WP:NASTCRIT. Has sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. 21 Andromedae (talk) 20:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 41162

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a HR number and hence meets criterion one of the guideline cited above, but this article is really poorly-written and has to be fixed. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars in Auriga, where it is already listed. The system lacks any significant coverage. Praemonitus (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

HD 222399

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has a HR number and hence meets criterion one of the guideline cited above. 21 Andromedae (talk) 22:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of stars in Andromeda, where it is already listed. The star lacks any significant coverage; it's just an ordinary, distant, subgiant star with no particularly interesting aspects yet identified. Praemonitus (talk) 07:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Kaavya Sha

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

From a WP:BEFORE, I am unable to find any independent sources with significant coverage. The only sources I could find with SIGCOV are interviews /wedding announcements, which are ineligible towards GNG. NACTOR is also not met here, as none of these roles are significant enough to warrant a separate article. No plausible ATDR either. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, India, and Maharashtra. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' as per references from The New Indian Express, The News Minute, The Times of India [18], [19] and her work in many notable movies as mentioned in the article. Behappyyar (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gharida Farooqi

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

Fails WP:GNG. Mainly covered in gossip media and controversy like "child abuse" is not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV. Gheus (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan Pleszczynski

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Television. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 19:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mom Soth

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

Improperly sourced (by one external link to IMDB) article for non-notable actor. WP:BEFORE does not yield any reliable sources that verify notability. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Cambodia. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for the destruction of Israel

AfDs for this article:

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

In the year since the closure of the prior AfD this article has remained a NPOV non-compliant coatrack article that synthesizes elements from Anti-Zionism and from Antisemitism. The article has an unclear scope but there is no dispute at article talk that it has not remained within its scope. As it is a coatrack whose scope is entirely covered by other, better, articles the best course of action is to cut this article, merging anything relevant, appropriately sourced and compliant with WP:NPOV into those articles whose scope overlaps this article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic with a well-defined scope. NPOV issues can be resolved through editing. Andre🚐 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the contention that the scope is well-defined is very controversial in this case. In fact the well-defined scope exists in Anti-Zionism - this is a POV fork that mostly seems to exist to suggest anti-zionism is de-facto antisemitic. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We define anti-Zionism very broadly, including beliefs that Israel's establishment was flawed or unjust in some way. For example JVP is anti-Zionist (by our definition or their own), but doesn't call for the destruction of Israel. So I wouldn't say the scopes are similar; maybe they can be viewed as having a parent-child relationship. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndreJustAndre: Perhaps you could point out the three highest quality RS that clearly define the scope. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's what's bothering me as well, there is an WP:V problem with the subject matter, I suppose a string of examples might be enough to overcome that if those examples were in themselves coherent but I don't see that, I just see a coat rack for anything that might fit. Selfstudier (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Anti-Judaism, Antisemitism, and Delegitimizing Israel, Confronting Antisemitism in Modern Media, the Legal and Political Worlds, Sachar, along with sources like Yonah Alexander, Roomi, etc. Andre🚐 06:15, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the sources you cite above, could you give us a statement defining the scope of this article? Is it calls for the end of a state or is it calls for the end of a people? Because they are not the same thing, and the article's treatment of the two as if they were the same thing is at the center of the wp:pov wp:coatrack issues. إيان (talk) 08:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The specific terminology "Calls for the destruction of Israel" appears in all of those sources. We don't need to get into whether those statements are correct or justifiable. The question for AFD is GNG, and to some extent whether the scope is overlapping or independent, not whether the current article text is NPOV or well-written. Being as those above sources do describe the specific phenomenon, some observers point out that Iranian rhetoric or the rhetoric from Hamas is antisemitic when it calls for the destruction of Israel, but others have defended it as not fundamentally antisemitic. The article shouldn't take sides, but consider the proportion of reliable sources. For example, I might put Irwin Cotler in the first group, while Avraham Sela and Shaul Mishal would probably be in the second group. Andre🚐 01:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What would that well defined scope be? I can't seem to identify a singular, coherent one that fits with the title. Mason7512 (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What is non-singular or incoherent about calling for the destruction if Israel? That is a thing that happens and that's what the article is about. Notable world stage actors do it, what is the reception of them doing that, etc. Andre🚐 01:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of frankly wholly unrelated topics like BDS on the page on the basis that a pro-Israel source compared it to calls for destruction is an example of the failure of scope here. Simonm223 (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Anti-Zionism (or Legitimacy of the State of Israel.) This is a WP:POVFORK of those articles and everything worth preserving from it, if anything, would be better covered there in the more neutral context it provides. EDIT: Moving delete to primary, since I agree that there's little worth preserving, but the key point is that this is a POVFORK of material already covered on multiple other articles. --Aquillion (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Merge if there is anything worth merging. إيان (talk) 20:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep an important topic with a well-defined scope. It balances other articles on Wikipedia and the NPOV can be enhanced through editing. ' שלומית ליר (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Does it balance Calls for destruction of Gaza, oh wait, that's a redlink, Calls for destruction of Palestine, hmm, not that one either, wonder why they don't exist, there are Israeli officials calling for that almost daily? I should make up a list and start an article, oh wait, it's Anti-Palestinianism, all makes sense now. Selfstudier (talk) 22:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST Andre🚐 01:20, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would say "merge", but is there anything worthwhile in this article that is not already present in other better articles? Mostly this article reads like a sort of political manifesto. Zero^talk 03:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Anti-Zionism#Anti-Zionism after World War II and the creation of Israel (or Legitimacy of the State of Israel), of which this is a WP:POVFORK. For months now, not a single user has been able to explain: what is the difference between calling for Israel's destruction and saying Israel has no right to exist?? They are one and the same. Can anyone who !votes keep explain? VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 04:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the difference is just that this article was created exactly one month after the Oct 7 attacks and the word "destruction" captured more for the author in the heat of the moment at that time than more clinical words like "right to exist". Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is more than enough here to satisfy this being a standalone article. Wish it wasn't the case but unfortunately the calls for the destruction of Israel are well documented. MaskedSinger (talk) 09:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:COATRACK and WP:POV fork. I would suggest merge if there were any material unique to this page that isn't already in Anti-Zionism or Antisemitism, but I'm not sure there is any? At the very least, if people want to keep this, they should work on bringing the article up to scratch in the next few days. At the moment, it's been over a year without significant improvements. Lewisguile (talk) 11:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect (merge at best) to Anti-Zionism. The current page is ill-defined and those voting keep have shown no interest in presenting any sources that show how it is "well-defined" or merits a standalone page. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

📠 إيان (talk) 15:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but with the caveat that it realigns itself with NPOV. I’d say there’s more than enough information out there to speak for the notability of the topic considering the context of the past… maybe 30/40 years? (Not gonna go all the way back to ‘48 on this) But that being said, article’s current form seems very heated, so-to-speak. Sinclairian (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a notable topic and the arguments for deletion are not really policy-based. Concerns about neutrality should be handled through WP:BRD as usual, not by WP:NUKEing the article. The scope seems reasonably clear to me (any article about movement, school of thought, etc. will have some gray areas), but it can also be further clarified on the talk page. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVFORK is what most delete !votes are based on, and its valid grounds to delete an article.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 21:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems WP:POVFORK is being used erroneously to just refer to an article with perceived NPOV issues (and some related articles), though. Really POV forking refers to a process, and noone is actually arguing that that process occurred here. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 18:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mini POV forks added together to make a POV list, sounds like a process to me. Selfstudier (talk) 18:11, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what a mini POV fork would be. Unless this article was created to work around a consensus elsewhere, it isn't a POV fork at all, just an article with some related articles. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is a synthesis of random material strung together as if it were an actual topic when there is no such topic, it's just a list of material that is mostly already contained in other related articles. While individual items might be verifiable, there is no coherent linkage between them, thus the whole thing fails WP:V. Selfstudier (talk) 18:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V is about the material in an article, not its topic/scope. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:05, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COATRACK and WP:POV_fork are both very problematic here and unaddressed by any keep !votes. Simonm223 (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
COATRACK is not a good argument for deletion for a few reasons -
It's only an essay.

The majority of its criticism doesn't apply in this case - there's no excessive detail here, and no content that veers away from the article's topic.

It generally suggests remedies other than deletion, except in extreme cases.

I don't see why this would be a POVFORK, which refers to a process of creating an article with content that was rejected by consensus elsewhere. Is there evidence that such a process occurred here? Even if it did, that would have been over a year ago, and we don't tend to delete older articles based on the process by which they were originally created. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 06:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Sure the article never should have been created but that's not a reason to delete it," is your position then? Simonm223 (talk) 12:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right - POV forking is about the creation process, so we shouldn't apply it to an older article with a bunch of contributors for the same reason that we wouldn't apply WP:G5.

In any case, no evidence has been offered showing that the creation process here was that of a POV fork, i.e. adding material after it was rejected by consensus elsewhere. Without that, the POVFORK claim is baseless anyway. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 17:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a POV fork as such just a collection of bits from other articles presented in a one sided fashion as "Calls". Selfstudier (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think this attempt to apply a strict letter of WP:POVFORK without consideration of the spirit of the rules is a transparently weak justification for keeping an article that exists simply to pervert the NPOV balance of a contentious topic. Simonm223 (talk) 15:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:V The no original research policy (NOR) is closely related to the Verifiability policy. Among its requirements are:
Sources must support the material clearly and directly: drawing inferences from multiple sources to advance a novel position is prohibited by the NOR policy
Selfstudier (talk) 19:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article is 100% GNG. So much content about this from many sources. What Sinclairian says about there being enough info is true. I do not know why you think it is OR. People and countries said they want to destroy Israel, this is a fact not OR. Boksi (talk) 07:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination or maybe even redirect to Legitimacy of the State of Israel. I think that could be a way around WP:POVFORK and WP:CSECTION here. Just because people have said these things doesn't mean they deserve a standalone article (WP:BITR). The previous AfD did not answer the criticisms of the article being a fork of anti-zionism, just asserted that because people said the things quoted in the article, it was worth keeping around. As other editors have mentioned in this second attempt, that alone is not enough to keep an article. Smallangryplanet (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote the article, and of course, I support keeping it. I agree with all the reasons mentioned here. I understand that there are discussions about the content, and like any article written on this topic, it evokes emotions from both sides. That is not a reason to delete it. It is backed by sources and data.Eliezer1987 (talk) 12:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was this also a translation from He WP? Selfstudier (talk) 13:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in this case, it was the opposite. I first wrote the article in English, and after a few months, I decided to translate it into Hebrew. Eliezer1987 (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ It seems pretty obvious to me why this subject is notable and deserves its own article.(By the way, I hope my vote is alright technically speaking) Have a great day! Shoogiboogi (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC) (sock strike Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Imagine a rules-based deletion discussion system where statements of the form "It seems pretty obvious to me why..." without a policy-based argument explaining why had zero value. Under those circumstances your vote would be ignored. Sean.hoyland (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Legitimacy of the State of Israe or Anti-Zionism, both of which already cover this subject adequately.

Firecat (talk) 06:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page was created to be able to create and maintain one-sided coverage of the topic of "From the river to the sea", by only including viewpoints that describe this phrase as a call for the destruction of Israel, and surrounding it with content about terrorist organizations, while not describing its usage and not including any nuance present in the existing article about the phrase. The "From the river to the sea" content has since been removed, but doing so did not fix the fundamental problem. From this, there's been a pivot to one-sided coverage of the topic of Palestinian right of return, by only including viewpoints that describe this political position as a call for the destruction of Israel, while not describing what the Palestinian right of return is, and not including views of those who support Palestinian right of return. Therefore, as it stands, this is now a not-so-subtle POV-fork of the Palestinian right of return article. The same goes for BDS: Have an ability to define it as a call for the destruction of Israel without describing what it is and not including any viewpoints of members of the BDS movement. This is a problem which can not be fixed by editing, because the subject is formulated in such a way. Note the plural in the title. This is not a coherent subject. Structurally, the page is a list that conflates the regional enemies of Israel with movements and political positions that are critical of Israeli state policy and which Israel sees as a threat. Good for a pamphlet, not good for an encyclopedia.—Alalch E. 15:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and redirect) or dratify per nom and per my statements on its talk page (here). While I can potentially see an article with this title (or preferably a more neutral title such as "Calls for the dissolution of Israel") being warranted, this article in its current form is simply not what that article would/should be. I don't think there is much content worth merging. Mason7512 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a notable and a well-defined specific subject. "Destruction" or "dissolution" does not matter that much, although it might be renamed if there will be such consensus (I would follow WP:COMMON NAME here). From the river to the sea is a different, although overlapped subject, which is more about the One state solution. The latter does not necessarily mean that one of the "sides" wins. My very best wishes (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting GNG/notability doesn't mean its not a POVFORK.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As others have pointed out, this is effectively a coat rack page that can fit just as well on another page like anti Zionism for example as a subsection. Furthermore Israel is the only country that has a Wikipedia page like this which seems like a very bizarre standard, there is no precedent for a page like this as such it should be deleted and moved to a different page. Genabab (talk) 20:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is rather obvious that it is a notable topic, considering how often it is reported in media, and how much discourse there is around overt calls and edge cases. I am surprised by the number of academic sources, more than I expected to see. Though (as always) the article needs more such sources, and while the structure can be improved, neither are reasons to delete it. --Cdjp1 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I just want to point out that most/all POVFORKs meet WP:NOTABILITY as evidenced by the existence of the prior article they are forked from.VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 20:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, and an article being a POV fork is one of the enumerated reasons to delete the article under the deletion policy: WP:DEL-REASON#5. At the same time, the guideline governing which topics are eligible for being covered in stand-alone fashion, Wikipedia:Notability, clearly states that a topic being presumed to merit an article because it meets notability criteria is only a presumption and not a guarantee that [the] topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. —Alalch E. 12:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The primary deletion rationale being put forward is that this is a POVFORK - as such arguments that this is notable carry little weight, keeping this requires demonstration that a standalone article is justified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for relisting, but I'm not quite clear on what you mean by demonstration that a standalone article is justified. If GNG is met then this is already presumed, so we don't normally expect any positive argument to that effect, only an absence of convincing arguments to the contrary. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody disputes that there is notable material in the article (albeit presented non-neutrally) rather the dispute is that all the notable material would be more appropriate (and more neutrally presented) on other existing pages. As such there's little point in polling for additional comments that simply say, "the material is notable" as that is not the deletion criterion being invoked. I thought Vanamonde93 was being perfectly clear with that relisting comment. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's also WP:BROAD that could apply here. – The Grid (talk) 19:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question (already !voted) - would those arguing for deletion based on the idea of this being a one-sided coatrack also support the deletion of Israeli war crimes, Palestinian war crimes, Criticism of Israel, Criticism of Hamas, etc? WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a reason to keep, but I'm just wondering what the relevant difference is, if any. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 19:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yubo Ruan

AfDs for this article:

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

Limited coverage in mostly poor-quality sources. The Business Insider piece is probably the strongest source in terms of significant coverage and reliability, but even that is questionable. The rest are either trivial mentions or unreliable sources. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Cryptocurrency, and China. GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 15:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would like to point out one of the major contributors of this article appears to be a paid editor finding excuses to remove negative information about Yubo Ruan and OneFootball while expanding their Wikipedia content with questionable sources. 128.100.1.18 (talk) 23:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - David Gerard (talk) 23:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a perpetually up and coming but actually run of the mill business person. Previously deleted, recreated, and edited by sock puppets. Bearian (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources I found largely were about a single event in 2014, his exhibiting a smart piggy bank at the Los Angeles Science and Technology Week when he was 18 years old (1, 2, and 3). The Business Insider article published in 2022 is a questionable source as the nominator noted. The more recent sources were passing mentions or coverage in unreliable sources. I would support retention if Yubo Ruan (Chinese: 阮宇博) received significant coverage in a reliable source that wasn't about the 2014 event. Cunard (talk) 10:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meeting the minimum requirements, I would possibly opt for Draft until other new media sources are identified. DanikS88 (talk) 17:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I did a deeper search where I identified a number of notable Chinese media sources that may be useful for the article and sufficiently informative. [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] I still think the article can be kept. DanikS88 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow analysis of the sources identified in the last comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have identified other biggest Chinese media sources. [25], [26], [27], [28]. In case the article will be kept I will take care of updating and inserting these sources to the article. DanikS88 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We"? GorillaWarfare (she/her • talk) 20:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm not a native English speaker, because I use translation tools sometimes there can be typos. We - I. DanikS88 (talk) 10:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:GNG. Bexaendos (talk) 16:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. The sources found by DanikS88 (talk · contribs):
  1. "阮宇博入选"2022福布斯中国Web3.0创新先锋评选"" [Ruan Yubo was selected for the "2022 Forbes China Web3.0 Innovation Pioneer Selection"]. The Outlook Magazine (in Chinese). 2023-03-31. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via Sina Corporation.
    The article is very positive but The Outlook Magazine seems to be a sufficiently reliable source in being a similar source to WP:CHINADAILY and WP:XINHUA. The article notes: "出生于1996年的阮宇博，对于二进制的计算机世界，有着天生的热爱和天才般的动手能力。早在中学期间，他就拿到了13项科技发明大奖和5项专利，包括“微软Imagine Cup一等奖”、“德国纽伦堡发明大赛第一名”、“全国机器人大赛一等奖”等诸多名誉，技术方面的造诣和沉淀，为阮宇博的创业提供了源动力。"
    From Google Translate: "Born in 1996, Ruan Yubo has a natural love for the binary computer world and a genius-like hands-on ability. As early as in middle school, he won 13 science and technology invention awards and 5 patents, including "Microsoft Imagine Cup First Prize", "German Nuremberg Invention Competition First Prize", "National Robot Competition First Prize" and many other honors. His technical attainments and accumulation provided the source of power for Ruan Yubo's entrepreneurship."
    The article notes: "为了继续深造学业和开拓视野，阮宇博先后在波斯顿大学、宾夕法尼亚大学和斯坦福大学就读计算机和金融学等专业。或许天才都有着类似的命运线，阮宇博跟乔布斯和比尔·盖茨的大学经历一样，在读斯坦福期间便选择了肄业，随后进入著名华人科学家张首晟创办的丹华资本，并联合创办了Skylight Investment，从此开启他的金融投资人生。"
    From Google Translate: "In order to continue his studies and broaden his horizons, Ruan Yubo studied computer science and finance at Boston University, University of Pennsylvania and Stanford University. Perhaps geniuses all have similar fates. Ruan Yubo had the same college experience as Steve Jobs and Bill Gates. He chose to drop out while studying at Stanford, and then joined Danhua Capital founded by the famous Chinese scientist Shousheng Zhang, and co-founded Skylight Investment, starting his financial investment life."
  2. Wu, Mengyang 吴梦阳 (2018-10-18). "八维资本阮宇博：熊市洗投机者不意味行业终结" [Eight Dimensions Capital's Ruan Yubo: A Bear Market Clears Out Speculators, but It Doesn't Mean the End of the Industry] (in Chinese). NetEase. Archived from the original on 2025-01-13. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
    This article is very positive but NetEase seems to be a sufficiently reliable source in being a similar source to WP:CHINADAILY and WP:XINHUA. The article notes: "“熊市的正确姿态”第一期，我们专访了八维资本创始人阮宇博，阮宇博生于1996年，年仅22岁。但其创立的八维资本投资了0x、... 在创立八维资本之前，阮宇博已然名声在外。从6岁开始，便钻研IT技术及无线电、单片机方面的应用，随后参加各种科技创新大赛，并取得了不俗的成绩。投资人阮宇博的专业精神，也是在不断进行各种发明研究的同时，逐渐积累而形成的。对于技术出身的阮宇博来说，从技术层面上去筛选区块链投资项目，可以避免很多空气币的项目，正是由于其在技术上精益求精的专业精神，使得八维资本在投资路径上一直保持稳健。阮宇博高中毕业就开始了自己的创业之路，创立了儿童智能硬件公司阿里辛巴，创业之路虽有坎坷，但也为其之后进入投资行业打下了坚实的基础。"
    From Google Translate: "In the first issue of "The Right Attitude in a Bear Market", we interviewed Ruan Yubo, the founder of Eight Dimension Capital. Ruan Yubo was born in 1996 and is only 22 years old. But the Eight Dimension Capital he founded invested in 0x,... Before founding Eight Dimension Capital, Ruan Yubo was already famous. Since the age of 6, he has been studying IT technology and the application of radio and single-chip microcomputers. Later, he participated in various science and technology innovation competitions and achieved remarkable results. The professionalism of investor Ruan Yubo was gradually accumulated while constantly conducting various inventions and research. For Ruan Yubo, who has a technical background, screening blockchain investment projects from a technical level can avoid many air coin projects. It is precisely because of his professionalism in technology that Eight Dimension Capital has remained stable in its investment path. Ruan Yubo started his entrepreneurial journey after graduating from high school and founded Ali Simba, a children's smart hardware company. Although his entrepreneurial journey was bumpy, it also laid a solid foundation for his subsequent entry into the investment industry."
2. Sources from 2014 about Yubo Ruan's invention of a "smart piggy bank":
  1. Zhao, Xuan 赵宣 (2014-12-02). "北京中学生发明智能存钱罐承载留学梦" [Beijing Middle School Student Invents Smart Piggy Bank to Support Study Abroad Dream]. Ta Kung Pao (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2019-10-29. Retrieved 2025-01-13.
    The article notes: "来自北京的18岁中学生发明家阮宇博在近期洛杉矶科技周活动上展出自己发明的智能存钱罐，引起关注。这位第一次来美国的高中生计划明年前往美国留学，并将自己的发明带入美国市场。"
    From Google Translate: "Ruan Yubo, an 18-year-old middle school student inventor from Beijing, exhibited his own smart piggy bank at the recent Los Angeles Science and Technology Week event, which attracted attention. This high school student who came to the United States for the first time plans to study in the United States next year and bring his invention to the American market."
    The article notes: "据介绍，阮宇博从小喜欢科技小发明，希望能解决社会以及人们生活上的一些难题，他从5年级开始参加科技创新大赛，并製作过地铁震动发电装置、助老助残机器人和智能存钱罐。小学六年级，他研发出第一代智能存钱罐，迄今已四度更新。"
    From Google Translate: "According to reports, Ruan Yubo has been fond of small technological inventions since he was a child, hoping to solve some problems in society and people's lives. He has participated in science and technology innovation competitions since the fifth grade, and has made subway vibration power generation devices, robots to help the elderly and the disabled, and smart piggy banks. In the sixth grade of elementary school, he developed the first generation of smart piggy banks, which have been updated four times so far."
  2. Mao, Yu 毛宇 (2015-01-05). Zhao, Zhuqing 赵竹青; Ma, Li 马丽 (eds.). "小钱罐"玩"出大创意带有触屏交互功能类似智能手机" [Small Piggy Bank 'Plays' Big Creativity, Features Touchscreen Interaction Similar to a Smartphone]. Science and Technology Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2015-05-29. Retrieved 2025-01-13 – via People's Daily.
    The article notes: "他叫阮宇博，就读于北京市第八十中学高三年级。他把“龙猫”存钱罐看做自己的创业项目，并投入了7年时间。这7年里，他的另外一些发明还获得了北京市的青少年机器人竞赛一等奖和青少年科技创新大赛二等奖。... 然而坚持带来了转机。阮宇博透露，他所在的八十中鼓励学生科技创新"
    From Google Translate: "His name is Ruan Yubo, and he is a senior student at the 80th Beijing Middle School. He regards the "Totoro" piggy bank as his own entrepreneurial project and has invested 7 years in it. During these 7 years, some of his other inventions have also won the first prize in the Beijing Youth Robot Competition and the second prize in the Youth Science and Technology Innovation Competition. ... However, persistence brought a turning point. Ruan Yubo revealed that his No. 80 Middle School encourages students to innovate in science and technology."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Yubo Ruan (Chinese: 阮宇博) to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is leaning keep but more analyses of the recently-provided sources would be useful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hani Faig Kaddumi

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

Normally productive but apparently undistinguished (in the WP:GNG and WP:PROF senses) geologist and palaeontologist. I can find nothing that would demonstrate recognized extraordinary contributions to the field, honours or appointments received, etc. Some works (e.g. his book on ambers of Jordan [29]) are reasonably cited, but encyclopedia-level notability does not seem present. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. His Google Scholar profile indicates that he has a decent number of cited publications, though I make no judgment to his academic notability in my comment. Madeleine (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citation count is okay, but I don't think it's enough for WP:NPROF#C1 and I don't see any indication he could meet any of the other NPROF criteria. I wasn't able to find any of the reviews of his book that would be necessary to meet WP:NAUTHOR. He's discovered some species, but as far as I know that doesn't count towards notability on its own, so not seeing much of a case for notability. MCE89 (talk) 23:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tunku Nadzaruddin

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

Minor royal and non-notable business exec. Sole claim to fame seems to be a lot of awards received from his own family, but sources on the awards are thin on the ground, and on Wikipedia notability is not inherited. In a WP:BEFORE search I could find only passing mentions in Malay and English, along with a short piece in the Tatler about him holding a party [30]. A redirect to Ja'afar of Negeri Sembilan#Issue might be the best alternative to deletion, but I brought it to AFD for discussion first. See also similar active discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tunku Irinah. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Royalty and nobility, and Malaysia. Wikishovel (talk) 17:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In addition, there are zero sources in the article at the time of writing, and the subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tan Man Neel o Neel

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

Presently non-notable TV series. Likely WP:TOOSOON, it only premiered December 2024. No coverage that is actual SIGCOV independent reviews, only things in my BEFORE are re-announcements of press releases or non-independent promotional material. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Bobby Cohn (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At the very least, a redirect is warranted (director). Coverage includes a bylined review in Youlin (some users find that website of dubious reliabilty, fwiw; I would tend to find it acceptable) ; also https://www.siasat.com/3-exciting-new-pakistani-dramas-that-kicked-off-in-december-2024-3145075/ ; https://images.dawn.com/news/1193112/pakistani-actors-who-stood-out-in-2024 All in all, and with coverage allowing to verify the cast, allows a potentially decent page imv. -Mushy Yank. 19:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'll analyse the link links you've given above, feel free to suggest more:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Bobby Cohn
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.youlinmagazine.com/article/tan-man-neel-o-neel-a-riveting-tale-of-dreams-struggles-and-redemption/Mjk1MQ==			? Unknown
https://www.siasat.com/3-exciting-new-pakistani-dramas-that-kicked-off-in-december-2024-3145075/	See SIGCOV analysis, this quotes the television network's Instagram post.	Content that relates to the subject at hand Tan Man Neel o Neel is a three sentence paragraph that then quotes an Instagram post by the television network.	✘ No
https://images.dawn.com/news/1193112/pakistani-actors-who-stood-out-in-2024		Does not discuss the subject other then two references to the show confirming the actors/actresses credits.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Or if you disagree with the above analysis, I would be happy to discuss. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It's just a "three sentence paragraph", for example, is not a trivial mention; I would tend to count it for notability, personally.

The same thing goes for the third source: "Tan Man Neel o Neel, which explores the dark effects of mob mentality and the harsh realities of social extremism. In this role, she truly impressed with her ability to step away from the bubbly characters she’s often known for. From her accent to her makeover and the subtlety in her expressions, Sehar proved that she has much more to offer than just light-hearted roles." is a significant mention not a passing mention. Even what is said about Asad - "In Tan Man Neel o Neel, Asad plays the role of a dancer striving to make a breakthrough. Whether it’s his emotional crying scenes or his powerful moments opposite Sehar Khan, he’s truly shining in every scene."- can be considered significant about an aspect of the series.

So, yes, basically, I disagree. Especially as these are bylined articles.

Significance, just like notability, is a threshold.

But again, if everyone thinks a line or two in the page of the director is enough and that reducing mentions of series with notable cast that air on a major network, to redirects is OK, then at least that seems warranted. The article about Mann Jogi mentions this is the third part of a trilogy, so navigation-wise, I would favour a Keep but, again, that's just me. You will generally not get articles in the New York Times about even very popular Pakistani series, so for me Wikipedia:Systemic bias applies, but again, if consensus is that existing coverage is not enough, then, it should prevail. -Mushy Yank. 21:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Wilson (pastor)

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

3/6 sources are his organization. Another is dead link. There is only this [31] and apparently a mention in a book. If it should not be deleted it can probably be merged with Metro World Child. 🄻 🄰 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Christianity, Massachusetts, and New York. 🄻 🄰 16:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislav Hirjak

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

His professional career lasted only 22 minutes and he disappeared in the 2019–20 season. Regarding secondary sources, I found nothing better than a passing mention on Košice Online. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1882 in Scandinavian music

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

We have articles for 1882 in Norwegian music (where this article was an unattributed copy from), 1880s in Danish music, 1882 in Finnish music and 1880s in Swedish music. Comparable to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 in Scandinavian music. Fram (talk) 15:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominated for the same reasons: 1881 in Scandinavian music. Fram (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This nomination appears to have been made because User:Fram failed to notice previously that the article existed and doesn't believe that Scandinavia is a clearly-defined region. This isn't a copy of 1882 in Norwegian music; in fact, content of that article has been copied from 1882 in Scandinavian music just to try to prove a point. Who is going to maintain all these "Music in" articles for separate countries? Will they even be completed? Deb (talk) 15:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
2017 version of 1882 in Norwegian music [32]: in your article 1882 in Scandinavian music you have the same three entries with the exact same reference (even down to the copied access-date). Please tell me how you achieved this without copying the older Norway article? Fram (talk) 15:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're not copies, they are used in a thoughtful way; the wording is not identical. Not that this has anything to do with the proposed deletion of the article. Deb (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've added 1881 in Scandinavian music to this nomination, as the same reasons apply. Fram (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- in a previous version of this article, now at 1880s in Danish music, I had removed an entry where the sources indicate that the year is unknown (early 1880s), not certain to be 1881; another entry where the only link with 1881 is that the much earlier event is described in a letter from that year, hardly something important for 1881; and had corrected the title of a work. The claims of "Who is going to maintain all these "Music in" articles" when they are started as unattributed copies of someone else's work, and then expanded with such entries, ring rather hollow. Fram (talk) 17:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I just don't see the justification for a page, or any compelling reason to intersect Scandinavia, music and an individual year. Moreover, Finland was a part of the Russian Empire at the time. Geschichte (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge If Scandinavian music is an entity itself, then the national articles should be merged to the regional ones. If the national identity is more important, then the regional article should be deleted. There's not a need for this sort of duplication. Either way, for this kind of narrow topic, I'd rather see them as 1880s in X music instead of individual years; when there's not enough info for standalone articles, presenting them with broader context is better. Reywas92^Talk 23:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The WOW! Awards

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

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

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

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

Rajendra Shende

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

1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, & 6th sources are his orgs [33] [34] (second one is just homepage) [35] [36] [37], 3rd he is just quoted [38], 7th is a PDF of a powerpoint [39], 8 & 9 are some reports he edited [40] [41], 10th is an award which does not mention him (and is mis-atributed in the article to the US EPA instead of UN) [42], the 11th is about an EPA award that is only mentioned by a WP:NEWSORGINDIA [43], 12 is a link to a newspaper archive page [44], 13 is a conflict of interest form PDF? [45], 14 is a broken link, 15 is a duplicate of 11, 16 is a release by his university [46], 17 he is quoted in just one sentence [47], 18 is a link to the Wikipedia article on the Montreal Protocol, 19 & 20 are links to his website, 21 simply states he was at an event [48], and 22 is a dead link. 🄻 🄰 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Biology, and India. 🄻 🄰 15:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 15:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. Only two sources give WP:SIGCOV and one of the two came from an organisation where he worked so that can't really be considered as WP:RS. Mekomo (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Carguychris (talk) 21:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Northrop N-9M crash

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

Little or no WP:LASTING effects or coverage; basically a WP:ROTM general aviation crash aside from involving an extremely unique and unusual vintage aircraft. As the article is short and easily summarized, propose merging with Northrop N-9M as its own section. Carguychris (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Carguychris (talk) 15:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and California. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:20, 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.

Centre for Corporate Public Affairs

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

WP:PROMO article for a non-notable business membership organization. The sources on the article are limited to:

Articles/books written by past and present employees or contractors of the organization and thus not independent: [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54].
WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: [55], [56], [57].
The organization's own website and videos/transcripts of speeches given at its flagship event, and other material produced directly by the organization ([58], [59]).

I didn't find anything else in my WP:BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and Australia. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Lacking significant coverage in independent sources. LibStar (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sidy Ndiaye

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

I can’t find in depth coverage of this player so it doesn’t look like he’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Egypt, and Senegal. Mccapra (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bmycharity

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

Not notable (defunct) company; no previous good and reliable media mentions found; Cinder painter (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no 3rd party sources. Google has a couple of mentions on Marketing Week but these are run of the mill - doesn't meet wp:gng Orange sticker (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:46, 7 January 2025 (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 14:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was the best source I could find, but other than that it's all WP:TRADES publications and very brief mentions in a handful of academic books and journal articles. Not enough for WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 18:42, 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.

List of Hindu empires and dynasties

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

The article contains significant inaccuracies. The term "Hinduism" is not applicable to the time periods of ancient era, as only Brahmanism was present. The article incorrectly categorizes several non-Hindu dynasties as Hindu, spreading misinformation and distorting historical facts. This misrepresentation goes against the core WP:NPOV and WP:V. The article fails to cite WP:RS, and promoting various hoax in terms of factual accuracy in listing. Mr.Hanes Talk 14:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Hinduism, Lists, Asia, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Maldives, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Iran, India, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, low quality is not the same as lack of notability. In this case, there is no doubt that there have been many dynasties in India (however that region is construed). Citations definitely can be found; most of the entries are clearly correct; the rest can certainly be remedied by normal editing, which is not an AfD matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of Indian empires and dynasties as the most states on the list were actually Indian or situated in Indian subcontinent. In this sense renaming would be appropriate. Mehedi Abedin 23:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Planon

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

Business does business things. Non-notable. Fails WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Netherlands. UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment! I totally get that not every business belongs on Wikipedia, but I think Planon is notable enough to warrant an entry. Why?

Market Leader: Last week, Planon was named the #1 company in its field by Verdantix, an independent research firm (for the fourth time, just added that source to the page as well). That kind of recognition shows it’s not just another random company .

Strategic Role: Planon’s acquisition by Schneider Electric and its partnership with SAP also proves it’s not just another business but a strategic one in the industry.

The acquisition by SE also got decent media attention (which was not only about Planon but also highlighted its competitors like Spacewell, MRI and AppFolio, showing where it fits in the industry).

I’ve also shared more background and sources on the Talk page beforehand if you’d like to check those out. Hope this clears things up a bit—happy to discuss further if you have other concerns! Stella2707 (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Stella2707: That is not how we consider notability on Wikipedia. Please read WP:NORG. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (note: I approved this article at AfC): Reference 3 and references 8-10 (in combination) should count for independent coverage, unless I completely misunderstand the quality/reliability of these sources. I agree this is a borderline case, but there is some coverage there beyond "this company announced X today", and the article isn't overly promotional. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 22:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Those Darn Etruscans

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

This term is not a plausible search term for someone interested in the "etruscan civilization" (first entry), and is not mentioned in the second entry (Jeopardy), making it an invalid disambiguation and a poor redirect to either entry. Fram (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. older ≠ wiser 12:14, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Seems a perfectly reasonable disambiguation page. Not seeing any problem. I find the first claim made by the nominator inaccurate and the second irrelevant. _pbp 12:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DABNOMENTION applies to both. older ≠ wiser 12:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, nobody will search for Etruscan civilization in that way; it is a possible search term for Jeopardy!, so it could redirect there provided the full phrase is added and cited there, which it isn't at the moment. If it can't be added and cited then the entry should be deleted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bollajira Aiyappa

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

I removed a chunk of copyvio text from the article that had been copied from the first reference [60]. The remainder does not seem to establish notability under any criteria that might apply, e.g. WP:NACTOR, WP:NBUSINESS (as founder of a publishing house), WP:GNG. Although there are many references in the article as it stands, they are all passing mentions rather than WP:SIGCOV. There are no linked articles in other language Wikipedias, and my WP:BEFORE turned up no reliable sources with significant coverage. It is of course possible that there is sufficient coverage in local offline sources, in which case I would happily withdraw my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 12:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Verano (band)

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

No evidence of notability, doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC/WP:SIGCOV. I'm unable to verify the chart positions for the singles as germancharts.de and offiziellecharts.de show nothing for this band. Frost 11:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as nom - unable to verify the charting, or find any evidence the subject meets any aspect of WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion 20:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commane

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

The term "chiefdom of Commane" is not used anywhere it seems[61][62], none of the "notable figures" bear the name Commane. Basically, "Commane" is one of many names originating with the "Ó Comáin" root, but isn't a notable one and not the name of a "chiefdom" apparently either. Simply moving the page to a different title wouldn't solve these WP:OR or WP:V issues, e.g. the first source in the lead, "Sometimes incorrectly 'translated' to Hurley camán a hurly."[63] doesn't seem supported by that source either. Fram (talk) 09:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Addressing the points raised, at great length

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

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

The primary sources for the Chiefdom of Commane include:

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

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

----

1. On the Spelling "Commane":

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

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

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

----

2. Historical Terminology:

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

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

----

3. Notable Figures:

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

The lineage does includes notable individuals such as:

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

Célechair mac Commáin, recorded in the Annals of Ulster and

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

Coman of Kinvara, Saint

Colmán mac Comán the second abbot listed in the Irish annals

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

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

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

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

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

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

----

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

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

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

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

----

4. Verifiability and Sources:

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

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

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

----

At the footer of the page other sources are noted:

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

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

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

As long as you insist on using "Chiefdom of Commane" when not a single reliable source uses this, I have no interest in even looking at what else you state. Your article seems like a coatrack of everything loosely related to the name, from a long section on a clan or chiefdom to a list of non-notable people named Commane or Comman and a list of notable people not named Commane, and so on. "The reference to "Commane" was chosen because it’s the most anglicised form of "Ó Comáin," aligning with the context of an English-language encyclopedia." Not according to "The Oxford Dictionary of Family Names of Ireland", which doesn't even give Commane a separate entry (or even a "see at" reference), but mentions it once under the entry for Cummins[64], which you are well aware off, since you copied the whole section "Early bearers and historical records" literally from that source. Do I really need to restart the proposal at WP:ANI, considering that the previous problems all seem to persist? @Asilvering: has there been any attempt to get the mentoring or feedback which was supposed to happen after that previous discussion? Fram (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

a broad range of sources are on the page, like this:[65] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You're welcome to buy the 500 page book (available in PDF) and review the source material for yourself:[66] Kellycrak88 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This [67] is the much more recent book by that scholar, not his PhD thesis, and that book uses "The Burial Mound of Commán" (once) or the Irish name, not "Commane". The term Commane does not appear in that book. Fram (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vanessa Xtravaganza

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

Disputed draftification. WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents unilateral redraftification., Fails WP:BIO 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Dance, Music, Theatre, Visual arts, Sexuality and gender, and New York. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:MILL club performer. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mekomo (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources providing significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Nazim Uddin

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

Not enough sources to establish notability, and coverage from reliable sources appears to be lacking. Therefore, I'm not sure if article satisfies WP:NACADEMIC. Author also seems eager to remove maintenance templates for no reason, which is quite suspicious and suggests a possible COI. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Bangladesh. CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can't find any secondary coverage, so I think WP:NPROF is the only path to notability. The citation count definitely isn't enough to meet WP:NPROF#C1, and the journal that he is Associate Editor in Chief of doesn't seem prominent enough to meet WP:NPROF#C8. But I think he probably meets WP:NPROF#C6 as the Vice-Chancellor of East Delta University. It seems to be a relatively small private university, but is accredited as far as I can tell, meaning that I think he probably meets C6 as someone who has held the post of president or chancellor (or vice-chancellor in countries where this is the top academic post) of a significant accredited college or university. MCE89 (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also just linking this AfD that was referenced in this recent discussion on the NPROF talk page, which addresses a similar question of whether the vice-chancellor of a relatively new and small but accredited university is notable under C6. MCE89 (talk) 10:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I must admit I'm worried; EDU is a rather small private university, and our article about it is rather promotional, sourced mostly to the university itself, and written by the same person who wrote the the article on Mohammed Nazim Uddin. This reeks of COI editing. There is a slightly shady line where traditional academic institutions blend into commercial organisations selling education (and seeking to advertise themselves), and I'm not sure on which side of the line EDU and Mohammed Nazim Uddin fall. I would like to see some independent sourcing. Elemimele (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is very fair, I do have the same concern. From what I found it's definitely a small and relatively new university, but I don't think we're in degree mill/fake institution territory. It's a non-profit, accredited institution and the faculty seem to be actual publishing academics from the ones I've checked. The promotional editing is concerning and it's definitely not a particularly prominent university, but it doesn't seem to cross the line into being outright shady as far as I can tell. I did find some potentially independent coverage in Bengali under "ইস্ট ডেল্টা বিশ্ববিদ্যালয়", but hard to assess reliability when running things through Google Translate. MCE89 (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't see any pass of WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Keep.per User:MCE89. I have removed promotional content as well.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I placed {{peacock}} and {{notability}} before Vinegarymass911 took care of them. I still can't see any current encyclopedic relevance, but it could eventually become more relevant in the future, so I would abstain from deletion. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 19:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Timeline of web browsers

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

Article contents is of no encyclopedic value and similar information is presented in a better (and more accessible) way on History of the web browser. YannickFran (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Internet, Software, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Seems WP:Indiscriminate. Aaron Liu (talk) 12:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to History of the web browser, since it's a plausible search term. I would strongly oppose a merge, since the only content not already in that article is a bulky table split by decade, which would make the target article too long and cumbersome to read. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:BD08:A4E3:715F:5B91 (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Better improve History of the web browser. Azuredivay (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Makenna Kelly

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Internet, and Colorado. Dan arndt (talk) 08:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 2022 AfD discussion was keep, with the condition that the flag on notability was added. I have added some sources, where the best coverage is the 2019 article in the Fort Collins paper (though I note she is from Colorado). She has minor mentions in the Boston Globe and the Washington Post (now in article). I have not replaced all the citations to YouTube, though I agree with the 'unreliable source' flags for them. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Qi (ski jumper)

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

Normally notable ski jumpers have at least competed in the Olympics. The only coverage I could find is from the non independent www.fis-ski.com . Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and China. LibStar (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bisk Farm

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

All of the sources appear to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA 🄻 🄰 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. 🄻 🄰 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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!} 23:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual political analysis

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

AFD as the article has been draftified before and PROD can be contested. The subject of the article is a concept. The concept itself is well covered in the book, but there are not enough independent sources that refer to this concept. The references include Max Weber's Political Thought, but it is not clear whether the concept of "contextual political analysis" is presented there as well or not.

In short, the concept is not notable enough. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. I think contextual political analysis is probably a notable enough concept/approach to merit an article in theory, although I think it would be a tricky one to write. But this is clearly an AI-generated essay that would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to be encyclopedic. MCE89 (talk) 08:35, 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.

Millennium Bank (Greece)

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

Not notable defunct bank with poor sources Cinder painter (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NBGI Private Equity

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nordea Bank Lietuva

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. Could be redirected to the Nordea page Cinder painter (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 23:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bop House

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

The house itself fails WP:GNG. Some of the sources listed in the article isn't even RS, Google News yield none RS sources. Though IDK if Elle or this Yahoo Entertainment article is RS? Nonetheless, it still fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - references themselves don't seem to stand up to WP:SIGCOV, but could probably be redirected to Content house. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:10, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't think a redirect would be particularly useful here, unless every non-notable content house deserves a redirect to Content house. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The majority of the sources in the article are unreliable (Know Your Meme, Urban Dictionary, WikiHow, YouTube, etc.) and furthermore do not demonstrate significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 17:15, 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.

Nom Krouk

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

I've declined a G11 request on this—it clearly isn't spam—but in its current state this is so unsalvageable, it would require a scorched-earth rewrite from scratch if it were to be a viable Wikipedia article. ‑ Iridescent 07:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ‑ Iridescent 07:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and might be eligible for G12 speedy deletion as copyvio? It seems to be a straight translation of this Facebook post followed by a straight translation of this blog post. MCE89 (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G12, then recreate as a redirect since if I'm not mistaken this is the same subject as Khanom krok. --Richard Yin (talk) 07:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Came here to say this. Redirect to Khanom krok. Valereee (talk) 16:12, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was 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!} 23:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verlag Anton Saurwein

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage of this company, failing WP:NCORP. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 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!} 07:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I also couldn't find any significant coverage, or really much coverage of any kind in reliable sources. It's a bit strange since I would expect a publisher of academic material to be notable, but I don't see how the article's subject passes WP:GNG. Maybe it's just hard to find sources in Google when most of the search results are works published by the company. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The publisher's only outputs seem to be a journal that doesn't meet WP:NJOURNALS and a series of academic monographs that probably don't meet WP:NBOOK. If either of their publications were notable there might be an argument to keep and rename, but I don't think that's an option here. And agree that I'm not seeing any sign that they could meet WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. MCE89 (talk) 13:55, 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.

Over the Counter (Snoop Doggy Dogg album)

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

There doesn't seem to be any significant coverage by reliable/independent sources for this album. Redirecting might not be appropriate as it's not mentioned in another article. Frost 05:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. orphan article, not much reliable sources found. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 06:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the writer of the article, I can agree that it may not be notable, since it was lost media until 2004, and not many people even knew about the album until way after Snoop Dogg's fame. I would say delete or leave as a stub. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 06:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of sources due to the obscurity of the tape is also a problem. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a surprisingly robust legend, though the album is still a mere legend regardless. After Snoop first became famous, this old bootleg tape started to circulate and it appears to have really existed as a physical item, but nobody was sure if it was real or fake. Now, all copies have apparently disappeared so one can only speculate on what was on it. Here is some geek commentary: [68], [69]. This apparently lost album is only briefly mentioned at Snoop's article and I think that's all that can be supported. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noémie Silberer

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's a three-minute video [70] on the Tribune de Genève website. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Here's a news article: [71]. One more: [72]. One more: [73].
A news article in German about her retiting: [74]. (Just one paragraph, but it's like a mini biography.)
And there are lots of sentence examples featuring her on Linguee.fr: [75]. Sentences from skating.cn and swissolympic.ch. Certainly, there were some articles mentioning her on the internet long ago, but they got deleted since. --Moscow Connection (talk)
Comment: Looking at the sources provided in this discussion, the first article is WP:SIGCOV as it provides multiple paragraphs of coverage about the subject, but the rest of the sources appear to be merely mentions or lack any depth (a couple of sentences at most are actually about the subject). Without evidence of actual significant coverage, we can't have an article on a BLP. Let'srun (talk) 14:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Isabel Drescher

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have found a couple of things for her on the same website Westfalische Rundschau [76] and [77]. One of these is about her when she is very young and the other one is one long paragraph so still some way short of establishing notability but it gets the discussion started.Canary757 (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Carquillat

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is no corresponding article on the German Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some news articles: [78] ("Kurioses ereignete sich bei den Frauen. Cindy Carquillat belegte zwar Rang 1, der Titel wurde ihr allerdings nicht vergeben, weil sie in den Kür-Noten nicht den erforderlichen Schnitt von 4,8 erreichte. Dies ist bei den Frauen noch nie vorgekommen, seit sie 1931 erstmals am nationalen Championat zugelassen worden waren."), [79] (about her qualifying for the Junior Worlds in 2005).
Keep. After all, she did finish first in the national championships. Per WP:NSKATE and WP:GNG too. (She competed almost 20 years ago, she definitely had something written about her in the media back then.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There may be something here → [80], but the site doesn't open for me. (I'm tired of this, many sites seem to block Russian IPs, it's impossible to search like this.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The first source provided has a few sentences, the second one is an article about her, albeit a very short one about her qualifying. The third one that blocked the IP appears to be about changes in the scoring system and is not about her. This SUBJECT appears to be below SIGCOV levels at the moment. In addition I have found a couple of brief mentions in the french media sites la region and arcinfo but well below what is needed to prove GNG. I will have another look later at this one.Canary757 (talk) 07:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  There are 94 hits for her on e-newspaperarchives.ch. Most look minor but may need a french speaker to judge as some appear to be longer.Canary757 (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very far from SIGCOV. Both articles mentioned above are routine event results, from the same news site, and the latter is a couple-sentence announcement about a junior career event so is even further from counting toward GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Gülke

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

Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A brief google search turns up [[81]], which while paywalled appears to have WP:SIGCOV from what I can read. A couple of sentences here but not what I'd call SIGCOV [[82]]. The corresponding German article has no non-database sources, so that doesn't help the case for this subject. Still undecided here. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are other articles about her in Berliner Zeitung such as [83].Canary757 (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  With that additional source, I'm inclined to say this is a weak keep as there are multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a Keep vote and this article has already been PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep as per @Let'srun

Shrug02 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2023 Alberta general election

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content forks of unclear necessity. The standard format for Canadian provincial election results is to include the final vote counts in the unified "candidates" tables within the main election article first, and then consider moving that table to a new separate "results" page only if article-size considerations demand that. That is, separate results pages do not always have to exist across the board separately from the main election article: that's a size control option, not a standard requirement. And when a separate results page does exist it's supposed to do so instead of the candidates table being present in the main election article, not alongside that, and it's supposed to consist of the candidates table being moved from the main election article so that the separate page looks like this.
But that's not what's happening here: all of these pages exist alongside, not instead of, the candidates tables still being present in the main election articles, and all of them are transcluding individual "district results" templates instead of using the unified table like they're supposed to.
Additionally, it warrants note that these were all created within the past month by a (non-Canadian, as far as I know) editor who doesn't really contribute on Canadian politics on a regular, ongoing basis, and instead tends to jump in only on election nights to create a hashpile of improperly formatted stubs about the newly elected legislators, which other people inevitably end up having to repair after the fact -- just in October's New Brunswick election alone, I and another editor both had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong, and at least in my case it wasn't the first time I had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong.
Again, it's an either/or choice between including the candidates table in the main article without a separate results page, or moving the candidates table to a separate results page instead of being in the main article. There's simply no prior precedent or need to duplicate the same information in two different places, and no election ever needs both a candidates table in the main article and a separate results page. It's one or the other, not both, and either way it needs to be formatted via the unified table, not via the transclusion of 50-70 individual district results templates. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These pages are for the templates to make it easier to view results than the tables which are difficult to read. I am currently constructing Results of the 2024 New Brunswick general election as the riding results on some pages are still missing. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to arbitrarily decree that all of the hundreds of Canadian election articles that are doing things the way I described are doing it wrong, or arbitrarily impose a new way of doing them — you would need to establish a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada that the old way is a problem and that your way fixes it.

The tables are not "difficult" to read in any way, and the templates do not make it "easier". The tables, in fact, offer necessary information that your templates completely fail to provide. Since the tables group districts regionally, for example, it's possible to view variations in regional support — was one party significantly more or less popular in one region than it was in another, etc. — that a strictly alphabetical list fails to reveal. And since the tables have an incumbent column, they offer a way to track whether each incumbent was reelected, defeated or just didn't run again at all, which using the individual riding results templates fails to achieve.

Both of those are necessary information in a compendium of election results, which the existing format fulfills and your new variant format does not. So you would need a consensus that the long-established standard way of doing election results — either in the main article without having a separate results page to repeat the same results, or moving the table to a standalone results page without keeping duplicate data in the main article at all anymore — needs to be changed, and are not entitled to arbitrarily decree that yourself. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- - I do not mean to be imposing anything. I noticed that Ontario was the only province with separate pages so I did the same for other provinces. If the formatting is the only issue then that can be solved. The tables are difficult to read particularly on mobile devices, and vote share and candidate names are missing unlike the templates where they are included. As the ridings aren't in alphabetical order it is hard to navigate. Also there are some misconceptions here I do edit Canadian politics on a regular basis and not just election nights. Check my edit history. I recently completed the NB election results for each riding two months after the fact. As for the "hashpile of improperly formatted stubs" I believe they are of better quality now. Also it should be noted that I did not create all of these pages; Results of the 2020 British Columbia general election was created by User:RedBlueGreen93. How would I go about getting a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada? Moondragon21 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth noting that Ontario has a separate page potentially as it the largest province with 124 seats in their legislature, and there would be article size related constraints to not doing so. Similar to how federal elections in Canada have their own distinct results page see Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding for the 2021 Canadian federal election. Can also be said, that both the Ontario page which is mentioned and the fed. election page follow a different design than the articles in this nomination.
    
    Given that results in both prov. and fed. elections in Canada vary tremendously by region of a province - or the country - i would make that case that regional groupings (of alphabetical constituencies) for election results makes considerable more sense than alphabetical across the whole province. But I would say that this is a conversation for a different forum other than AfD. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all These appear duplicative to the main articles. I do not see an advantage to list the results in a redundant page just to be able to use Template:Election box, and I don't see how 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read". I think the concise table is much better than having dozens of the election box templates, and we should be moving away from the latter in general for pages that cover multiple elections. Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read" because they are not in alphabetical order instead they are listed by region. These pages are similar to those for Australian states as seen at Category:Electoral results in Australia which I presumed were comparable with the pages that exist for Ontario elections. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't mind that these articles exist, but I do agree with Bearcat that it's nice to have the ridings ordered by region and having an incumbent column, which these articles lack. Though, I do see why having the ridings ordered alphabetically would be useful as well. But, I'm not sure if just having a bunch of result templates by riding is all that useful other than to show the results by riding, alphabetically. They don't show the incumbents, and don't really let the reader compare the results with other ridings like a sortable list might accomplish. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it has to be either/or as both can exist as Results of the 2011 Ontario general election by riding compliments 2011 Ontario general election. The listing of templates is standard for pages like Results of the 2024 Queensland state election. I think its helpful to see candidates alongside vote share. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all articles mentioned in original nom. Articles are redundant (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) to the main page for each election, and don't provide any new valuable information that couldn't be found on each respective constituency/elected officeholder page. Using Ontario as an example doesn't make sense as it's the largest provinces, which may require a stand-alone article - not due to notability or ease - but due to overall article size - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These would be valid forks if they needed to be (if the election article was long enough), but I agree as currently written they are duplicative, though they do present information in a slightly different format, so I don't think they're redundant. At the end of the day though we only need the results sorted one way. SportingFlyer T·C 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe at some point there will need to be a discussion about statistics and table use in Canadian election articles. Essentially, statistical information is repeated (i.e., Three results tables) and reorganized several times (i.e., below this) in Canadian election articles while there is limited substantive encyclopedic content about the election itself. However, addressing this issue, there appears to be three methods to display the statistical results of Canadian elections, they each convey slightly different information in a different manner.

1. Candidate Table: generally a table organized on the axis of electoral district (x) and political party (y) that provides the name of each candidate, as well as the incumbent (if present). Some include the number of votes and percentage of total votes each candidate received. BC 2001 Name and Votes Example, AB 1909 Name, Vote and %. As a note, I have created several of these in the past, but other users have also created these tables.

2. Statistical Table: tables created by @Raellerby that provide statistical information regarding the number of votes and party choice of each electoral district. BC 2001 Statistical Table Example.

3. CanElec Template Lists: tables created by @Moondragon21 that incorporates the individual electoral district's CanElec result template for each district in the election. Note, this is the standard used for pages for individual electoral districts when displaying historical election results.

Personally, it is my opinion that only one of the Candidate Table and Statistical Tables should be the primary method of displaying election results in the article. The Candidate Table effectively lists each candidate that participated in the election, which is desirable because notable individuals may stand in an election but not be elected. The Statistical Table effectively lists important information about vote counts, pluralities, and other similar information in a sortable manner. It is my opinion that only one should appear on the main article because these articles are becoming too long to meaningfully navigate. A results page would take a vast majority of this other statistical content out of the main article (Example almost everything below this). However, shorter provincial election pages may be able to fit both Candidate Table and Statistical Tables on the main article. Once there is sufficient encyclopedic content on a provincial election page, then a specific results page can be created. - Caddyshack01 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Caddyshack01 has summarized the situation and issues succinctly. I created the Statistical Tables to better align Canadian election articles with those for the UK parliamentary elections, and they have turned out to be much more revealing compared to the Candidate Tables.Raellerby (talk) 16:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge you can't have an election article without listing the results by candidate. Wellington Bay (talk) 17:23, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We do have the results by candidate already in the main election articles. We need either that or these, not both. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We already have articles, covering this info. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariana Serbezova

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

Still fails SPORTSCRIT. Courtesy ping Geschichte Jay Cubby 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Olympics. Jay Cubby 04:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What Bulgarian newspaper archives did you look in for this offline-era Olympic medalist and world silver medalist? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shukra (film)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Centerbase

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

No indication of NCORP or SIGCOV, the references are mostly press releases or other non RSes. I couldn't find much on a BEFORE either. BuySomeApples (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Companies, Software, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I too struggled to find decent sources with significant coverage that aren't press releases or simply inclusion in a list of legal apps. The best I could do is: Rowland, Seth G.; Rowland, Samuel (2018). "Legal Apps for the Lawyer on the Go". GPSolo. 35 (3): 46–51. ISSN 1528-638X.. The article has a paragraph describing Centerbase as a "product outlier" in the cloud-based practice management category. I'd not consider that sufficient to establish notability, but maybe it would help if other complementary sources came to light. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find sufficient reliable sources providing significant coverage. Madeleine (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Avayalik Islands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avayalik

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

This needs to be redirected to Avayalik Islands, but I think that's a form of soft deletion and am so nominating it. Avayalik-1 is a Dorset archaeological site on the Avayalik Islands. The islands article has some cited content about the site, and the islands are notable primarily for their artifacts. This article seems to be about Avayalik-1, but written before dating established the site as Dorset. It should be redirected rather than deleted, because it's a plausible search term. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is a sort of merge, but I agree it should be made a redirect.Doug Weller talk 16:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirection to Avayalik Islands
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. Avayalik Islands already includes all the content in Avayalik, albeit from a different viewpoint. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:18, 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.

Apify

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

Appears to be entirely promotional and lacks WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include Czech and Slovak sources, in which the company has sustained coverage going back to 2017. Below are examples, which show the company to be notable in the Central European startup and business community. Additionally, a search of Stack Overflow's site shows many pages of developer discussion about Apify, indicating its widespread use.

https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/finance/nakupovani/black-friday-skutecne-slevy-porovnani/r~ab190004d43d11e7984d0cc47ab5f122/

https://cc.cz/apify-nepresvedcilo-investory-miliardove-ambice-tak-vystridalo-propousteni-krizi-ale-nakonec-prezilo/

https://www.hrot24.cz/clanek/do-apify-priteklo-70-milionu-korun-prazsky-startup-se-chce-stat-dalsim-ceskym-jednorozcem-HVEEd

https://fontech.startitup.sk/umela-inteligencia-regulacia-slovensko-pre-a-proti/

https://www.zive.cz/clanky/internet-patri-botum-ne-lidem-cesti-apify-je-prodavaji-jako-aplikace-podcast-zive/sc-3-a-229824/default.aspx

https://cc.cz/tezi-data-z-webu-a-je-v-zisku-datove-apify-ma-pres-200-tisic-uzivatelu-ted-nabira-70-milionu/

https://www.lupa.cz/aktuality/cesti-scraperi-webovych-dat-apify-ziskali-od-j-t-a-fryce-desitky-milionu-na-dalsi-expanzi/

https://www.cfoworld.cz/clanky/cfo-pod-lupou-dusan-antos-apify/

https://www.e15.cz/byznys/cesky-startup-dodal-evropske-komisi-program-ktery-hlida-e-shopy-s-falesnymi-slevami-1413801

https://www.businessinfo.cz/clanky/necista-hra-se-zakazniky/

https://www.cnews.cz/clanky/cerny-patek-2017-alza-czc-mall-falesne-slevy/

https://www.trend.sk/trend-archiv/hlavne-to-nepokazit-startupy-apify-yieldigo-memsource-to-maju-nasliapnute-elitneho-klubu

https://cc.cz/startupawards2024/apify/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnookums123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 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, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.

Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject has 13 news articles that meet the notability criteria of being significant, independent, reliable and secondary. The fact that many of them are in Czech or Slovak doesn't meet they don't meet the criteria, and a search of developer forums shows the software is widely used among English speakers in any case. ‪Ignatiusjreillythefirst‬ (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatiusjreillythefirst (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article contains a promotional section but has reliable sources. The page would benefit from cleanup to improve its structure and neutrality. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 13:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has reliable sources and passes WP:COMPANY. XwycP3 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article passes WP:SUSTAINED notability because it has 24 references going back to 2017. Sources are reliable and independent of the subject. Additionally, another editor removed the section listing the company's products, which should take care of the WP:PROMOTION concern. Schnookums123 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though we suddenly have a week's worth of keep !votes, I question the neutrality of the new accounts that edit as if those contributors are not new (not that I'm saying this applies to all respondents). Additional views by some more of Wikipedia's demonstrably experienced contributors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, see previous relisting comment. I'd like to hear evaluations from some more experienced AFD regulars. Also, Stack Overflow is not a reliable source.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glokk40Spaz

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Charitably it is too soon. In his first AfD about a year ago, he got one "weak keep" vote because he is signed to Columbia Records, but that is not enough. He is listed at the company website: [84], but with no supporting info ("Read More" leads nowhere). I can find no information from the label about any promotion of his releases or if they even released anything by him yet, despite what this article says. Meanwhile, he has no coverage in reliable music media and his stuff remains self-released on the usual platforms. Good luck to him if that big label puts in some effort, but nothing has yet happened to generate material for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've found some coverage in reliable sources: [85][86][87][88]. Still not sure if it's enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO though. मल्ल (talk) 19:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Weak Keep - the HipHopDX and HNHH sources make this scrape past GNG. SK2242 (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ryo Nakamura (footballer, born 1989)

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

Light years away from meeting WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG. Geschichte (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:SPORTCRIT / WP:FOOTYN) criteria. Material not available for WP:V. QEnigma talk 15:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 16:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No significant coverage what so ever. CNC (talk) 17:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, but merge with corrections — this article seems like a duplication of the already-existing Reo Nakamura (footballer, born 1990) and hence a merge into the existing article may be more appropriate, once the errors have been corrected. It seems like the author of the article has made a spelling error, instead of “Reo” (the correct first name) they have put “Ryo” as the name of the subject and (for some reason) changed their DoB from 1990 to 1989.

The article's own source shows the name of the subject as “Reo”, not “Ryo” (as the author has put) and the correct DoB of the subject as 1990, not 1989 (as the author has put). The reason the others (CC: @GiantSnowman, @CommunityNotesContributor, @QEnigma) could not verify/find sources was because the author wrote the incorrect information on the Wikipedia article. The career statistics section, especially, I feel could be merged into the already existing article.

~~~~ Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 19:01, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted - but where is the significant coverage of this person? Giant Snowman 19:02, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For Reo Nakamura (correct name), I was able to find some through this Google search and this one — 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 just to name a few.

At the moment, it appears the player plays for Ezra F.C., in the Pepsi Lao League 1.

~~~~ Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 19:30, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, your sources consist of match reports, database profiles and primary sources. Nothing come close to significant and independent coverage of the player. Geschichte (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In your opinion, would you say the player qualifies as being notable under WP:FOOTYN? Nyxion³⁰³ 💬 Talk 11:41, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOOTYN is an essay, not a formal Wikipedia policy or guideline, and has no relevance in AfD's. The subject must pass WP:GNG with multiple significant sources from publications independent of the subject. Alvaldi (talk) 13:47, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, "The player section of this notability guidance has been superseded by WP:Notability (sports)". Giant Snowman 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Geschichte: Of the seven sources, only the fifth one signals significant coverage on Nakamura as it tells about his personal life. However, one SIGCOV is not enough; the whole GNG needs multiple instead. Transfermarkt is obviously unnecessary to be added to Wikipedia articles as it is claimed unreliable. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - as this person and Reo Nakamura (footballer, born 1990) are the same, we may need to consider sending Reo Nakamura (footballer, born 1990) to AfD if this AfD concludes as 'delete'. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have done this already: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reo Nakamura (footballer, born 1990). CNC (talk) 19:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there are still any valid arguments to Keep or Merge with another article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look likely as Reo Nakamura is currently at a 5-0 delete Geschichte (talk) 22:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep 5-1 surely? With @Nyxion303‘s keep vote, and 5-2 now… not that this is meant to be a vote I thought 😊 Anyway, as you pointed out @Geschichte, the fifth of Nyxion’s sources was SIGCOV, and I have another couple to add. this[89] and this[90]. For me the three taken together seem like enough. Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTAVOTE. Giant Snowman 21:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, that was rather my point. Absurdum4242 (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Absurdum4242 and Nyxion303. I once again request that those nominating and voting delete on Japanese-language articles show evidence of a WP:BEFORE search that includes sources in Japanese and competence to evaluate them before doing so as that clearly indicates that there is significant coverage.

DCsansei (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you reference this significant coverage you talk of please? CNC (talk) 15:05, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the duplicate article Reo Nakamura (footballer, born 1990) was recently deleted at AfD. CNC (talk) 15:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: All the recent !votes are keep, but we've got an almost unanimous delete out of the other AfD. Can we get a source table or something?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Article does not meet WP:GNG due to lack of WP:SIGCOV.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese

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

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

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

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

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

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

La Perdita Generacio

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

Per WP:Fancruft. This band does not seem to have received sufficient coverage outside of the Esperanto subculture. The only reference that is not in Esperanto is no longer retrievable. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh at major beauty pageants

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

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

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

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

美州

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

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

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

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

2,3-Bis(acetylmercaptomethyl)quinoxaline

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

Obscure chemical that I can only find two primary sources for in PubMed,[91][92] both of which are from the 1970s. Google search yields the two aforementioned sources, chemical databases, and Wikipedia. It's an anti-poliovirus drug but obviously doesn't have widespread use for that since polio is near eradication. It's also for herpes but doesn't seem to have any real-world usage in practice since other antivirals are used for that and there would be a lot more written about it if it were used. Velayinosu (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. Velayinosu (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, once notable always notable. It's reliably sourced and was of interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is sourced to one of the two primary sources nom found, and to a dictionary that cites only that same primary source. One primary source isn't enough for notability, and with only two primary publications in 50 years, I would say this drug was never "once notable" either. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added several citations. Esculenta (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Those three are all primary sources from the 1980s and for two of them I can't verify the information. Aren't secondary sources required for biomedical topics to be considered notable? WP:MEDRS is relevant here. Plus, we're talking about something that seemingly has <10 sources, all primary, all from 40+ years ago. Ribavirin's search results on PubMed for comparison.[93] What makes 2,3-Bis(acetylmercaptomethyl)quinoxaline notable? Velayinosu (talk) 01:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamluk Royal Family

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

Fails WP:GNG. See Draft:Tamluk Royal Family; draft was repeatedly declined and then finally rejected for notability reasons before being recreated in article space regardless. As far as I can tell -- and I used Google Translate to search the cited Bengali sources for mentions of the word Tamluk in addition to checking Google Books for English sources -- none of the available secondary sources pass WP:SIGCOV. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sir check "Mahisya" word too..and it will pass..I have checked..I think we need bengali editors for it... KhasEkadashTili (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/History_Culture_and_Antiquities_of_T%C4%81mr/TCFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=tamluk%20royal%20family%20mahishya KhasEkadashTili (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KhasEkadashTili: Please read WP:Notability, especially the section on significant coverage. It is not enough if a source only mentions the subject. The source needs to spend significant page space talking about the subject in detail, and as far as I can tell all of the books on Google Books only mention the Tamluk royal family once or twice. If you can show a chapter of a book that is about the Tamluk royal family or a news article written about their history or something they have done, that might show that the subject is notable and should have a Wikipedia article. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I shall show 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/The_Gupta_Empire/uYXDB2gIYbwC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=tamluk+royal+family&pg=PA139&printsec=frontcover from 139 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RmIOAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA64&dq=tamluk%20royal%20family&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&sqi=2&ved=2ahUKEwjHrrmGw-aKAxV1VmwGHVrxCogQ6AF6BAgGEAM&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR13h8c4kgWqat_gafWeAFXhuey6d55hz8jVOeo_8yNe4pl546FZaDrW9ls_aem_DBnlnbChSJtaPQ9v0D0VAw#v=onepage&q=tamluk%20royal%20family&f=false KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In this Book there is a whole chapter for this royal family..it is in bengali + there is mention of tamluk royal family throughout the book :-- https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.303693/page/n9/mode/2up KhasEkadashTili (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://purbamedinipur.gov.in/history/ government document

https://www.news18.com/news/india/ahead-of-bengal-municipal-polls-royal-descendant-dipendra-narayan-roy-visits-voters-4771787.html 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/A_Statistical_Account_of_Bengal/HNgMAAAAIAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0 page 62 https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/History_Culture_and_Antiquities_of_T%C4%81mr/TCFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=tamluk%20royal%20family this book is about tamluk and it has mentioned tamluk royal family multiple times 117.194.225.93 (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/district-reopsitory-detail.htm?26147 KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:10, 8 January 2025 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~Sir I have added sources...check it!! KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~https://www.telegraphindia.com/amp/my-kolkata/places/tamluk-a-port-city-as-old-as-the-mahabharata-yet-lost-in-history/cid/2028906 KhasEkadashTili (talk) 16:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)~~ WP:SOCKSTRIKE --Richard Yin (talk) 22:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here is a source

[94]https://purbamedinipur.gov.in/history/?fbclid=IwY2xjawHrhzZleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHViXs5fyoJfVjCNxj4Czqq84XtauVUIKkwIVAQO5bDaMbxNzzoShG0o-iA_aem_325afzFF-Rf6zefgYRUqrQ Hamir samanta (talk) 16:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir here another source page 213

[95]https://books.google.co.in/books?id=DT-i9HWMeNYC&q=tamluk+raja+mahishya&dq=tamluk+raja+mahishya&hl=en&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&source=gb_mobile_search&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwju9vuuyeaKAxXfUGwGHWZeJSg4FBDoAXoECAsQAw&fbclid=IwY2xjawHri8tleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHfwn9WHh0I78VyYVxEq0xu0XwuobnW2CkYMQ8_IGFsjzvMnAZyYDb2GLXw_aem_NpwPv57BqK4RYFDVwYaoHw#tamluk%20raja%20mahishya Hamir samanta (talk) 16:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamir samanta @KhasEkadashTili: The sources you've listed here go into detail on Tamluk the town, but none of them (that I can read) have more than one sentence about the royal family. I'll see if someone else can check the Bengali sources, but please try to look for sources that provide significant detail about the royal family, not just about the town or the ruined palace. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion here. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Reposted discussion thread here. --Richard Yin (talk) 23:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a lack of evidence of sigcov. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU Note I've blocked the article's author, KhasEkadashTili, as a sock of SWAPAN.CHAKROBARTY011112. Please disregard their comments in the above discussion. Girth Summit _(blether) 17:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep – This topic is very interesting and has potential, but the article needs very immediate improvements and reliable sources. Otherwise, retaining the page in its current state would be difficult. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This topic has sufficient coverages in news medias -[96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104]. I agree with Jaozinhoanaozinho, this article has scope of improvements.Chanchaldm2 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the sources listed here I don't think any actually provide WP:SIGCOV for the Tamluk royal family itself, but I do see significant coverage for some other topics. It might be appropriate to move (with substantial rewriting) to Surendra Narayan Roy or Tamluk Rajpari; alternatively the article could be merged into Tamralipta with a section about the legacy of its royal family. --Richard Yin (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(To clarify to closing admin: this is me offering a potential compromise for anyone interested in preserving the article's content. My preferred outcome is still delete, since of the many sources listed in this discussion I've yet to read one that appears to satisfy WP:SIGCOV, and I've read every one I'm capable of reading, either natively or through Google Translate) --Richard Yin (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not one of these sources is a WP:HISTRS. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Richard Yin, not opposed to a merge. - Ratnahastin (talk) 04:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is very far from a consensus right now and that hasn't been helped by sockpuppetry and iffy sources offered. So, I'm relisting this to get more feedback and, if editors are considering a Merge or Redirection, please offer ONE target article. If you want to rename this article, you'll need to argue to Keep it and then a rename can be considered. AFDs do not close as a rename as that's an editing decision, not a deletion decision.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist League of Turkey

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

I started this earlier today, but was informed that translations via Google Translate usually aren't acceptable. The reason I'm AfDing it is because looking back over it, I don't see WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG being met, and didn't actually check notability prior to translation from ~~Turkish~~ German, which I think has different notability standards. E_F⁵ 00:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. E_F⁵ 00:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been retranslating (the article was translated from German Wikipedia, not Turkish) and have added a couple of English-language references. The organization is referred to by various different translations, most using "Union" not "League". One of its own web pages uses "Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey", as does ICOR; the CIA uses "Turkish Revolutionary Communists' Union", while a paper by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada mentions the similar "Turkish Revolutionary Communist Union" but uses "Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey" in the heading. (And I found a redlink at Turkey Revolutionary Communist League that I have made into a redirect.) This variation complicates search, but if kept, the article should perhaps be moved to Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey. The IRB page has several citations including news coverage, and the German-language article already has a fair number of references, not all to the organization itself. I believe it meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:45, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Osvaldo Gutierrez

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

Page on an academic created as part of Wiki Education project, unfortunately with WP:NPROF being ignored. High citation area, so h-factor of 38 is fair but not yet passing #C1. He was recently promoted to full professor, no major awards and only WP:MILL mentions in minor science press -- WP:TOOSOON. (Unis have become quite good at promo for junior faculty.) Perhaps in a year or three it can be revived. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 13:14, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I must have a lower threshold for #C1 notability than the nominator, because I think the case for notability through many triple-digit citation counts is enough. It's interesting that he made it from dreamer to full professor; interestingness isn't a notability criterion but the KCRA video profile and ACS "talented 12" coverage look independent and in-depth (a third source, the NIH career conversation, is not independent because it's just an interview) giving him also a weak case for WP:GNG notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Mexico, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with David Eppstein. Qflib (talk) 14:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leans towards keep but lets relist for a firmer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Understood re: the C1 concerns... but his work has gained significant enough coverage/usage to be included, also agree with David on this one. Snowycats (talk) 03:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Day of Reckoning (upcoming film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM, and also is WP:TOOSOON. Content was previously draftified but author returned it to mainspace without meaningful improvements to address previously noted notability concerns. Snowycats (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 03:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

70 Newark-Livingston/Florham Park

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

Bus route with no indication of notability. Redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99). JTtheOG (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 03:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99) Djflem (talk) 07:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

40 Kearny-Jersey Gardens

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

Bus route with no indication of notability. Redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99). JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Moldovan Youth League

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

Youth football season with no indication of notability. Pretty much every yearly edition of this article is sourced only to primary sources. I don't see a possible redirect target, either, as no article for the youth league itself exists. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Moldova. JTtheOG (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Youth leagues do receive coverage, it's not impossible there is secondary coverage out there, but no comment at this time. SportingFlyer T·C 03:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:38, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dodirni mi kolena

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ximena Caminos

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

Following brief discussion on the talk page, in which an editor drafted a new version of the article, it makes more sense to delete this article and for active contributors to create something in draftspace in due course. In its current form, it resembles a CV or promotional piece more than an encyclopedia article. The subject is mentioned in reliable sources but, again, too promotional to establish notability. Northernhenge (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Northernhenge (talk) 15:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Argentina. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is nothing in the body of this stubbed-down version of the article that establishes general notability because there is nothing in the remaining text that refers to significant coverage. It has not been necessary to check the sources, because there is nothing that needs to be verified. There is also a draft. I have not yet reviewed the draft, but it seems better to delete this stub first and deal with the draft in the near future. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Egekent 2 railway station

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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!} 23:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professionals' Academy of Commerce

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

Non-notable accounting school, ref 1 is a database entry, ref 2/3 is a primary ref, and ref 3 is a press release. Fails WP:NORG. Gheus (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 02:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing WP:SIGCOV in Google search results (incl. Books and News). --Richard Yin (talk) 02:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search in Urdu didn't turn up anything usable, and the Urdu language Wikipedia article is an unsourced stub (well, technically sourced to the English Wikipedia article). Seems unlikely that a private, non-degree granting accountancy school with a handful of campuses and a few thousand students would meet WP:NCORP, and I wasn't able to find any evidence to the contrary. MCE89 (talk) 12:59, 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 Official Encyclopedia of Bridge

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

Article relies entirely on the publication itself to source the information. No hits in google scholar, and nothing viewable in google books with WP:SIGCOV although there were hits without viewable pages and a few non-notable hits. With zero secondary sources on this book, it fails WP:NBOOK and WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 3,295 hits in Newspapers.com. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:GHITS. Hits in a search is listed as an argument to avoid at AFD. Those could all be passing mentions, or even advertisements for the book paid for by the publisher. I also don't have access to newspapers.com. If you find anything containing WP:SIGCOV in those sources by all means share it here or better yet add them to the article.4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Games, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is one of those books where there's almost certainly SIGCOV somewhere but it's cited so often it's a nightmare to find. Nevertheless, after a search: there is an entry with sigcov in multiple books on "The Best Reference Books" [105] [106] (with different content). Also this newspaper review [107]. Willing to bet there is far far more, but there are as mentioned above 3000+ (!) mentions of it. Searching will likely be a pain, because this book is cited constantly. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

PARAKANYAA Thanks for these. We can only count The Best Reference Books as one source as they are the same publication even if the content is different. I'll take your word on the newspapers.com source. Please add these if you are able as the article currently only cites the book itself. We just need one more good review from a different publication (to satisfy the rule of three) and I think WP:NBOOK/WP:SIGCOV would be met and I'll happily withdraw at that point. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I clipped the source noted above by PARAKANYAA. Here are some others [108][109][110][111] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is the standard reference work on the game, and I'm sure there must be plenty of references to it to be found in bridge books and magazines. I'll see what I can find. Meanwhile putting in some cn tags might be a better approach than over-hasty deletion. JH (talk page) 09:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jhall1 This is a WP:MUSTBESOURCES argument which is a discredited argument at AFD. We require the production of specific evidence. If there are sources, produce them.4meter4 (talk) 16:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Howlett

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

Fails WP:GNG. Could not find notable sources other than stats pages. The pages that link to it also don't provide good sources. Heart ^(talk) 02:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Football. Heart ^(talk) 02:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:Delete per nom. Helleniac (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Shellwood (talk) 20:13, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect to List of Western Bulldogs players per below. This [112] is all I could find in Trove, which is not too suprising given he only played 2 games. I think by 1987 the VFL was mostly professional or at least semi-professional, but given that there's no coverage outside of databases I don't think he meets WP:ATHLETE. MCE89 (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: Australian sources from 1987 are very poorly covered online. But I know this is a losing argument, the deletionists have won and destroyed the NAFL/SNG, so please just redirect it to List of Western Bulldogs players instead of deletion. The-Pope (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, will change to redirect. MCE89 (talk) 04:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim feminist views on hijab

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

This article is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK of sections of Muslim feminism and does not meet WP:GNG; most sources in the article do not mention feminism/Muslim feminism at all. Helleniac (talk) 01:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Islam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please check here Here before commenting. Best! Baqi:) (talk) 09:33, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While this AFD was opened by a sockpuppet, they were not evading a block during any of their editing and so this can't be closed as a Speedy Keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leýla Kuliýeva

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

Fails notability, her achievements as athlete are not much and as an official her position is not something special to make attention. no much coverage about her in general. Sports2021 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Turkmenistan. Sports2021 (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Martial arts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ukrainian literature translated into English

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tabani's School of Accountancy

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kemer Cup

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

Tagged for a year as unsourced and when I click the external link it blocks me Chidgk1 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't find anything about a tennis event, there seems to be a soccer event with a similar name that pops up in Turkish sources. The one source now in the article is primary, so not helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is usually just called the ITF Istanbul but is also called the Kemer Cup. Mid level payout minor league event at the time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find much in my searches, fails WP:GNG for the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The keep vote above doesn't explain how does this tournament meet the notability guidelines. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Helleniac (talk) 01:59, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of significant coverage, and the single external link is not close to enough to work with. Snowycats (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kids Zone

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The network launched six years ago; was this rationale meant for another nomination? Nate • (chatter) 23:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By "too soon", I mean, the topic could become notable in the future since it involves a TV station, and such channels often receive coverage in academic sources; however, there is currently no coverage. But I linked the wrong essay. Gheus (talk) 18:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think a proper search for sources was done. Bearian (talk) 14:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I always check other languages' articles for additional references. See the Urdu article, which I can't read, but ironically considering the subject itself, has sources translated from the English language. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian you can read it in English on this link. I did my searches via my Google CSE of Pakistani sources and it lacks significant coverage. Most of the coverage like the launch of channel comes under WP:ORGTRIV. Are you willing to change the !vote? Gheus (talk) 18:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment We just have two sources that are reliable but I doubt it is earned media. This is a "news desk" report and this is an article without a proper byline. WP:SIGCOV requires high-quality references with proper bylines and these two references also fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies. Gheus (talk) 18:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Express Entertainment

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

I had originally removed the programming section but restored for this AfD. The references fall well-short of WP:ORGCRIT. There are sources that verify shows but nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH which is required to show notability for companies. CNMall41 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Companies, and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Lakson Group. There is some coverage about it and its predecessors [113], [114], [115] but fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a very good recommendation as an WP:ATD. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Norman (basketball)

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Basketball, North Dakota, and Utah. JTtheOG (talk) 01:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaron Gottlieb

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

Fails to meet WP:N. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in reliable sources. The article's sources are mostly the subject's own works along with an article that quotes the subject a single time. Should be deleted per WP:GNG. --Helleniac (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:34, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have fixed some malformed formatting in this nomination that hid a good chunk of it when transcluded. No opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, Israel, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just noting that the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and some of their other contributions make me a little concerned that this nomination might not have been done in good faith. No opinion at this point on the merits of the AfD. MCE89 (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regada Festival

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

Local sources only found. — Moriwen (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Philippines. — Moriwen (talk) 00:21, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R.E. Saint John Memorial Stadium

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

Not notable; local sources only — Moriwen (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Texas. — Moriwen (talk) 00:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:49, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pioneering

[1]