Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 30

< January 29 January 31 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 23:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Shewmaker

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

Non-notable actor/comedian. A WP:BEFORE search doesn't show anything of value, and there isn't any coverage from reliable sources on this subject. Fails WP:NACTOR. Could even be eligible for speedy deletion under A7. CycloneYoris talk! 23:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Several policy issues were brought up in this discussion, and I'll try to address each:

  1. Right to be forgotten is a legal right in many jurisdictions. As such, it is outside the scope of an AfD, as several here pointed out. Ms. Levy is welcome to contact the WMF directly, and if her request is approved, the page will be removed per WP:OFFICE.
  2. WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE applies specifically to biographical articles. And while this article is about an event rather than a biography, since this person is only known for this one event, I believe it is fair to extend the scope of BLPREQUESTDELETE to include this article. I also think it is fair to consider the request made to the admins of he-wiki as applying to all projects. But this leaves us with the question of who made the request. The announcement from the he-wiki admins said, Naama Levy's family contacted us. BLPREQUESTDELETE is very specific about who can make the request: where the subject has requested deletion. Ms. Levy is above the age of majority in her jurisdiction, and to the best of my knowledge, has not had a legal guardian appointed to her. Therefore, any valid request must come from her, not her family. This isn't a mere technicality. As The Mountain of Eden pointed out, that same family went out of their way to publicize the case, and did so for a vital cause. But in doing so, they helped create a large amount of significant coverage, which now, when it no longer serves their purpose, they wish to suppress.
  3. The page having been created by a now-banned sock is irrelevant. WP:G5 specifically applies to pages that have no substantial edits by others, which clearly is not the case here.
  4. The claim that WP:GNG does not apply to events is patently wrong. WP:EVENTCRIT criterion #1 clearly states, Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. GNG is cited again in that guideline under the section WP:DIVERSE. An event clearly meeting GNG is notable even without necessarily passing WP:LASTING.
  5. Several here !voted Delete based on the argument that "we don't need an article for each person that was kidnapped". I read this as a form of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. The question before us is about the kidnapping of one person, based on sourcing broadly deemed to pass GNG by consensus here. Whether we need the article is not a valid deletion criterion.
  6. Finally, the page falls under WP:PIA, but thankfully all participants were EC, albeit in one case just barely.

Since participation was extensive, I see no point in dragging this on for another week. Even after discarding views not based on P&G, there is no consensus either way. Please refrain from renominating this for six months. Owen× ☎ 15:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping of Naama Levy

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

The article was created by a sock puppet, relatively late (on March 8, 2024, five months after the October 7, 2023). Naama Levy is a Israeli soldier. WP:BLP, WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL applied here. 251 Israelies were kidnapped by the Hamas, and there were not articles about everyone of them. I removed some text by the BLP and NOT criteria, but it was restored. The "media coverage" was not relevant. There are other En WP general, not biographical, articles which dealt with the issue. The biography of a living person is not needed here. The subject is not a leader nor a public figure, but a soldier. Please see also Killing of Barel Hadaria Shmueli. Dgw|Talk 23:29, 30 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 30. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 23:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I agree with the nom, we don't require an article for each and every person that was taken... Rather limited career section, most of the article is about the captivity. Person does not appear notable, I don't see how being one of several hundred kidnapped is notable. Oaktree b (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, Military, Israel, and Palestine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:34, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG, suitable for a list entry, nothing more. Mztourist (talk) 05:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article has received almost 332,000 pageviews. This is the one with the blood coming out of her pants, second only to killing of Killing of Shani Louk and possibly the Kidnapping of Noa Argamani in terms of impact on the public. Abductive (reasoning) 06:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Enormous interest in this person per above mention statistic. Well cited as well. Clearly notable from what I can tell. WP:GNG applies.BabbaQ (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the page happening to be created by a user who is a sockpuppet, or being created five months after the event happened is absolutely not good justification to propose deletion. Many pages, especially ones within WikiProject Crime, are created a while after the event happens for WP:SIGCOV and sustained coverage. This article has clearly proven that with sources from just a few days ago. Her kidnapping has been a topic of significant discussion (her page had 200k+ views last year) and should not be deleted. jolielover♥talk 11:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, a page created by a ban evading actor may be deleted per WP:G5. However, in this case the amount of content written by the 7 different socks that contributed to this article that has survived until the current revision only amounts to about 10% of the article, depending on how you count tokens. Some people believe that you should always delete articles created by socks regardless of how much the article changed after that or else you are rewarding ban evasion. And when I say 'some people' I mean just me apparently. Sean.hoyland (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Levy is among most prominent of the hostages kidnapped by Hamas, and has been featured in articles in CNN, New York Times, BBC, Reuters, and numerous other media outlets. As the article notes, her kidnapping came to symbolize sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attacks, and feminist activists protesting sexual violence have dressed in bloodied sweatpants like those worn by Levy in the footage of her abduction. The page views speak to the enormous interest in her case.
Selfgyrus (talk) 11:51, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Updates from today:
Funcs (He WP bureaucrat): "I did not say that it was done by the authority of any of us, I said that in my opinion, anyone (even a non-admin) had the authority to take the same action because the decision came from very unusual reason which justified an unusual action."
PurpleBuffalo (He WP admin): "No one had the authority to do this, and it was done anyway. I support this action, despite the lack of authority, in these extremely unusual circumstances."
Dgw|Talk 21:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments. I'm not sure if and when sock-created articles must be deleted, although it's often an auxiliary reason that an article can be deleted. The same rule applies to children who become notable or famous, for example, as child actors. I often !vote for getting rid of such articles about kids; in fact, I went along with the deletion of the stub of a now-long-retired child actor who was an acquaintance of mine in Albany. In this particular case, the subject is an adult human being who became a symbol of 21st century Antisemitism, Antizionism, misogyny, and victimology. There is tremendous interest about this person, as seen from page views. The governing law over Wikimedia Foundation does not recognize a right to be forgotten, although with a certain lawsuit that dares not bare its name could find that each country's laws apply to NGOs in that country even if only electronically. Can we discuss this further? Bearian (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WMF is a personality for Israel (article 4 of the law of interpretation).
In Israel, if someone applies a removal, and the removal is legitimate and possible, the host has to remove the item.
It is written also here.
Google was addressed due to collecting information. The plaintiffs were citizens of Israel, and it was heard in the district court at Tel Aviv. Dgw|Talk 23:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That presumably has no bearing on this AfD in English Wikipedia where people are free to make decisions based on policy. Sean.hoyland (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is the user an authorized lawyer? Seeing their talk page, WP:COI is possible. I did not understand: "making edits in the ARBPIA topic area due to the servers' and bots' inability to effectively suppress dissent". Was the dissent – the family? Dgw|Talk 13:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez... Editors are free to make decisions based on policy. Whether you understand that or agree with it is not really relevant. Sean.hoyland (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm puzzled by how both BLP and NOTMEMORIAL can apply to the same page. Isn't a person either dead or alive? gidonb (talk) 05:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point when you take NOTMEMORIAL literally. Obviously, in this context, NOTMEMORIAL is meant for "not memorializing the kidnapping". Nonetheless, per my !vote below, I don't think either applies, and !voted to keep. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 06:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with the condition that a new article is created of the 5 now-released captive observation soldiers from the Nahal Oz attack. Or, at least, the attack article is expanded to include their names and details of their captivity. Their images and captivity videos were significant, as was their role in the January 2025 prisoner exchange. If she is notable alone in the future, the individual article can be reinstated. Wisenerd (talk) 06:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The lead image should be replaced with a fair use version of the image in this article, or similar. I believe either this image, or a similar image used to be the lead image but got deleted. Although 251 people were kidnapped from Israel during the attack by Hamas on October 7, a few cases were more notable than the rest. The key sentence in the lead "Images from the footage have come to symbolize sexual violence against Israeli women during the attacks" explains why this kidnapping case is more notable and should be kept.
    Unfortunately, the current lead image gives the wrong impression that the case of Naama Levy is no more notable than the other 250 kidnappings. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When a free picture is available, a copyrighted picture does not apply. A G10 photo of a living person's biographical article, as well as ignoring the family, violates BLP. Dgw|Talk 12:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
When the free photo is an equivalent substitute, the free photo is preferable. In this case, the replaced free photo is not an equivalent substitute.
Can you cite where within WP:BLP does it say that the family's wishes need to be taken into account? Per above, WP:BLPREQDEL is not really applicable here. --The Mountain of Eden (talk) 15:03, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Fox Cave. ✗plicit 11:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruidoso River Museum

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

I can't find any WP:SIGCOV of this museum at all, and it looks like it may have permanently closed according to social media chatter. The best coverage is passing, promotional mentions like this, which in my view is not sufficient to support a redirect to Ruidoso, New Mexico. This article may be referring to the same museum. Suriname0 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Delete probably. It looks like the museum was at two locations, the one pictured in the current article and described in the 2008 press release, and I found a Ruidoso News article from 2013 [2] about a move to Fox Cave. That article is significant coverage, but hyperlocal. It is the same museum as in the Roadside America source the nom found [3], which is also SIGCOV - but is it a reliable source? I'm also not sure about the reliability of Atlas Obscura, which has a short article [4] about Fox Cave including one para about this museum. Maybe if you add those to a para in the New Mexico Magazine [5] and the para in True West Magazine [6] found by the nom, it would add up to WP:BASIC - if the sources are considered reliable. If this article is kept, the info about the Fox Cave location will need to be added. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:26, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, it's possible we could just merge or redirect to Fox Cave instead then, with one sentence about it briefly being used as a museum. FYI, Atlas Obscura is user edited and thus generally non-reliable (see WP:AOPLACES). Suriname0 (talk) 22:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:26, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. The comment to speedy keep was correct at the time, this nomination is a merger proposal, not a deletion nomination. However, there is one comment favoring outright deletion. So, we've got three comments, none of which are in agreement with each other, and this has been relisted twice, so I don't see much other choice. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collier Trophy Selection 2011

Collier Trophy Selection 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Singular instance of an award, should merge to the main article's page, Collier Trophy Nayyn (talk) 14:29, 16 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! 07:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 15:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Naqawi

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

This article is about the lineage claiming descent from Ali al-Naqi called "Naqawi" in transcribed Arabic and "Naqvi" in transcribed Persian/Urdu. It is not to be confused with individual historical figures or modern people carrying this as a family name ("al-Naqawi" in transcribed Arabic and "Naqvi" in transcribed Persian/Urdu)

Sources in the current article are primary (al-Razi), unreliable, or insignificant (Gori 2003 is cited for something else in the article and may not even mention the subject). The page has recently been completely rewritten, and this older revision (when the article was still called Naqvi) cites more sources. Most of these are unreliable, but the following three may be of some interest:

  • Maqsood Naqvi, Syed (1979), Riaz-ul-Ansab (The Garden of Lineages, apparently a book on Arab lineages (ansab); given his family name perhaps not quite wp:independent)
  • Abbas Qomi, Muntahal Aamaal fi tarikh al-Nabi wal Aal (The Utmost of Hopes regarding the History of the Prophet and his Family, a book which may touch on Hashimite Arab lineages, including the Naqvi/Naqawi lineage)
  • Ahmed Ali, Syed (1991), Hazrat Imam Ali Naqi (The Excellency the Imam Ali al-Naqi, apparently a book on Ali al-Naqi, the claimed progenitor of the lineage)

Unfortunately, apart from their less-than-stellar wp:reliability (reputation for fact-checking and accuracy is unclear given the obscurity of the publishers; in academia these would probably only be used as primary sources), all of these were only cited in the article for the narrow question of how many sons and daughters Ali al-Naqi himself had, and it is unclear if they actually contain any information on the later Naqvi/Naqawi lineage, which the article is actually supposed to be about.

I have been looking for sources a bit, but have found nothing. I suspect that someone versed in Urdu and Arabic literature on this subject may come up with sources satisfying WP:GNG, but if and when that person comes along they can always recreate the article.

Unless other editors are more successful than me in finding reliable secondary sources, I believe it would be more beneficial for the time being to turn Naqvi into a disambiguation page listing all the notable people called 'Naqvi' that are currently listed in the article. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 22:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 23:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walid Tawfik

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

No sign of passing WP:NACADEMIC. His citation numbers are very low. Being a IEEE member is not impressive (they haver over 400,000 members). This article was created by a WP:CITESPAMmer [7][8]. Badbluebus (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 23:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Dial (online journal)

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

This fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. There's no significant coverage in independent secondary sources. Almost all the information comes from the journal's own website, and the only sources cited are its official site [9] and a passing mention [10]. There's no real media coverage, historical significance, or independent analysis to show that this journal is notable. Most likely still a small group. ZyphorianNexus Talk 21:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. czar 13:44, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh-Rohilkhand War

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

Completely AI generated article based on hallucinated information, fails WP:GNG, sources do not treat this minor conflict as a war. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very long series of conflicts between the Sikhs and the Rohillas, and I have mentioned multiple references, including page numbers. Please verify them yourself. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's meet GNG Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing it's not hallucinated information i took AI help to complete article quickly and i mentioned multiple sources later with proper page number Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed this article as much as I could, multiple references have been mentioned in paragraph, I am going on a break now so I will not be able to participate in the discussion, My only suggestion is that you can either move this page to draft until I fix it completely,Jaspreetsingh6 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete and should also know that article creator is a banned sockpuppet, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jaspreetsingh6

:RevolutionaryPatriot (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. czar 13:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flash Fiber

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

The article fails WP:ORG . The majority of the information available comes from primary or promotional sources, such as the company own website and business announcements. The company short-lived existence (2016–2021) and limited scope as a subsidiary focused on FTTH infrastructure in only 29 cities do not demonstrate sufficient historical or societal impact to warrant a standalone article. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete As per the research the company is genuine but lacks significant coverage in reputed media sources. The key issues are: Reliance on Primary Sources – Most references come from the company's website and promotional content. No substantial third-party sources verify its notability. This supports deletion due to insufficient independent verification of notability. YoYoSuryaPatra‬ → talk 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoYoSuryaPatra (talk • contribs) [reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. The idea of merging to List of NCAA Division II football programs was floated, but received no support, even from the editor who brought it up. Owen× ☎ 15:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division II football win–loss records

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

Subject does not appear to have the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST, as the only source is from the NCAA and a cursory search turned up no non-database sources. Article was undeleted at REFUND after it was deleted at PROD but there has been no sources added since. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BUNDLE, I'm nominating the following article for deletion due to the same reason
NCAA Division III football win–loss records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NLIST, "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, and the schools themselves and NCAA D2/D3 are all independently notable. Not sure why WP:NOTSTATS was mentioned, it fairly clearly does not apply here. glman (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Glman: You are correct that NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, but to me that is a justification for List of NCAA Division II football programs and List of NCAA Division III football programs, not this article. From what I understood, NOTSTATS is relevant here because this could be considered an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics"; the topic of this list is not explicitly stated in prose in the article at all (however obvious it may be from the title of the article, the title of the table, or the contents of the table itself), and the list is not given any context. The numbers are just laid out with nothing added to make it more valuable than some database source website somewhere. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the fact that the DIII list contains only 20 teams (and the No. 1 ranked team is a school that has apparently played a whopping one game) sort of undermines the "group or set" argument since the vast majority of said group is absent from the list. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure win–loss records are excessive or confusing. Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election is the example given at NOTSTATS that was moved to its own article. Also, MOS:AVOIDBOLD says "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it." Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that they are not confusing, just that the wording of NOTSTATS seems to agree with the state of this article. The statistics listed in this article are, indeed, unexplained, and they're given no context or background information, which is not the case for the polling article you linked. I have no issue with the fact that there's no bold text at the start of the article, my issue is the total lack of context whatsoever (the "lead paragraph" of each article gives no indication as to what the article is about). The whole list is sourced to a single NCAA document which was published in 2017, meaning that the list is lazily sourced (read: unsourced) at best and OR at worst. The D3 article is even worse, since its one and only source links to a table which, without other user input, displays only "No data available in table". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is directly sourced to the official NCAA stats list - I will add the source to the newest version, didn't realize that one was an archived copy. I'd be happy to write an opening paragraph, seems like a minor edit to preserve useful info if that's your concern.. glman (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Glman The records in the article don't even match the records in the new source. It's all still OR or just unsourced, since the "2024 record book" lists records from prior to the 2024 season. If you want the table to be sourced, there will have to be an updated record book or an individual citation for every team. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The NCAA utilizes a digital record book that is live, and can be sourced on the page. Not worth arguing over, as you will say it's WP:OR, despite the fact that the information is direct from the official source and is provided as a set. Again, if that's the issue, we can roll back the data to the record book and update once a year. Easy fix, just like the lead. glman (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A source from the NCAA would be WP:PRIMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue this is not the case. Primary sources would be each school itself. The NCAA is a third-party record keeper of all official records. Regardless, per WP:PRIMARY, there is not an issue using primary sources for a list like this. glman (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your first point, and per point #5 in WP:PRIMARY they can't be used as the basis for an entire article like is the case here. Let'srun (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to disagree. Frankly, I fail to see how this applies. This list is not statements of fact that could be manipulated by the opinion of a primary author, rather they are numbers - not objectionable. glman (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per discussion - I have added brief leads to both pages and increased referencing to avoid OR concerns, will continue to do so later today. I've done minor work to the D3 page, but will update to match the full 2024 record book. glman (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also argue that, per WP:LISTPURP, these lists are valuable information sources for a notable set, which I believe adds to the justification of retention. As established, the sets - NCAA schools - are notable. None of the comments so far have indicated they disagree that the set is non-notable, and as I've shared, I'm happy to improve the lists further if additional meaningful suggestions are made. glman (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability isn't inherented. Just because the schools are notable doesn't mean the football records are notable. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that's just not what the guidelines say. The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable. glman (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable - WP:NOTINHERITED seems to disagree. It defines "inherited notability" as the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects; it seems to me that in this case you are arguing that "something" (the records) "[qualify] for an article" because they are "associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" (the set of teams), which is an invalid argument. It seems like I could use your same argument to justify keeping List of NCAA Division II second-string quarterbacks; such a list is obviously absurd, but it falls in line with the argument "The set [of NCAA Division II teams] is notable, and therefore their [insert category of information] are notable." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The set you are discussing is a List of NCAA Division II institutions which is definitely notable. However, the set here is for each of their football teams' overall records. The set of records for NCAA D2 records need to have independent (not the NCAA), reliable sources. Each record can be individually sourced by a newspaper/website, though the upkeep would be pretty difficult. Currently, you are arguing that the NCAA is not a primary source, which is not true. The NCAA, each individual conference, and school maintain these records. It is up to secondary sources to validate them, to which the Division I schools are, but not II or III. Conyo14 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A list of second-string quarterbacks would not be notable because the second-string quarterbacks are not notable. However, D2 football programs, and their records, which are inherently tied to those programs, are notable. I know we are not going to agree here, and an admin will have to parse our discussion for consensus based on policy. I'll continue to make the changes suggested here until that time! I appreciate all of our vigor in interpreting the polciies of Wikipedia. IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. glman (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:USEFUL and WP:VALUABLE. Let'srun (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These were very clearly not my policy arguments; I've made those above. I'm well aware of WP:AADD. glman (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your words: IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, these were replies to the user, not my overall argument. glman (talk) 21:23, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An IP left a malformed keep comment on the talk page, just noting for the record. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just following up to spare people the time: the !vote was Not everything is D1 football - those of us that attended a smaller college like the data. Not worth the click to go read it in the first place (pretty textbook WP:ILIKEIT). PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:53, 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! 05:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; we're yet to reach a consensus on whether this should be kept, deleted, or merged on elsewhere.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. The proposal to userfy received no support, and the only Keeps were socks. Owen× ☎ 15:30, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Castro

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, since subject's career is barely getting started. Coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subjects warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is more references that I found and he's been recently being more talked about, he's a well known guy in my state. I believe that he at least qualifies for a stub at most. There are New York Times and New York Posts standalone articles about him, and the region I'm living in (New York City), there have been a lot of local press covering him and filmmakers are what I write about and I believe this article should be kept as I don't see how this violates notability. Issacvandyke (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Issacvandyke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
of course, if you would like to chat about how this article could have been written better, I am open to all discussions :) Issacvandyke (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Just from researching the topic I found over 15-20 Clothing brands writing about the topic and a few standalone articles about the topic which have been added to the article from major news sources. If you ask me, the topics film is released in nationwide theaters (USA) in around a week, I say Keep. Filmwizardtx (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC) — Filmwizardtx (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Leaning towards Delete. I could not find a source that meets WP:GNG and warrants this as a stand-alone article. So far, most of the sources I see are about Lake George (film). I don't think there should be a redirect since the film is unreleased and there is questionable notability of both articles.
    @Issacvandyke: Please link the New York Times articles you mention; I could not find one searching for "Hamid Castro" or "Hamid Antonio Castro" on their site. Also, NYPost is generally considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards (WP:NYPOST). - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and per User:Whisperjane's source analysis. I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and while a redirect would be a useful WP:ATD, his film doesn't look like it passes WP:NFILM either. Obvious sockpuppetry, but ineligible for speedy G5. Wikishovel (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it would be worth opening a SPA, if you are interested - they've been editing for a while and as far as I can see, it looks like one would pop up as efforts to create an article were declined at AfC or elsewhere. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SPI is already open, thanks. Wikishovel (talk) 15:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep His film is releasing in less than a week from now, I say we wait for for a few weeks to see the press that comes to from it, it has been increasing in press recently. is the article written in the best format? maybe there should be some improvement. but, I believe that there is enough for this stay on wikipedia. Ulyssesgranted (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Ulyssesgranted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 14:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Want to note that all of the keeps so far are from new accounts, and most are SPAs. No one has yet linked a single source, so I would like to remind new editors that establishing notability on Wikipedia requires you to have reliable sources that back up your claims. - Whisperjanes (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe, but the part where they say to wait makes sense. Draftify until release (I would have waited until release to initiate this, but that's just me). And, btw, the NYP is considered "marginally reliable source(s) for entertainment coverage"; not usable "for controversial statements related to living persons" but NOT "generally unreliable". (I'm not saying it's great journalism.) Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 19:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are right about the NYP; I was trying to simplify my comment by saying "generally". To clarify, the NYP source in question looks like it falls under WP:NYPOST instead of WP:DECIDER, because it is not entertainment coverage, as far as I can tell. The NYP's site lists it as a "Health" article, and not under any of their 6 entertainment categories. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I think a very valid question to ask here is whether or not this individual would be notable outside of their film (assuming that will pass NFILM by the time the AfD closes). Here's a rundown of the sourcing:
  1. Plex: Routine database listing at best. Cannot establish notability.
  2. AMC Theaters: Also a routine database type listing. Releasing into theaters doesn't make a movie automatically notable, no more than releasing direct to home video makes a movie automatically non-notable. Cannot establish notability.
  3. Production company website: Primary source, cannot establish notability.
  4. Thrillist: This is better, but part of the issue here is that the bulk of the article is written by Castro himself. There are a couple of paragraphs not written by him, but this does make me question whether or not this would be seen as a primary source akin to interviews. Now, I don't necessarily think that interviews are incapable of establishing notability, but it's a pretty widely held opinion on Wikipedia that interviews are primary sources and cannot establish notability. Given that the paragraphs are an opening to Castro's article about himself, I would say that this would be a very weak source at best and at worst, a primary one.
  5. NY Post: As another has said, this is a weird area. Only the entertainment section is considered to be usable, but even then it's only marginally usable. This was published to the health section, not the entertainment section. It's not being used to back up anything controversial, which is helpful, but the fact still remains that this isn't an entertainment article. It's an article written about Castro as it pertains to his fitness business. At best this is another very weak source and honestly, I am extremely uncomfortable with using the NYP as a deciding factor in establishing notability.
  6. Podcast: This looks to be a WP:SPS as far as Wikipedia is concerned. I looked to see if the show or its host (Vincent Lanci) were cited as RS by other RS, but there's nothing out there. I have to assume that this is a self-published source that cannot establish notability. Even if it wasn't, it's an interview and as such, would likely be seen as a primary source anyway. We could probably use this to back up non-controversial claims, but we can't use it to establish notability.
  7. Tapology and NYU athletics: These cover Castro's collegiate athletic career. I'm not hugely savvy with NATHLETE, but offhand it doesn't look like he passes WP:NCOLLATH. These could be used to back up basic info, but not establish notability.
Now, having gone through this, it looks like there are only two sources that could potentially be used to establish notability: Thrillist and NYP. The first is almost entirely written by Castro, making it more or less a primary source. The second is questionable as it's labeled as a health article rather than entertainment. Even if both were seen as usable, they're both extremely weak sources. To me, this doesn't establish how Castro is independently notable outside of the film, assuming that it passes notability guidelines in the future. This means that if the film does eventually pass NFILM, there's a choice to be made: have an article for the director or have an article for the film. There's not really enough notability to justify two articles, again assuming that the film eventually passes NFILM.
I'm going to see if I can find anything else, but offhand I'm inclined to argue against notability here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That didn't take long. What's in the article is what's out there. I even looked with Newspapers.com to see if there was any older sourcing. This guy just isn't independently notable of his movie, which is of questionable notability itself.
So... assuming that the film passes notability guidelines, the question here is whether or not we should have an article on the film or the director. In cases like this, I'm generally more inclined to retain the creative's page. My justification is essentially this: it gives us a place to cover any of the person's future work as well as other things that never quite tally up to passing GNG/NBIO on their own. This not only gives us slightly more content, but can also pull double duty in that it sometimes can help prevent people from creating articles on borderline or non-notable topics. We have one decent article instead of a handful of questionable ones.
However that's assuming that the movie passes NFILM once it releases. If it doesn't, then this will be a delete or draftify on my end because what we have is extremely weak. I'll go ahead and wait for the end of the week to make an argument for or against, just in case the film pulls a Hail Mary on us. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Userfy. It's awfully wordy for an encyclopedia article, but not so terrible that WP:TNT applies. I edited down one paragraph. I'm not convinced that the subject is notable enough to pass WP:GNG, based on the mediocre sourcing. The upcoming film might be a hit, but we are not a collective psychic. My experience over almost 18 years here is that if Sockpuppets swarm a discussion, it's probably a losing proposition. However, giving them the benefit of the doubt, userfication is a valid result. Bearian (talk) 11:01, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with no objection to draftify. The film has been released and there is no additional coverage. Given that the film is currently non-notable, this makes this article non-notable as well. I have no objection to this getting draftified along with the film article but I'll be honest in that I don't find it likely that notability will be established for either before it gets deleted due to draft age. As mentioned above, we only have two sources that could remotely be usable. One of them is an article that is almost entirely written by the subject (but with a couple of paragraphs before that, introducing him). The other is a NY Post article, but published under their health section instead of the entertainment one, which makes it likely unusable. Both are extremely weak sources at best, hence why I don't personally see either as usable and why I was hoping for the film to pass notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think the page will be expanded in the future and right now it's failing GNG. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . ✗plicit 00:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bibus

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

Fails WP: GNG. I couldn't find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. There is a link to a review in the External Links section, but it appears that the link has rotted and the Wayback Machine doesn't contain a readable copy of said review. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 19:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of songs by Bini. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus Talk 18:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joy to the World (Bini song)

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

The song does not demonstrate any notability and does not meet any of the criteria in WP:NALBUM. There is also no indication that it will pass any of the criteria in the future. I have already raised the concern with another editor and the original page creator, who does not mind the AfD in the article's talk page. Freedom Wall (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 20:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnik and Pogrom

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

Nonnotable defunct personal website of a Russian nationalist with catchy title --Altenmann >talk 18:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Mahmud

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

Devoid of coverage (even mention) in any WP:RS (also checked Urdu sources), the BLP clearly fails WP:GNG. Actually, the article as seen from the page history was created for a Malaysian footballer with some similar name but was changed (by a block evasion) to this personality possibly known for youtube channel in Pakistan. MŠLQr (talk) 17:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy keep‎. (non-admin closure) Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:58, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tarun Bhartiya

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

Fails WP:NOTABILITY. Sources are mostly about subject's death. Greatindianeditor (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC) SOCK. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) — Benison (Beni · talk) 10:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Brishty

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

Non notable model/actor, no main roles, second runner-up of non notable Veet-Channel i Top Model 2012, a before finds virtually zero independent reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 17:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks for the extra work you have put in, I have never come across the WP:HEYMANN argument before. You seem to be infering that 100+ roles in non notable films makes her notable? Theroadislong (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NACTOR says an actor "may be considered notable if ... The person has made ... prolific ... contributions to a field of entertainment." What constitutes "prolific" is left to judgement and common sense. For me, 10 TV shows would be far too few and 1000 would be setting the bar ridiculously high (have any actors been in that many?). Something on the order of 100 TV shows in 11 years feels prolific (particularly considering that one of those, Palki, had 737 episodes). And Brishty's roles have been lead or supporting ones, we're not talking about walk-ons. There were times when one couldn't turn on the TV or open a newspaper without seeing her. The "prolific" part of the guideline applies whether the shows were notable or not. Some of the shows she has been in likely are notable, we just don't have articles about them. We have 154 articles about TV shows in Bangladesh (pop. 173 million) compared to 90,800 articles about shows and individual episodes in the United States (pop. 334 million). TV is not less of a thing in Bangladesh, but there are barriers to writing about it here such as language, digitization, and the demographics of Wikipedians. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree that she seems to meet WP:NACTOR. It's possible that not all the films or TV series she has appeared in would be considered notable, or that not all of her roles would be considered significant, but I think that if we had access to Bangladeshi sources, we would find enough that are, and enough coverage of her. (I'm basing this on Worldbruce's comment and sources, and my own experience of sourcing articles about British actors, singers, etc, from digitised British newspapers - the coverage is there, but not accessible through a google search). RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illewi

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

The only evidence I can find for this place is mentions of its name in the DPLA [11] and Smithsonian [12] [13] [14]. These only situate it as a place in (western) Okpella but give no further information. It doesn't exist in the sources for List of villages in Edo State, which are seemingly comprehensive. Other-language Wikipedia articles shed no further light.

I also haven't found it named on a map. The article for Imiekuri gives a location which is unnamed in Wikimedia Maps and named Imiakebu in Google Maps, with nowhere named Ilewi (or similar) nearby.

The first Smithsonian source I listed show that such a place exists or existed in the area, but I'm not sure that's enough evidence to judge it as a "populated, legally recognised place" per WP:GEOLAND. Ligaturama (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus Talk 16:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kai Enslin

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

No secondary sources that I could find to even consider WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. Has only played one EFL Trophy match and the only reference from RS is being in that starting lineup. Am also OK with incubating in draft space for the near future, as subject is likely to become notable sooner rather than later. CNC (talk) 16:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Nuñez

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

Biography of a U.S. Air Force chief master sergeant fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. I found no coverage of this individual beyond articles on USAF sites ([15], [16]), which are not independent of the subject. As far as I can tell, being a Command Chief Master Sergeant is not an inherently notable rank. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Mansouri Davar

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

Non notable athlete in MMA and BJJ. Doesn't pass WP:NMMA or WP:SPORTBASIC. His accomplishments do not warrant a wikipedia article. The Phuket Beach games and the Asian Indoor Games are quite minor events. Lekkha Moun (talk) 15:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Procedural close‎. Primary author moved it back to draftspace and the article is now a redirect. If that is an issue, WP:RFD exists. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 22:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HaxeFlixel

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

Was WP:DRAFTIFYed twice and declined through the AfC process but was moved back to the mainspace by the article creator so coming to AfD. All the references are either WP:PRIMARY sources or are WP:USERGEN. Does not meet notability with no mention in any secondary sources that I could find. cyberdog958Talk 16:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: to Haxe. The notability of the subject is a lot higher than I thought it would be when I first read the article, but I don't think it's sufficient for a standalone article. This book by Jeremy McCurdy gives plainly in-depth coverage of HaxeFlixel. McCurdy is qualified because he's a tech lead at a game studio. I also found some in-depth coverage in some master's theses and university projects, as well as some self-published tutorials. However, WP: THESIS notes that master's theses usually do not confer notability and the tutorials I could find are from self-taught programmers. My guess is that the authors of these sources have made some money somewhere writing some code for some person, but without more information I'm hesitant to treat these authors as qualified. Even if we do find more sources in this discussion, I doubt we'll find anything that pushes the subject well above the bar for notability, so discussing this library briefly in a closely related article seems most sensible to me. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meta-discussion about draftification and AfD.
This also is tangential to the discussion at hand, but why was this moved to mainspace? I'm not super familiar with how AfC works, but if users can just overrule AfC decisions because they feel like it, that seems a little problematic... HyperAccelerated (talk) HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The idea is that unless the editor has a COI, they are allowed to object to unilateral draftificaiton per WP:DRAFTOBJECT. This (in theory) allows their work the presumption of existence in the mainspace (provided there are no other controlling P&Gs, WP:AE being an example) and says that draftification, like deletion, must be a consensus decision. The nominator's statement "Was WP:DRAFTIFYed twice and declined ... but was moved back to the mainspace" is likely them giving the relevant article background and history and may be read that two or more editors are at an impasse and a full consensus decision at AfD is required. A draftification decision may be decided at AfD and will often come with advice or guidance to the editor who insisted on it being in the mainspace. Alternatively, a decision may cut to notability directly and say something along the lines of "no amount of time in the draftspace will create a suitable article given that the subject is not notable." Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. Thanks! HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:09, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome :) Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Tale of the Three Beautiful Raptor Sisters, and the Prince Who Was Made of Meat

The Tale of the Three Beautiful Raptor Sisters, and the Prince Who Was Made of Meat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Plenty of Google hits on blogs and lists which confirm this exists, but only passing mentions in reliable, independent sources. Can't find a specific guideline for short stories but doesn't meet WP:NBOOK. Orange sticker (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Literature. Orange sticker (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Hugo award nominee will have been discussed in combination with the other nominees in appropriate RS articles. Even if we can't find them because they're on paper or paywalled, I'm sufficiently confident that the sources exist based on its nomination for a major award. Jclemens (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The story that won in the same category that year doesn't have an article, nor many of the other nominees or winners from other years. I'm not disputing the notability of the author, just this story as I've done quite a thorough WP:BEFORE. Orange sticker (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I noticed that, too, after I posted that reply. I do believe that ALL Hugo (and Nebula, but whatever) nominees will have had sufficient RS coverage somewhere to be notable, even if most of the time no one goes to the trouble to find it. But this itself raises an issue of WP:NSMT, in that we could redirect the story to the notable author or the notable award for which it was nominated. Not the strongest argument for a standalone article, but even things like George R.R. Martin's periodic blog posts about the Hugo nominees (anything to avoid writing Winds of Winter...) count towards notability as Martin is a valid expert for WP:SPS purposes. Jclemens (talk) 08:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't mind any mention of this story at all on George RR Martin's blog. It's one thing the concept of "Hugo Awards Nominees" being notable, hence it having an article (though looking at its references, only two are independent), but this story does not meet standalone notability criteria. For WP:NBOOK it must have won a major literary award. I think to properly argue to keep you need to actually find some references, rather than state you believe they must exist. I think a redirect to Brooke Bolander would make sense. There is nothing in the content of the article that tells us why its subject is notable. Orange sticker (talk) 14:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I'm terribly sorry, that was a wild goose chase. Martin's not-a-blog is one example of places where Hugo nominees get discussed sometimes. I did not mean to imply that this particular story was referenced there. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "The story that won in the same category that year doesn't have an article, nor many of the other nominees or winners from other years"
    Give it some time. DS (talk) 01:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really convinced of this. 2018 is relatively recent, so most of the coverage it would have had would be archived somewhere online. I've searched all the major databases I have access to (ProQuest, Gale, EBSCOhost, Factiva) and found nearly nothing. This book was shortlisted for the 2019 WSFA Small Press Award though. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based off of the discussion above. Bearian (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I've expanded it a bit more. DS (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wanted to make a quick comment about the other short stories lacking articles. I'm not sure if you meant it as such, but the lack of articles on the other stories is not an argument against notability for this short story. It just means that articles have yet to be created. Short stories are one of those areas that are often undercovered on Wikipedia. Part of this is because there's so much to cover and not so many editors able and willing to do the work to find sourcing and draft the article (or improve it). The work is another reason, as finding sourcing for short stories can sometimes be more difficult than finding sourcing for novels.
A lack of articles is, at most, an indication that a given topic area might not be notable but isn't a guarantee. Even then that statement really only pertains to very, very specific topic areas. For example, a book series - there is quite a bit of coverage for the individual books but not enough to justify having an article on each book. In that situation the coverage would be enough to justify a series article, which would pass notability guidelines. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found where Lela E. Buis reviewed the short story on her blog, which I added. I also added a more full synopsis of the story, as well as some extra publication info. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The whole matter of whether Hugo nominations are enough to give partial notability aside, this short story has been received four reviews. Two are by notable authors, two are from outlets that are notable and very well respected. The reviews alone are enough to establish notability.
Now as far as the Hugo nominations go, I'm admittedly a bit undecided on that. A win would be enough to establish notability on that alone. As such, it wouldn't be unreasonable for one to argue that a nomination would give at least partial notability. The catch, however, is that there's no current consensus on whether or not a nomination would give partial notability - even if we were to limit this to very major, notable awards and only to those that end up on the final, official ballot. I think an argument could made for very specific awards, but getting an agreement on that will take a lot of discussion. I think that the best option for this, if anyone wanted to go that route, would be to first lobby to have short stories covered by WP:NBOOK. The differences in establishing notability for short stories isn't really much different than establishing notability for books. From there, you can then propose that very specific major awards are so notable and major that ending up on the final ballot can count towards notability - with an emphasis on count towards rather than arguing that it establishes notability on that nomination alone. Arguing for it to count the same as a win isn't going to be successful and arguing for a nom to count towards notability will be difficult enough as it is. For one, you're going to have to establish what "major" means in this regard and show specific examples of what would and would not be considered major enough. To be honest, this will be a pretty big undertaking, so I imagine that the proposal will likely need to go through a few revisions before it would be accepted. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 20:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty desert

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, neologism introduced in an June 2022 McKinsey report on "VC funding and the black beauty industry" [17] but which does not have any broader traction in the literature (or for that matter in general publications on the internet), unlike analogous concepts like Food desert and Medical desert which are the subject of hundreds of scholarly publications. Even in the original McKinsey report, the term is used only in passing. The one other potentially-independent reference to the concept is in Beauty Matter [18], a breathlessly promotional writeup by the largely promotional outlet (per their About Us page [19]), by the publication's CEO, leaving little hope that this is really independent and reliable coverage. Perhaps in the future this term will gain traction, and some of the content from the McKinsey report could be repurposed for a page like Racial inequality in the cosmetics industry, but it is WP:TOOSOON for a Wikipedia article on this specific term-of-art-in-the-making (and really, such an article should start with a bibliography of peer-reviewed sources, not a white paper from a notoriously corrupt think tank). signed, Rosguill talk 15:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can . Liz Read! Talk! 20:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claude Russell

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

Few refs on the page, one that is present appears to amount to no more than two sentences. WP:NPOL provisions do not appear to have been met as the role of collector and/or District magistrate was not a state-wide position under the Raj and I don't think is even now in modern India. Certainly it dies not appear that people holding this role in modern times are considered notable. Only other claims to notability are inherited. Unless others can offer good reasons to the contrary, I don't think this person meets the notability criteria for inclusion. JMWt (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and United Kingdom. JMWt (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL, with no inherent notability for being a district collector and/or district magistrate. The biographical detail here appears to be wrong - a search of the British Newspaper Archive and Google Books for "Claude Russell" + Indies results in death notices published in 1817: "At Benares, in the East Indies, Claude Russell, Esq. of the East India Company's service, son of Claude Russell, esq. of Warfield, Berks." There is also a death notice in September 1847 that may be for his widow: "On the 16th inst., at No. 13, Hamilton-place, St. John's-wood, Charlotte Russell, relict of Claude Russell, Esq., Civil service, Bengal." So all we have is his non-notable civil service roles. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael De Medeiros

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

Does not meet neither of Wikipedia's notability or sourcing guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 01:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:14, 23 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 14:40, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dudley A. Guglielmo

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

Not enough information in the sources to justify keeping the article JTZegers (talk) 13:55, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Neil Ruddock#Television career. ✗plicit 13:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Football Saved My Life

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

Fails WP:GNG. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akhtar Hussain Aleemi

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

Not a single reference from any reliable source. Fails WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 12:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Shahin

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

Fails WP:GNG. Sultan Shahin does not have significant coverage in Reliable sources. AndySailz (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - article is supported by reliable sources.
— Cerium4B—Talk? • 14:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to List of Slovakia international footballers as a valid WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus Talk 12:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Konečný (footballer)

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

Redirect to List of Slovakia international footballers as ATD, because I could not find any in-depth coverage for this former footballer to meet WP:GNG, even while searching in conjunction with clubs he played for. In terms of secondary sources, I found nothing better than a passing mention on SME. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:20, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemlata Mahishwar

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

I can not locate any references that meet WP:RS except BBC. Fails WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 12:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Membership in the in Red project does not imply the ability to produce non-notable subjects. Aside from the BBC, Newsclick, Sahapedia, and Forward Press are unreliable sources that are deficient in credibility. WP:RS. AndySailz (talk) 06:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pharaoh of the Wizards, On what ground the subject passes GNG. Let's discuss about the references. AndySailz (talk) 06:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per full professor at two notable universities (one established more than a century ago) and female academic in a place where professors are rare clear pass of the average professor test. (p.s. to AndySailz -- responding to every comment at AfD w/o supporters w/o specific rebuttals is rarely the way to make a winning argument) -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please make an argument on the basis of significant references. It is only WP:VAGUEWAVE, At policies it will not work. AndySailz (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I do not see anything that passes the average professor test here. Being a professor, even at well-established universities, is exactly the thing that does _not_ pass this test. Citations are low, and none of the other criteria seem to be passed. It looks more likely that the subject here passes WP:NAUTHOR, but this would generally require reviews of her books, which I did not find. Following in case better evidence of notability emerges. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:39, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Russ Woodroofe : Hey Russ, thank you for your comments. As an author, Hemlata has written several books, and you can check out their reviews by clicking on the following links: Link 1, Link 2, Link 3 Link 4 Link 5 and Link 6. These reviews are from reliable sources as well. I appreciate your time and interest. Thanks again:) Baqi:) (talk) 13:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Aren't these all newspapers? The reviews that are needed to establish notability as an author - see Wikipedia:NAUTHOR- would be reviews in academic sources, not news sources. Still, if these are truly independent reviews in newspapers, perhaps they could contribute to [[WP:GNG]]... Qflib (talk) 18:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with Russ Woodroofe — I don't see a WP:GNG pass, and I'm not convinced that she clearly passes any of the WP:NPROF criteria. Based on the sources so far my sense is that she surely must pass WP:NAUTHOR, but I don't think the sources that have been found are quite enough to actually demonstrate that yet. Of the six sources about her books above, (1) only has a paragraph about her book (which is not nothing, given that it's a retrospective on the best books of the year in what seems to be a reliable publication, but is not a full review), (2) only has a brief mention of her work, (3) and (5) are interviews, (4) is not really a review, and (6) is probably the closest but spends a lot of time just repeating her poems. My feeling is that based on everything implied by her career and by how she is described in the sources, there surely must be at least two full length reviews of her work out there (maybe in more academic or literary publications?). But I can't find any in English and searching in Hindi using Google Translate was proving to be beyond my abilities. So I would like to say keep, but I would like to see a full-length review of one of her published works first. MCE89 (talk) 13:31, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject clearly meets WP:GNG. Additionally, reviews of their books are available in reliable sources, demonstrating that they also meet WP:NAUTHOR. Furthermore, as a female academic in a region where professors are rare, they clearly pass the average professor test. Taabii (talk) 17:11, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it doesn't. WP:VAGUEWAVE at policies will not work. AndySailz (talk) 06:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @AndySailz: Please avoid using arguments as outlined in WP:ATA—it's up to other editors to decide. Again, thank you! Baqi:) (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    AndySailz, although I agree with you that the keep !votes are not necessarily very policy-based, I think your opinion is clear, and (per WP:BLUDGEON), it is time to stand back a little bit. Sometimes, something is wrong on the internet [26]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Passes WP:GNG Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Marquit

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

Individual does not seem notable, I couldn't find enough sources with this person's name. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Bob Willis. There's rough consensus not to have an article, but no consensus to delete. Redirection allows editors to discuss whether and what of this material merits merging. Sandstein 09:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources, of the specific topic of five-wicket hauls by this specific cricketer. Not viable as a split-list because split-lists have to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. This appears to be a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR from primary sources. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep meets WP:NLIST which says:

    Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.

The Times has covered his five-wicket haul performances in detail in his obituary ([27]) and same is the case with other obituaries where they covered his five-wicket hauls [28], [29] - these sources partially cover his five-wicket hauls and meet the requirement of WP:NLIST. He was one of the greatest cricketers of England (there is a trophy named after him, i.e. Bob Willis Trophy) so obviously there are a lot of books and magazines that have covered his wicket-hauls. I found some on Google Books like [30]. The current referencing of the list is not ideal but someone with access to paid sources can find more sources to expand the list. Thanks. Gheus (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Times, Scotsman, and Graun articles do not mention five-wicket hauls at all. They mention total wickets taken, the average numbers of wickets taken, 27 wickets in five tests, and so-forth but fifers aren't mentioned at all. That isn't partial coverage - that's no coverage. No-one is questioning whether Bob Willis himself is notable, just whether a listing of all of his 5-wicket hauls is notable. The GBooks link isn't visible to me. FOARP (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR, just a repeat of content that can be found on ESPNCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources discuss various notable performances where sometimes his getting some number of wickets in a match is mentioned alongside other standard match recap stats. They are not covering the concept of "repeated n-wicket hauls", let alone validating the threshold of 5 wickets in particular. If we accepted such arbitrary passing stats one of these lists could be made for each type of stat for almost every famous cricketer and certainly most MLB/NFL/NBA players. JoelleJay (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    List of no-hitters thrown by the New York Yankees is a red link for some reason... FOARP (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Is that the same as List of New York Yankees no-hitters? It's a featured list, as this one is, and of 15 pages in Category:New York Yankees lists. Peter James (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I saw the invitation at WT:CRIC, and have read both Bob Willis and the list. I can see no good reason to keep the list, but plenty of reasons to delete it. As JoelleJay has pointed out, the obituary sources do not talk about the number of times Bob Willis took five wickets in an innings—as regards his bowling performances, they essentially focus on his outstanding match at Headingley in 1981—and I believe that, as a "grouping or set in general", this fails WP:NLIST. I completely agree with Ajf773 about the statistics, and I do not think any cricket article should be based on statistics derived from a database source. There are four paragraphs of text introducing the list, but I am not seeing anything that isn't in the main article and, again, the information is nearly all derived from statistics. I think FOARP is right about WP:AVOIDSPLIT because the split-list doesn't have notability—it is nothing more than a statistical offshoot that cannot stand alone, under the terms of WP:GNG. ReturnDuane (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Bob Willis, main of the reasons by those who have !voted delete is that this is not sufficiently notable to be a standalone list. In that case the obvious solution (imo) should be to merge the content into the main article, thus retaining content that is deemed featured worthy rather than destroying it entirely. JP (Talk) 16:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    1) Nothing on Wiki is ever “destroyed”. Even deleted material can undeleted (ask an admin).
    2) The total number of fifers and details descriptions of notable wicket-hauls are already discussed in depth on Bob Willis’s article, so what is there to merge here that isn’t already there?
    3) How is this statistical minutiae WP:DUE in a general biography? FOARP (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Many cricketing biographies in book form and on Wikipedia (at FA/GA level) include 'Statistical summary' sections at the end, I see no issue with the table and some of the prose being included in such as section. Fifers are not statistical minutiae in cricket hence this list being created in the first place. JP (Talk) 13:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem to be, otherwise this discussion wouldn’t be headed for delete. But why isn’t it enough to provide the prose description of important wicket hauls, together with the total count of fifers and other statistical information already supplied the info box? FOARP (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As stated in my initial response, most of those !voting delete have stated in their reasoning that this should not be a separate list. My reaction to that is merge rather than delete. The sports lends itself to statistics and as evidenced by the statistical summary sections found in many Wikipedia articles a lot of cricket fans are interested in them, therefore a table which lists five-wicket hauls gives those viewers an alternative way to see his best performances without having reading through the lengthy prose. JP (Talk) 16:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge: per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". I'm not convinced that this article meets this criterion. Although the stats are partially covered in the Bob Willis infobox, I think more information can be merged into the parent article. Like JP, I see no issue with the table and some of the prose being included there.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What would the table and prose be sourced to to qualify as BALASP? We have no coverage of "5-wicket hauls" as a topic, so how would we justify including data with that arbitrary cutoff? JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What does "We have no coverage of 5-wicket hauls as a topic" mean? We have a page on it and it is frequently mentioned on the Bob Willis page. It is not an arbitrary cutoff, it is one of the main statistics as shown by the infobox. JP (Talk) 23:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not have coverage of it as a topic in the context of Willis. Since no secondary independent sources are discussing the relevance of specifically Willis' five-wicket hauls, it would be undue to cover it with a giant table and prose in the Willis article. Moreover, on that page every single mention but one of "taking five wickets" in a given match is being drawn from pure primary stats rather than secondary prose, and in the one Wisden ref where getting a fifer is mentioned in prose, it's because he got exactly five wickets and they're just reporting that fact. It is OR to emphasize aspects of a subject beyond how they are treated in sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The lack of coverage as a topic is the argument against this standalone list. If the five wicket hauls are covered throughout the prose then I fail to see how a summary table of those is going to bring undue balance. JP (Talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @JoelleJay's argument is that, since secondary sources don't cover this anyway, it's not clear why we need to cover it in detail in our article on Bob Willis. We already give the total number of fifers scored by Bob Willis in their infobox so how is it WP:DUE to include a table listing every single one? Since the notable ones are covered in prose anyway, why do we need a tabular listing? Additionally the Bob Willis article is already verging on WP:TOOLONG territory at 69 kB prose size.
    FOARP (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondary sources do cover the individual five-wicket haul performances just not as a collective. To quote my earlier response: "The sports lends itself to statistics and as evidenced by the statistical summary sections found in many Wikipedia articles a lot of cricket fans are interested in them, therefore a table which lists five-wicket hauls gives those viewers an alternative way to see his best performances without having reading through the lengthy prose." BTW fifers are not scored. JP (Talk) 10:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It is undue to highlight a topic that has not received attention at all. None of the sources listed here or in the articles discuss his getting five-wicket hauls in a way that would imply "five" is a notable threshold for him as a category; they merely mention his picking N wickets as part of his overall performance in individual matches, with N being anywhere from 3 to 5+. The vast majority of sources for the table are also primary stats, which directly conflicts with our policy Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them. for precisely the reason that policy exists: we cannot draw conclusions that are not already found in IRS sources. With the table, we are drawing the conclusion that Willis' five-wicket hauls are a noteworthy category of achievement when they are not treated as such in sources. For information to be verifiable, it also means that Wikipedia does not publish original research: its content is determined by information previously published in a good source, rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors, or even the editor's interpretation beyond what the source actually says. JoelleJay (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Test bowling records on Cricinfo (https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/format/test-matches-1/category/bowling-records-4): Most five-wickets-in-an-innings in a career, Most consecutive five-wickets-in-an-innings, Youngest player to take five-wickets-in-an-innings, Oldest player to take five-wickets-in-an-innings, Oldest player to take a maiden five-wickets-in-an-innings. No 3, 4, 6, 7 or 8. In cricket, five wicket hauls are considered an important achievement, it is not an arbitary OR statistic that you are attempting to portray it as. JP (Talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's an arbitrary statistic as it pertains to Willis, because we do not have coverage of it for Willis. Databases also aren't evidence of secondary coverage anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure)‎ Redtree21 (talk) 06:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All Things Equal

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

Fails WP:NORG - no significant coverage and only trivial news sources. Wikipedia generally does not have articles for organisations of this size. Redtree21 (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail WP:NORG:

B.East (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Cambodia's Kitchen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Withdrawn by nominator - Keep result produced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cambodia's Kitchen
College Dropout (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Embla (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Enoteca Boccaccio (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flower Drum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Gimlet (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Proud Mary Coffee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Stalactites (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Swagman Restaurant (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Tino (restaurant) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Vue de Monde (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Section 8 (music venue) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comment - @TarnishedPath: I appreciate your concerns regarding the bundling of the articles. All of the articles are included in Category:Restaurants in Melbourne, except for Section 8 (music venue) which is linked to from the B.East article. I hope this addresses your concerns. Thank you, Redtree21 (talk) 13:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Redtree21, I spotted the link. This issue with doing it this way is that you risk all of them being kept when some might be deleted if listed separately. TarnishedPathtalk 13:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. Liz Read! Talk! 08:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel “Wowo” Laurio Fortes, Jr.


Manuel “Wowo” Laurio Fortes, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails GNG and NPOL for not having WP:SIGCOV of WP:RS, WP:IS that the subject is talked about in dept and length for verification Cassiopeia talk 08:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Telugu films of 2025#January – March. Liz Read! Talk! 08:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thalli Manasu

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

Excluding the Sakshi source, I am uncertain about the reliability of the other sources. However, none of the cited Telugu sources provide independent significant coverage of the movie. All the sources report the same quotes from the movie’s creator. Also, no reviews found. GrabUp - Talk 07:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi you can also check about our movie reviews and articles in gulte, v6 news, 123 telugu, imdb, greater andhra, deccan film, telugu rajyam and many more. we have mention the links in the reference, please do check and Muthyala Movie Makers (talk) 06:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kit Malone

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

A person claiming to be the page's subject has requested deletion, citing safety concerns for her and her family (she's a trans rights activist). I think it's pretty reasonable – she's not non-notable, this wouldn't be my first choice for AfD normally, but she mostly appears in the news as an advocate, not as a person of interest herself. Most of the coverage comes from passing mentions in local news stories that are largely about trans rights or non-independent biographies from the ACLU and her own website. As is procedure for BLPREQUESTDELETE, leaving it up to the good folks at AfD :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. I see a consensus to Keep this article and no support for Deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 07:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Telle

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

A good article for WP:Verifiability but it appears to fail notability as an actor and as a musician. The Shelby Star is a great source here but it is a local one. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and Video games. IgelRM (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appears to be enough ongoing reliable coverage to justify notability. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you please be specific, which ones? IgelRM (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Significant coverage in Hardcore Gamer, Variety, GamesRadar+, Push Square, TheGamer, The Shelby Star, and The Gaston Gazette, plus some not-insignificant mentions in The New York Times, Edge, VG247, and Television & New Media. That the coverage is ongoing stands out to me too. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 01:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Hardcore Gamer and The Gaston Gazette are being discussed below so I will skip over those.
    • Variety: Telle is mentioned and quoted in the article, although not the subject of the article.
    • GamesRadar+: An interview with Telle, she is frequently interviewed, but that does not make someone notable.
    • Pushsquare: Not the highest of sources, tertiary reporting on a video with her.
    • TheGamer (2 times): Not the highest of sources, checking the opinion piece: Praises her acting in Double Exposure, significant but not sure how opinions count for notability.
    • The Gaston Gazette: Appears to be the events section of a local newspaper, Telle is mentions giving a concert, not WP:SIGCOV
    • The New York Times, Edge, VG247, and Television & New Media mentions: I don't think should have need an article on everything that gets ongoing mentions and I believe these can be covered on the Life Is Strange article.
    IgelRM (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The subject does not need to be the source's main topic for coverage to be significant. I believe the article passes the WP:GNG. (And, to be clear, Push Square and TheGamer are considered generally reliable per WP:VG/S.) – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGamer is definitely considered "Situational" per WP:VG/S? And Push Square is similar to Nintendo Life, a enthusiast blog that I would evaluate differently for notability.
    I would agree that the subject does not need to be the main subject of coverage, but could we also agree that from your long list just Variety and TheGamer seem relevant for this evaluation? IgelRM (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    TheGamer is "situational" overall, but in this situation is considered reliable: News posts and original content after August 2020 are considered generally reliable. Same goes for Push Square. All references are relevant, and I evaluated all of them when making my judgement; I firmly believe the subject is notable. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 02:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see, I was just familiar with the Screen Rant note above in that table. (Although I find the note, "experience working with other reputable video game media outlets such as VG247.", citing VG247 in particular bizarre, but this is getting outside this discussion)
    I poorly worded the sentence on Push Square, what I meant is that I don't think Push Square can count for GNG alone and was not commenting on reliability.
    Unfortunately we aren't getting further anymore, are we? IgelRM (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it's that bizarre—VG247 has been considered a reliable source for at least 14 years—but you're right, that's a discussion for elsewhere. And no, I don't think this will go any further—nor does it have to. I stand by my initial judgement. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 09:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, California, and North Carolina. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there are several articles that establish notability such as Shelby Star and hardcoregamer. With so much coverage she also meets WP:BASIC.Darkm777 (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As I said in my nomination, the Shelby Star is good but it is a local story and therefore does not give GNG. The Hardcore Gamer feature is an interview. The most notability I see is her 2024 nomination for Best Performance. Edit: I would pass her WP:NACTOR, but it says "multiple" and I only see Life Is Strange and Life Is Strange: Double Exposure. IgelRM (talk) 23:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Local newspaper coverage does count for WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the way the article is written as a feature on a local person, it's clear to not be sufficient. IgelRM (talk) 23:37, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are 2 hardcore gamer articles this and this, while the first is mostly an interview, there are 3 paragraphs of intro about her, which can be used towards notability. The 2nd article has a couple of quotations but is not an interview. The policies say that when someone has multiple articles from one website, they can be combined. Provided, we combine these, we can count as one full good article towards notability. Also don't forget WP:BASIC which says If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, multiple sources can be combined to show notability. Darkm777 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I understand (you accidentally linked the same article twice) your argument. From the interview article, I see one paragraph that mentions her but not WP:SIGCOV:
"While the quality of the writing and dialogue have polarized critics -- although the title has vastly improved in these aspects with each episode’s release -- the voice acting is a factor that has remained consistent and brilliant throughout every episode, especially when it comes to the on-screen chemistry shared between the voice actresses for Max and Chloe Price: Hannah Telle and Ashly Burch respectively."
  • "Hannah Telle Reveals Life Is Strange ‘Definitely Exceeded All of my Expectations'"
This piece paraphrase the interview that ran the week before.
  • Hannah Telle ‘100 Percent’ Interested in Reprising Role for Life Is Strange Sequel
This reports on the interview she gave the fan-made Blackwell Podcast. She is quoted for answering she would reprise her role. The article then switches to the producer saying there will be new characters. Not SIGCOV combing the 3. IgelRM (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 05:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want to knowledge the continued effort working on the article by the editor since my nomination. Unfortunately, her role in Two Pints Lighter (2014) doesn't push this over WP:NACTOR. IgelRM (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Lungen

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

Local politician fails WP:NPOL. Novemberjazz 05:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎ per WP:SNOW. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump proposal for displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip

Donald Trump proposal for displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

You couldn't create a better violation of WP:NOTNEWS if you tried. Unfortunately, this seems like a recent pattern for the editor who created the article. (See De-Trumpification, Official portrait of General Mark A. Milley, Executive Order 14168, etc. Novemberjazz 05:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. It is not a plan, it was a vague statement designed to piss certain people off (albeit rightfully so). An article for everything awful thing Trump says or does is not resistance nor would its inclusion on Wikipedia validate his awfulness.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Golikom is edit warring by deleting content to manipulate the discussion to make the article appear less developed or suitable. The claims ("makes no mention of relocation") are nonsensical and ridiculous, and shows a lack of basic understanding of the material covered in this and the other article, and that Golikom hasn't even read the content they removed. I should note that Golikom has followed me around to disrupt my work in multiple articles. --Tataral (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        There's a perfectly adequate article covering the scope of the content you added at Proposed Israeli resettlement of the Gaza Strip. The first source you added made no mention of relocation of the Palestinians and was entirely about resettlement, indeed the closest it gets to discussing the location of the Palestinians is this "If we live there, they’ll live according to our rules" which is entirely the opposite Golikom (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, it's not, as already explained. This article is about the proposed displacement of Palestinians. The proposed Israeli resettlement of the Gaza Strip is related to that, but it's not the same. These are two related and partially overlapping, but distinct topics. --Tataral (talk) 03:42, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            Both the sources you added are about resettlement, and one doesn't mention relocation at all. All that content is c covered in the other article Golikom (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            And that is why you removed any link to the other article, including the "See also" link? Give me a break. Some of this content is relevant to both articles. It is standard practice for articles on closely related topics to include links to each other and a summary of relevant material discussed in greater detail in the other article. These are two closely related topics, but one is primarily about proposals for resettlement of Israelis, the other is about removing Palestinians from all of the Gaza Strip. Only having an article on the resettlement of Israelis is inherently one-sided. --Tataral (talk) 04:00, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
            The sources in the "Israeli proposals" section discuss previous Israeli calls to "end the presence of Arabs in Gaza," that the Palestinians living in Gaza should "go away from here," "Only eviction!" The claim that this isn't related to the topic of displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip is laughable. These kinds of discussions in Israel demonstrate precisely why the title should be "proposals for (forced) displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip" rather than "Donald Trump proposal for ...," the title that you and no other editor now insist on. While we do have an article on the resettlement, it doesn't cover exactly the same topic because it takes Israelis and their resettlement (of at least part of Gaza) as its starting point. It's not the right article to primarily cover the Trump proposal in. Having an article on proposals to remove Palestinians from the Gaza Strip makes it possible to discuss both Israeli and American discussions of such proposals with a focus on its impact on Palestinians. --Tataral (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As the article creator, I favor a broader title such as proposals for forced displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strips. There is only one editor insisting on keeping Donald Trump in the article title or making the article exclusively about his proposal. I see no reason for such a narrow scope now. --Tataral (talk) 04:26, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - there is nowhere near enough actual encyclopedic content for this to be a standalone article. It will be a POVFORK (as it is now), or a COATRACK for any and everything someone said about his comments. That's what Wikisource is for - for compiling speeches/comments/statements. Not Wikipedia. We are an encyclopedia, not a place to play politics. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 08:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Every brain fart of an addled and senile sociopath does not an article make. Carrite (talk) 04:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You should add that as a summary at WP:TRUMPCRUFT. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:TRUMPCRUFT. Are we going to create articles for every insane thought coming from this clown for the next four years? Obi2canibe (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • How exactly is an article on proposals for displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, that includes discussions of past proposals as well as a more recent Trump proposal, "TRUMPCRUFT"? There is no "TRUMPCRUFT" anywhere. The only editor insisting on keeping Trump in the article title and also preventing any expansion and improvement now is the very editor who tries to get rid of the article. As far as I am concerned, as the article creator, the article topic and title are "Proposals for forced displacement of Palestinians from the Gaza Strip," and it does not have a narrow focus on Donald Trump. --Tataral (talk) 15:44, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NotNews, TDS, POVFORK, and TooSoon. We are not here for the news; lots of other websites, WikiNews, can do this much better. Trump, it has been said by Mary L. Trump wants this and every other little thing he does to be the center of the universe. I'm not giving him the platform. This is my way of putting the deportation orders in the bottom of the in box. We have other articles that cover this issue in context. Finally, it's too soon: if I were a gambling man, I'd probably place bets on Trump ordering a second Shoah rather than the imagined Arabic genocide. Bearian (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Battle of Camp Wildcat. Thank you everyone who pointed out this is a merge and not a delete. Dr vulpes (Talk) 09:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Camp Wildcat order of battle

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

This is a minor Civil War battle (16 killed and 62 wounded all told) and certainly doesn't merit three articles for the order of battle. The Confederate and Union ones can be merged to Battle of Camp Wildcat, making this page superfluous. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nom proposed a merge, not deletion. Mdewman6 (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator without opposition. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Camp Wildcat

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

This is a minor Civil War battle (16 killed and 62 wounded all told) and certainly doesn't merit three articles for the order of battle. The Confederate and Union ones can be merged to Battle of Camp Wildcat, making this page superfluous. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Does not appear to be notable, searched online and came to a similar conclusion that the rest of this AfD did. Dr vulpes (Talk) 05:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DC Singh

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

Most sources here marked sponsored, the Arabian Times and LLM article lack a byline and are written in a promotional tone. I've added a potentially usable (though promotional) article from the Scottish Field, one source is insufficient. CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 03:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added more sources to the page from different websites for a well-rounded reference. Iamharry090 (talk) 06:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not convinced that the added extra sources help in establishing notability (ones I've removed were not appropriate anyway). Procyon117 (talk) 14:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎ at the new title of Pilot deviation. I would normally suggest waiting till an AfD has been completed to move a page, so as not to mess up documentation, but no harm done. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brasher warning

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

Does not seem to be independently notable. Level bust seems like a likely redirect/merge target. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A level bust is only one type of pilot deviation out of many, and therefore not a good redirect or merge target. It is like redirecting Fruit to Banana. I've heard ATC issue Brasher warnings for things like departing in the opposite direction and landing on the wrong runway. Polygnotus (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Polygnotus: Thanks for the clarification. Are there any other plausible redirect targets? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535: I've watched a lot of VASAviation and played around with MSFS but I am not an expert. I don't think there are any plausible redirect/merge targets. I think the WP:COMMONNAME would be pilot deviation. While Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary it is probably possible to write an article about pilot deviations (but I haven't done a full WP:BEFORE check, and I am not qualified to write such an article). Perhaps someone from the Aviation wikiproject can help? Polygnotus (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535, Risker, CambridgeBayWeather, and Wikiexplorationandhelping: see below Polygnotus (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC) I assume that sticking very close to the source material isn't a problem because its the FAA and therefore copyright free? It is pretty difficult to be creative when conveying factual information. [reply]

Extended content

Pilot deviations are actions of a pilot that result in the violation of a Federal Aviation Regulation, often a failure to follow instructions from air traffic control.

https://www.faasafety.gov/files/notices/2010/Mar/AIRBORNE_PILOT_DEVIATIONS_-_GL_Region_FAASTeam_FY10_2nd_Qtr._Notice.pdf

Pilot deviations can be split in to ground- and airborne deviations.

Examples of airborne deviations are when a pilot strays from an assigned altitude or heading, or if they penetrate controlled airspace or restricted airspace without clearance.

Examples of groundbased deviations are taking off or landing without clearance, failing to hold short of a runway or deviating from an assigned taxi route.

https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/2022-01/Avoiding%20Pilot%20Deviations.pdf

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535, Risker, CambridgeBayWeather, and Wikiexplorationandhelping: I added some stuff and moved it. Not sure what the procedure is. Polygnotus (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Started writing before move. Keep, as the above suggestions were implemented. Ships & Space(Edits) 02:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on this, Polygnotus. I have reached out to admins via discord to as for someone to review and close this discussion. Risker (talk) 15:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Polygnotus (talk) 15:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to San Marino at the European Athletics Championships. Liz Read! Talk! 02:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino at the 2012 European Athletics Championships

San Marino at the 2012 European Athletics Championships (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Utterly insignificant. No possible merge target at San Marino at the European Athletics Championships, which would be a questionable page in itself, given that athletics lacks a high status in this micro-country. Geschichte (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 02:19, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Andrey Cherniyenko

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

In searches in both English and Ukrainian, almost literally nothing at all has come up—hardly even databases. Maybe I am missing something, but this player/manager appears to fail WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:01, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SNOWCLOSE & WP:CSK#6. (non-admin closure) CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Drents Museum heist

2025 Drents Museum heist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No need for a stand alone article for this incident. Most of the content in this article was copy-pasted from Drents Museum without attribution. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SK#4. ✗plicit 00:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bongkosh Rittichainuwat

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

Doesn't have enough references to prove notability. Borderline, but still lacking as an academic administrator. Awards don't have any references, including the poetry chanting award. Qylt (talk) 19:35, 22 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 00:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Berger (disambiguation)

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

Per WP:2DABS and WP:PARTIAL. ‑‑Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 19:56, 22 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 00:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus‎. Liz Read! Talk! 01:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97 adaptations

List of X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97 adaptations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Beyond being a largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that is only supported by a few sources (largely for the X-Men '97 portion) and can be considered trivia, this information seem better suited to note, if applicable and notable, in each series' respective articles rather than its own article (I do believe X-Men '97 already has some of this information in its "Writing" section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:06, 30 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.
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2025_January_30