Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

< March 03	March 05 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

God the Sustainer

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

There appears to be no unified conception of "God the Sustainer". BEFORE revealed a couple non-RSs and no clear evidence that this isn't just a common adjective. The current article is rife with original research. No good evidence this would make a strong disambiguation page, as no adjacent topics exist. The 2006 AfD should've probably been closed as delete. ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Religion, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism. Pbritti (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suspect there are enough sources for this, but even if not, the content can be merged to Names of God or some other target, rather than being deleted outright. There's a good bit of primary source usage here, but it's really not that OR-ish, all things considered. Jclemens (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New York R.L.F.C.

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

No significant coverage as this club never seemed to have actually played a competitive game before folding. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby league-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 23:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:24, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CM Velorum

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

Non-notable star, failing WP:NASTRO, of course. References to it are just catalogues containing lots of stars, so not significant coverage. Redirecting to the list of largest known stars also do seem to be an option. 21 Andromedae (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Poolside AI

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

More "upstart" vanity spam - utterly non notable at this point. nothing in the way of in depth coverage and the passign mentions are...exactly that. CUPIDICAE❤️ 22:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article needs work, but I searched for this entity on Google News, and I found this Bloomberg article, but I cannot find academic journal articles on the subject. Z. Patterson (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I could not find academic journal articles specifically about Poolside AI, but I found two technical papers that briefly mentioned it. This technical paper only mentions a Poolside AI employee as a credit, and this technical paper mentions Poolside AI as a statistic. Other than that, I cannot find WP:SIGCOV in the academic journals and technical reports. Z. Patterson (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and France. Shellwood (talk) 23:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This company has been mentionned in various independant and reliable sources. It is also quite a significant AI company in term of valuation (3B$). Pollockito (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pollockito: Please drop the sources you are talking about so we can assess it Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, here are some of them :

Les Echos - Video Reportage about Poolside -[[1]]

Usine Nouvelle - Dedicated article - [[2]]

Bloomberg - Dedicated article - [[3]]

MIT Technology Review - mentioning poolside as a major AI company - [[4]]

Fortune - Dedicated article - [[5]]

Silicon Angle - dedicated article - [[6]]

Financial Times - mentioning poolside as a major AI company - [[7]]
Business Insider - dedicated article - [[8]]
Geekwire - mention - [[9]]

Pollockito (talk) 16:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.lesechos.fr/tech-medias/intelligence-artificielle/video-lia-qui-pese-3-milliards-2123783	Seems like it	Base on the Wiki page		✔ Yes
https://www.usinenouvelle.com/editorial/avec-poolside-l-ia-generative-augmente-les-developpeurs-informatiques.N2205509	Paywalled	Per Wikipedia Page	Paywalled	? Unknown
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-09-12/ai-startup-poolside-nears-3-billion-valuation-to-rival-microsoft-s-github				✔ Yes
https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/01/20/1110180/the-second-wave-of-ai-coding-is-here/			Brief Mention	✘ No
https://fortune.com/2024/09/12/ai-startup-poolside-3-billion-valuation-bain-capital-ventures/				✔ Yes
https://siliconangle.com/2024/12/04/poolside-brings-powerful-generative-ai-coding-models-amazon/				? Unknown
https://www.ft.com/content/4868bd38-613c-4fa9-ba9d-1ed8fa8a40c8	Paywalled		Paywalled	? Unknown
https://www.businessinsider.com/agemo-exits-stealth-funding-ai-reasoning-software-poolside-magicai-2024-11		~ WP:BUSINESSINSIDER	A whole section for it	~ Partial
https://www.geekwire.com/2024/amazon-expands-bedrock-with-new-ai-model-marketplace-a-day-after-unveiling-its-own-nova/			WP:PARTIAL	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Base on assessment above, I lean towards Weak Keep. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 06:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noritsu

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

This is a vintage article from 2005 when Wikipedia was more interested in articles of almost any standard rather than those which show verified notability. Acknowledging the old saw that AfD is not cleanup, this article requires either a strong dose of WP:V which is almost entirely absent, or deletion because any pass of WP:NCORP is not verified. WP:HEY is a sensible outcome. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Japan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Health and fitness, and Companies. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: i found these sources Yahoo Finance, These The Nikkei sources (which is paywalled) 1 2, Sankei Shimbun, Reuter JP. There is some others. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yamaha DT200

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

Fails WP:N - could not find significant independent Also, the majority of the page is on specifications, which fails WP:NOTSTATS. LR.127 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Canada. LR.127 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Fails notability WP:N and no reference found that justifies the explanation give in the text above.User:Gauravs 51|Gauravs 51]] (talk)
- WP:NARTIST is Wikipedia:Notability (people). This is not a person. This is a motorcycle. Did you read the article? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't realize it at the time of submission.

It was due to a technical error ( was doing it from mobile...so typed it mistakenly.)

I should correct it. Gauravs 51 (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Cycle Canada had an article on it in 1989, but the reference is badly formatted and doesn't even have a page number. Definitely needs some work and I think this and several other entries would be best merged to Yamaha DT instead of having separate entries for every displacement. Mr.choppers | ✎ 13:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers Climate Change Action Plan 2001

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

Pretty sure this is not notable enough to deserve its own article. No objection to merging if you know a suitable article to merge to Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment, Canada, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Vermont. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:13, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any suitable merge targets?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Chukwueke

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

No reliable sources and mostly just puff, fails WP:NBIO. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 19:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 19:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Appears to have been involved in potentially illegal activities around issuing drilling licenses [10], [11]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Would certainly seem to qualify for notability based on the improprieties during his time with the government, given above. Rest of the career mentioned in the article is rather routine and it would be a !delete were it not for the improper dealings. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few more for good measure [12], [13]. Oaktree b (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to the reports in Reuters and the reliable sources that Oaktree b mentioned, even though the current state of the article's sourcing is weak and should be cleaned up by someone more familiar with blp ThomasHarrisGrantsPass (talk) 02:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute of Certified Professional Managers

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

Declined prod with 1 source added which doesn't appear to meet reliable sources. Still fails WP:ORG for lack of third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, Education, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquim Ferreira (athlete)

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

Declined prod. The added source is a 1 sentence and not SIGCOV. Does not meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. Also spinning out the NEXIST argument when sources can't be found doesn't work for establishing notability. LibStar (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sport of athletics, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Olympics-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, what Portuguese newspapers did you look in for coverage? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Portuguese newspapers do come up in google news. What sources have you found? LibStar (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I asked which ones did you look at? Of the ones you say are available, how many are from his era? You, as the nominator, are obligated to do a WP:BEFORE search. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on keep voters (which you normally are) is to identify sources when lacking. Prove me wrong and show me evidence of multiple sources in any media source. Otherwise I will no longer respond to you. LibStar (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... how about the fact that he posts in-depth magazine stories on him on his Facebook page; not only that, the magazine talks about other magazines that gave in-depth stories to him... BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's almost like the magazine indicates that other sources exist. If only there was a Wikipedia guideline for that concept. --Habst (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, subject was covered extensively in Portuguese TV, interviews, etc. The following is a blog but gives an idea of the depth of his accomplishments and coverage available: https://www.wikisporting.com/index.php?title=Joaquim_da_Silva_Ferreira I actually left that link in the article as a comment anticipating a future AfD from you, but there was no acknowledgement of it in the nomination. --Habst (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable per my own comment and Habst. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrietty (drag queen)

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

Cannot find enough in-depth, non-trivial coverage for this person to meet GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Entertainment, California, and Washington. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snowball. There's a reason almost every single RuPaul's Drag Race contestant has an entry. That's because being cast on the show essentially guarantees notability per WP:ENTERTAINER; in addition to appearing on the series, participants are cast on the independently notable RuPaul's Drag Race: Untucked, appear on the notable series Whatcha Packin' and Hey Qween!, and participate in notable events and tours such as RuPaul's DragCon LA and Werq the World. Article improvement > article deletion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP.

She is quite literally still airing on the show, the article is obviously going to expand more until the show stops airing or she is eliminated. In addition, she is a well-rounded performer who has a lot more to offer than simply her run on a television show. There is no reason to delete this article.

The nomination stems from a person whose name is a wikipedia page with less content than the Arrietty page... so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanahary - here Zanahary if you care so much about GNG how about you go try to delete an article that actually does not meet GNG and has very little in-depth/non-trivial coverage. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 17:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You got me. I'm a Malagasy sky deity jealous that my followers have dwindled to below the followers of this fabulous drag performer. I projected my consciousness into a field of clay to construct a golem that is now serving my divinity through Wikipedia.

Anyways, WP:CRYSTAL; WP:TOOSOON. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER

thank you, next. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since the show is still in competition, this nomination is a few days premature. Let's see what happens this weekend. Bearian (talk) 10:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We wait for notability, not for persistent appearance of lack of notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. As of Episode 9, he is in the top 7, so far. I'm still waiting for Episode 10, when more contestants shall be eliminated. Bearian (talk) 13:12, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mason Bernard

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

Minor, short-lived guitar brand with no coverage beyond passing mentions in articles about the founder's other company, B.C. Rich. But B.C. Rich being notable doesn't make this company notable. Most of the content also appears to just be OR. Mbinebri (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, article is a perm stub with no reliable sources — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theking49393 (talk • contribs) 20:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stor-Age

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

As a for-profit company this needs to meet WP:NCORP rather than GNG, and while there are lots of passing mentions and press releases, I'm unable to find substantive intellectually independent sources. There is also a history of UPE. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom ,Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and South Africa. Shellwood (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capture of Jhain

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

Fails WP:GNG, None of the sources gives enough significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV) of this event/conflict to establish Notability (WP:N). Moreover the article focuses more on the background and the aftermath as the article only mentions 2-3 lines about the actual conflict. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, India, and Rajasthan. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Koshuri ^(グ) 19:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There are plenty of sources that significantly cover it. The article could be expanded though. [14] [15] [16] (pg 209) [17] (Page 221) [18] (pg 136) Noorullah (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Per nomination. The sources provided by Noorullah21 doesn't provides WP:SIGCOV while other ones are unreliable. First two sources doens't have WP:SIGCOV and the authors of the rest of the sources are not historian. CelesteQuill (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CelesteQuill Nonsense. Cited on google scholars: [19] [20] Noorullah (talk) 04:36, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. T. Adityan

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

Duplicate of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S._P._Adithanar Perumalism (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Perumalism (talk) 20:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two articles. Notably they've existed parallel to each other for 14 years. --Soman (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are we sure they are the same person? They have different dates of birth and different years in which they were in office. I can see that some details are the same (same name of wife and year of marriage), but I think we probably need someone with access to official records to confirm if they are one person or two, and which details are correct. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inside The Trojan Horse

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

The band isn't notable despite having at least one questionably notable member. Not sure if there's a good redirect but this does fail the basics of nmusic - no real charting and the sole coverage is from unreliable or otherwise unimpressive/run of the mill blog type sources. CUPIDICAE❤️ 21:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and California. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, the group features three notable members from successful groups. Jpierce007 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections have also been made to the article adhering to encyclopedic data Jpierce007 (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections, deletions, reference repair, grammatical corrections adhering to encyclopdic data Jpierce007 (talk) 01:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 22:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hayden Moss

AfDs for this article:

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

The previous nomination lacked responses and was closed as "no consensus". On the other hand, an AFD nomination on another article was closed as "redirected" even after lack of third-party responses.

Since the last nomination, I've yet to see any recent reliable sources verifying this person's general notability (or basic notability either). Even if he's "notable" generally, I'm unconvinced that his "notability" guarantees a longstanding article that warrants inclusion.

That's not to say that the article quality itself determines his notability. Neither is assumption of his notability being "temporary" or assumption that significant coverage about him has been less sustainable.

Well, he might have gained some traction as the first Big Brother winner/alumni to appear on Survivor and as a then-boyfriend of a Survivor veteran in Survivor: Blood vs. Water. However, I'm unconvinced that he has sufficient amount of major roles or has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to meet WP:ENT. Other than his own personal life, I couldn't him making an impact elsewhere outside those reality TV appearances.

To apply WP:BIO1E or WP:BLP1E... or WP:PAGEDECIDE, I'll re-propose that the article be redirected to Big Brother 12 (American season), his winning season. Besides my preferred suggestion... and default one if no one else comments here, I can accept anyone else's suggestions that the page be redirected to Survivor: Blood vs. Water... or deleted. George Ho (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, and Arizona. George Ho (talk) 21:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous program

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

This is a synonym of Undefined behavior that only Ada uses. Can be deleted or redirected. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Computing and Software. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deccani–Vijayanagar wars

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

Full of AI-generated content by blocked socks, and previously soft AfD'ed. Since its WP:REFUND, nothing significant has been done to improve this mess so far. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Asia, India, Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Tamil Nadu. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article has lots of issues, like lacking reliable citations, peacock terms, and synthesis. If improved with better sources and a neutral tone, it should be kept, but for now, the whole article is a complete mess. NXcrypto Message 02:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atiana de la Hoya

AfDs for this article:

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

Per WP:INVALIDBIO That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A. All of the coverage is tabloids and/or coverage about the relationship with her famous (step)parents, and doesn't suggest that this person warrants a standalone article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Fashion, and California. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Some coverage on the PETA website, most is like this [21], she's the step-daughter of someone famous. She seems to be estranged from de la Hoya, but that doesn't really make you notable here. She's a model, but hasn't really attained fame there, the acting parts seem trivial. She's not even Paris Hilton famous, she just seems to exist in the sphere where other famous people exist... Oaktree b (talk) 21:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - she's done nothing noteworthy on her own. If her father wasn't Oscar de la Hoya nobody would know who she is, that's a great indication of WP:NOTINHERITED. Iggy pop goes the weasel (talk) 22:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt — This was deleted (on the third try) seventeen (17) years ago as non-notable. There's nothing that indicates that this former teen making a guest appearance as an in-universe character on a reality television show in the Kardashian orbit as moved that needle since. Carrite (talk) 23:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mailfence

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

Does not seem to meet the required depth for WP:NCORP. PhotographyEdits (talk) 20:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Go-Katz

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

I wasn't able to find significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources and the article doesn't link to anything that would establish notability. The article was created by a user named "Howard Raucous", with the same name as a member of the band. ~~I am also nominating the following related and unsourced page, as the label was formed by a member of the band:~~

(edit: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Raucous Records for a related nomination) toweli (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, Companies, United Kingdom, and England. toweli (talk) 16:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Toweli: Would you be willing to split this into two separate nominations? In the end, deleting them both may be the right call...but there is more coverage of Raucous Records than there is for The Go-Katz, so it seems like they should be evaluated separately. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I'll split them. toweli (talk) 19:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was all ready to !vote delete and then I found at least two big articles in Loughborough Echo via Newspapers.com (which I've now added to the article). If it were just those two, maybe it's still a delete...but there is still more coverage to go through so it's not as straightforward as I first thought. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per comment above Afro 📢Talk! 08:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EUROAVIA

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

Repost of content previously deleted and salted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Association of Aerospace Students * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 21:06, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Engineering, and Aviation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Failing NORG. gidonb (talk) 04:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This article has existed since 2017 and the previous AfD was in 2010. Can we get a full search for recent sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Euroavia is an international body of aeronautics students, one of its chief aims being "to foster a spirit of co-operation among the future members of the aircraft industry".
— Royal Aero Club of the United Kingdom (1964). Flight: The Aircraft Engineer. Vol. 86. IPC Transport Press Limited. p. 311.

Euroavia is the Association of European Aeronautical Students, founded in Aachen in 1959, to foster social, cultural and professional links between students and thus engineers in Europe.
— "Euroavia rides again!". Aerospace. Vol. 8. Royal Aeronautical Society. 1981. p. 5.
Maybe it is the looking for recent sources in the World Wide Web for something founded in 1959 that is the problem. I can source that introductory sentence from 2 sources, which can replace the non-independent sources used for the same in this article. There appears to be non-English sourcing that should be investigated, too. There's something of some sort in a 1959 issue of Flugwelt. I suggest checking out the old aerospace industry magazines. Uncle G (talk) 09:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in hope of a more thorough source search.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kobi Arad

AfDs for this article:

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

Yet another paid for spam page for this non notable musician. Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. Notability is not inherited from name dropping. None of the listed awards are major (or even credible). Refbombed to primary sources and PR pieces masquerading as real journalism. A single allmusic capsule review is not enough. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Israel. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I came across this page with the intention of improving its neutrality and sourcing. While I recognize that the article could benefit from further refinement, it is clear that Kobi Arad meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for musicians (WP:MUSICBIO). He has received multiple awards and nominations, including those recognized as notable within Wikipedia itself—establishing their significance. Notability is defined by significant coverage in independent, reliable sources (WP:GNG) rather than subjective interpretations of an award’s importance. Given that sources like JazzTimes and All About Jazz have reviewed his work, and considering his influence within contemporary jazz and fusion, deletion would not align with Wikipedia’s inclusion standards. Instead of removal, enhancing the article to better reflect Wikipedia’s quality guidelines (WP:NPOV, WP:V) would be the more constructive course of action. --DenoZUka (talk) 15:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC) — DenoZUka (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep - I've been an editor for two years and am looking for opportunities to contribute more actively to Wikipedia while improving my editing skills. As part of this, I’ve been reviewing discussions and pages where I can assist. In this case, I agree with DenoZuka that the subject meets the notability criteria under WP:MUSICBIO, given their multiple recognized awards and significant coverage. The sources provided appear to align with Wikipedia’s standards for reliable sourcing, and I believe the article should be improved rather than deleted. I vote to Keep! Nikzadfrance (talk) 17:49, 24 February 2025 (UTC) — Nikzadfrance (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Speedy Keep – I am the creator of this page. While I was compensated, I followed all proper AFC procedures and fully disclosed my association, ensuring compliance with all rules. The AFC was approved by Admin @Cullen328, who has made over 112,000 edits.

Kobi Arad meets WP:MUSICBIO as he has received multiple awards, including the Hollywood Music in Media Awards and the Hollywood Independent Music Awards —both of which have Wikipedia pages, confirming their credibility as recognized awards. Additionally, he has been featured in reputable publications such as All About Jazz, Ultimate Guitar, and JazzTimes, none of which were paid placements.

Accusing someone of paid placements without evidence is unwarranted. Furthermore, the nominator had previously marked the page with a Paid Editing Tag but did not initially propose deletion. However, after an experienced admin removed the tag, they suddenly nominated the page for deletion. This seems questionable—perhaps a sign of personal bias or retaliation?Dwnloda (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dwnloda, your page says you edited the Kobi Arad article for payment. How is that an accusation? Isn't it just a statement of fact? Please explain! gidonb (talk) 05:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator appeared to suggest that the subject has paid placements and "PR pieces" in the media. This is what I was addressing. None of the citations I have included are paid. Legally, all U.S.-based publications must disclose paid placements, so if any were sponsored, they would include clear advertising or sponsorship language. Dwnloda (talk) 05:20, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

duffbeerforme said PR pieces masquerading as real journalism. These don’t necessarily require payment. Writers are often busy and underpaid, relying on PR material that they publish with minimal changes. The more obscure the website or publication, the more prevalent this is—though it also exists in major outlets. If someone hires a paid writer for a community encyclopedia entry, PR concerns should extend beyond Wikipedia. gidonb (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first AfD was in 2010, which isn't particularly strong evidence. The next, in 2020, claims there's been an LTA focused on this page since the first AfD, which if true is suggestive that this new instance of the page is also a product of this LTA. Also, a tenured editor accepting an article at AfC is not protective against deletion; even experienced reviewers can make mistakes and in any case the instructions are to accept if we think it's likely to survive an AfD, which many editors interpret as >50%, so they very well may have thought that it was borderline but worth accepting. A look at the sources, excluding the obvious trivial mentions or database entries:

Several pages in a Master's thesis. I am disinclined to count a MA as an academic source contributing to notability but I suppose it may be acceptable, I'm not familiar with prior art here.
Ultimate Guitar "Community Feed" news article, bylined "eriik22", "written by a UG user". WP:UGS, doesn't contribute to WP:GNG.
JazzTimes review by a "community author", likewise seems user generated.
TunedLoud article. Bylined "Staff". There's a fiverr listing advertising a "professional review styled article" in TunedLoud for $15, which I can't link because fiverr's on the URL blacklist.
TheMusic review. The writer "wants to help you as an artist succeed and get the write-ups your band/Your music deserves! With a writing background of over 15+ years, he will review your music and give your band and/or your music the review it needs to be seen in a manner of professionalism".
Ynet profile. Trying to figure out whether this is likely to be a paid piece through google translate is not going great, so let's give this one a pass.
Edit: the Rolling Stones article's full coverage of Arad: "[The album] prominently features the likes of ... pianist Kobi Arad." Obviously not significant coverage.

So, of all the sources in the article or mentioned at this AfD, contributing to WP:GNG we have a masters thesis and a piece that I'm not convinced isn't paid because I can't read the language. Granting both of these the most benefit of doubt I feel up for, this still comes out to a delete. It is possible there are further sources, especially in Hebrew. I was able to find one in Euclid Magazine, bylined Euclid. They sell sponsored blog posts for $1,200 each, which seem to be unmarked on their website. ...and I can't link it because the entire domain is URL blacklisted, so there's that! Rusalkii (talk) 23:38, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Re: awards, both the awards listed do not appear to be particularly prominent - while the bar is subjective, that criteria is "major music award", and "has a Wikipedia article", while pretty much necessary, is not actually anywhere near sufficient. Rusalkii (talk) 23:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Two more sources have been proposed, Tonearm and JazzQuad. The Tonearm review looks pretty good, it's not a major magazine by any means but it doesn't seem to be a paid piece and looks like a professional publication with editorial review. The Arad album is one of a fairly long list, but it gets a few dedicated substantive paragraphs so this comfortably more than a brief mention. JazzQuad likewise seems like a reasonably high-quality source. Quite frankly the amount of low-quality/most likely paid sources proffered here + the socking is making me deeply skeptical of all of their sources, but taking them plus the Ynet piece at face value I'd call this a GNG pass and hence a keep. Rusalkii (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Euclid Magazine was not used as a citation, so mentioning it here is irrelevant and misleading, as it implies an accusation of paid media placement. Even if that were the case, this particular source was not included because I prioritized the most credible references when creating the page.

He also has a post here on Hollywood Heat, but to me it didn't appear as a credible source due to low traffic and domain rating. That said, any claims about user-generated content or potential paid placements remain speculative.

Regarding the two awards, while they may not be as prestigious as the Grammys or Oscars, they are still notable enough to have their own Wikipedia pages. There is no strict policy defining what qualifies as a "significant award," but in my view, an award without a Wikipedia page is unlikely to meet that threshold. Dwnloda (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I am in support of keeping this article as he is a notable figure in the jazz music scene, having won multiple awards such as the Hollywood Music in Media Award and the Independent Music Award, has collaborated with renowned artists like Stevie Wonder, Cindy and Carlos Santana, and Roy Ayers, (sources suggests that clearly). Discography is well cited by discogs. Also the page is well-supported by reliable sources, I added a rolling stone link as well, in line with Wikipedia's WP:BLP and WP:GNG guidelines. Wavyydayy (talk) 00:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC) — Wavyydayy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep I am strongly opposed to undeclared paid editing and as an administrator, I have blocked 11,482 accounts as of this writing. Probably 80% were undeclared paid editors violating our policies. But paid editing is not banned. Wikipedia has established clear policies and guidelines for paid editors to follow, some of which are required by the Wikimedia Foundation. They must comply with the Paid-contributions disclosure. They must use the Articles for Creation process and abide by the decisions of independent and uninvolved reviewers. They need to refrain from making substantive changes to accepted articles (except for reverting obvious vandalism) and instead place formal Edit requests on article talk pages. The original author of this article has done all of that in good faith. The article has plenty of references. If some are weak, the solution is to remove those, not to delete the article. The musician has won a Hollywood Music in Media Award. This may not be the best known award in music but it is a notable award. Kobi Arad is a notable musician. Not every award is a Nobel Prize. Not every musician is Bob Dylan. Not every physicist is Albert Einstein. Not every politician is Abraham Lincoln. Not every actor is Meryl Streep. This encyclopedia is rapidly approaching seven million articles. When the encyclopedia is constantly swarmed by undisclosed, often malicious paid editors, it is a big mistake, in my view, to target the work of an ethical paid editor trying to do the right thing. It sends the message that many Wikipedia editors will target your work and try to erase it even if you do everything properly, and that just allows the bad actors to rationalize their bad behavior. Cullen328 (talk) 06:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing ethical about getting paid to promote someone on Wikipedia. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:52, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stop accusing an editor who has followed all of the rules of being unethical, Duffbeerforme. It is an unacceptable personal attack. Cullen328 (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Ethical" and "allowed" are two different things. The person followed the rules for paid disclosures correctly from what I see. We may not like the rules, but we follow them. Oaktree b (talk) 21:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Cullen's mic drop. This article checks every box of acceptability. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except the box for notability. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:53, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Article definately meets WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG Afro 📢Talk! 08:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are a lot of keep arguments here but afds are not votes. One needs to instead look at the relative strengths of the arguments. Afrowriter's was a WP:VAGUEWAVE at policies. UtherSRG was a mix of WP:PERX and WP:JUSTNOTABLE. Cullen328 is largely a personal essay on what he believes is good behaviour (totally forgetting WP:NOTPROMOTION applies to everyone) but that has nothing to do with notability so is irrelevant here. He then makes a claim about sourcing, "The article has plenty of references", but fails to identify a single good one. Then he says he won "a notable award." but that is not the criteria. More on that later. "Not every musician is Bob Dylan ...." True but that does not make anyone else notable. SPAs Wavyydayy, Nikzadfrance and DenoZUka are just votestacking but they do mention awards and some individual sources. Dwnloda also mentions awards and a few specific sources. So let's look at them

The awards. Multiple say keep because they have a Wikipedia article. That just means they are (barely) notable, not that they are major or even credible (see [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Pérez Garrido|here] for a telling comment from User:Voceditenore). The criteria is a major award which these are not. I have never seen a single precedent that has kept a page due to winning Hollywood Music in Media Awards but I have seen winners deleted. History says they are not good enough. Hollywood Independent Music Awards is just a part of the former and like its parent and is just another award farm.

The sources. Multiple comments have made vague waves about the sources. Specifically All About Jazz, Ultimate Guitar, and JazzTimes. While others just mentioned them Rusalkii actually made an effort to analyse them, pointing out Ultimate Guitar, and JazzTimes are UGS so are not acceptable. They do not belong in a BLP and do not help GNG. And All About Jazz is just a search page. Rolling Stone (India) is also mentioned but is just a passing mention. We do not have multiple independent reliable sources.

There is not a single strong keep comment while Rusalkii gives a very strong delete argument taking the time to actually examine the page. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Duffbeerforme, trust me, I know how ridiculous it is sometimes to see people getting payment for creating articles on here and not disclosing it. The truth is, most times, the subject passes the necessary notability guidelines but because it is involves undisclosed paid editing, one can easily frown at it. ...skip the stories... For this case, the creator of the draft isn't an "undisclosed" paid editor, they're in fact, the opposite. They didn't just disclose; they followed the laid down principles at WP:PAID, once that is followed, you have no choice but to let it be, whether you're comfortable seeing paid editors or not. The subject passes NMUSICIAN, don't worry, just move on with your wikilife, everything is fine. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Add one to the count of WP:VAGUEWAVE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Duffbeerforme You have since started bludgeoning, FYI. You don't have to. Allow editors to make their points without being attacked. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:31, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: While I appreciate Cullen's defense of the good-faith disclosure made by the paid-editor creator, and with all due respect to the other non-SPA "keep" !voters, whose judgment I generally respect, the sourcing simply isn't there. Arad didn't technically win a Hollywood Music in Media Award; he won an Independent Music Artist award that was issued under the HMMA brand (see here). It seems more like an industry trade group award, not a major award qualifying one for an WP:NBIO#1 pass. And looking through the sources for WP:GNG-qualifying coverage, the only thing I found was the Ynet article. The rest of the sources are a mix of user-generated, database sources and trivial mentions. I don't see multiple independent reviews for any of his albums for an WP:NMUSIC pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your response and thoughtful approach to evaluating the sources; however, there appears to be a misunderstanding regarding the Hollywood Music in Media Award (HMMA). The subject did indeed win an HMMA, as confirmed by the official winners list (HMMA Winners). The distinction between different categories within the HMMAs does not change the fact that it is an officially recognized HMMA award, making it a verifiable industry accolade.

Given this clarification, the argument that the subject did not win an HMMA is incorrect, which affects the overall assessment of notability. Additionally, the claim that sources are solely ‘user-generated’ does not align with the presence of coverage from Ynet, a major Israeli publication, and other independent sources. Notability should be determined by significant coverage in reliable sources, and the existing evidence supports retention under WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:NMUSIC. Do note that WP:BASIC states that you can combine multiple sources that are not substantial to establish notability. Dwnloda (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that "Industry accolade," as you describe it, does not equal "a well-known and significant award or honor" per WP:NBIO #1. That criterion envisions awards like Oscars, Nobel Prizes, Pulitzers, peerages, etc., that are widely and broadly covered. The HMMAs appear to be covered only in the entertainment trade press. And as I noted in my comment, I don't see sufficient sourcing for any other notability standard. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s worth noting that the rationale has shifted. Initially, the argument was that the subject lacked notability because they did not win an HMMA—which was factually incorrect. Now, the argument is that an HMMA win does not meet WP:NBIO #1, despite the fact that this policy refers to ‘a well-known and significant award or honor’ without requiring the scale of an Oscar or a Nobel Prize.

By that standard, countless music industry awards—many of which form the basis for WP:NMUSIC notability—would be disregarded. Yet, the HMMAs are widely recognized in entertainment trade publications (which, per WP:RS, are considered reliable for music-related coverage). I also should add that your point of view is in the minority, as several others, including 2 admins do not agree with you. Dwnloda (talk) 23:11, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is WP:NOTAVOTE, so I don't make decisions by looking at who's in the majority. And please don't misinterpret my rationale as shifting. I have said all along that the sourcing does not support notability on any guideline and that the Independent Music Artist awards and HMMAs, however they may be related, are not significant enough to overcome the inadequate sourcing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CU Note This discussion has attracted the attention of a number of blocked (and globally locked) spammers. I have struck through two comments above, which I was able to confirm using checkuser. There is more information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dwnloda. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also suspected that some of these voters looked suspicious. I have responded on the investigation page confirming that I was not involved with any of them. Dwnloda (talk) 18:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ignoring the SPAs, this still leans toward "keep", but I'd prefer to see more commentary on the available sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment - I would like to mention that two recent album reviews have been published on The Tonearm and Jazz Quad, which were not considered or discussed by previous voters. Additionally, there is a podcast interview on Podtoppen. While I understand that the interview itself is a primary source, the page also includes a write-up by the publishers, which would be considered a non-primary source.

I hope these further strengthen the case for meeting GNG, in addition to the numerous articles published in jazz publications, Ynet, MusicReview, Rolling Stone India, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwnloda (talk • contribs) 19:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Ultimate Guitar and Jazz Times sources are RS and cover this person in detail. The rest is gravy. Please keep in mind that promotion can be as simple as having a Wikipedia article to help with search engine rankings, paid or not isn't really the issue. We're only concerned about have it declared properly. I'm not a fan of paid editing myself, for the simple fact that you can ask and it can be done for free, but that's not for AfD. Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is this another case where you relied on a tool and didn't look at the sources? Did you try read the above comments? Those two sources are from the community sections so are no good for GNG and we must "Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people,". See the urls www.ultimate-guitar.com/news/community_feed/jazz_pianist_kobi_arad_a_career_overview.html jazztimes.com/community/articles/25571-kobi-arad-s-ancient-novice clearly marked. Given that these can not be used in a BLP I will remove them. duffbeerforme (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Duffbeerforme, that's a pretty sharp tone to take with anyone, much less a good-faith AfD regular. @Oaktree b, I have to agree, these sources are WP:USERGENERATED, even if the overall publication is considered reliable for its editorial content, and thus inappropriate to qualify for GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 02:05, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shalom Institute

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

Redirect to Shalom College, University of New South Wales as WP:ATD. Fails WP:GNG. Longhornsg (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Judaism, and Australia. Longhornsg (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Education. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and don't redirect. According to Shalom College they are run by Shalom (no Istitute). Going to the Shalom site the are Shalom Collective, not Institute. And that "College" doesn't look notable itself. Just another University residence. duffbeerforme (talk) 00:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Magic (horse)

AfDs for this article:

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

Not convinced article meets WP:GNG, sources read like WP:ROUTINE — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 16:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 16:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a cute human-interest story but no lasting impact. The Time source has 10 other "heroic animals" that are likewise not notable. Perhaps Equine-assisted therapy should mention hospital use. Reywas92^Talk 18:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Therapy animals are largely un-notable. This isn't a prize-winning race horse. I don't see that this particular animal is any different than the hundred of other therapy animals out there. The awards feel non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Time magazine piece sounds like a fluff piece, one of the most notable horses in history? This isn't Seabiscuit. Oaktree b (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xandra Pohl

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

Subject does not meet basic criteria for WP:N; extremely minor celebrity with no significant contribution to their field. References include subject’s own social media accounts that do not meet WP:RS. Subject has not won critical attention for their work or been honored with any significant industry awards. Volcom95 (talk) 16:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep (Article creator) She meets the basic criteria for notability through sources like this solid Cincinnati Enquirer profile. None of the nominator's reasons are based in deletion policy. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A single article does not meet the definition of "significant coverage" as detailed in WP:GNG. Volcom95 (talk) Volcom95 (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hence "sources like". Also not what sigcov means. Plenty of other solid articles including E! profile and a chunk of this Rolling Stone piece ("does not need to be the main topic of the source material"), Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The author had reliable sources in the article, but given the fact that there are other, even more reliable sources out there on the subject, it seems to me that this is a case of an article simply needing to be further developed. I will spend some time tomorrow on strengthening it. This article was hastily nominated by a user who resorted to false accusations & threats against users who were doing their due diligence in order to provide a genuine opinion about whether or not the article should remain on Wikipedia. It is clear that the subject has satisfied the notability requirement. None of the nominators reasons for nominating are valid.

Brickto (talk) 03:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Strong Keep - She made the Forbes 30 under 30 list for music. That is no small feat. —— Comment: Reason Keep to Strong Keep change: nominator isn’t paying enough attention to the things they are arguing, and likely didn’t attempt to research the subject before initiating an AfD.

Brickto (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How is it that you and user:Hameltion both have edits on the Peter Mangione article? Seems like an odd coincidence. Care to explain here or should I just file a WP:SPI?? Volcom95 (talk) 19:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Volcom95 I am switching my vote to Strong Keep, because clearly the nominator isn’t observant enough to notice that I edited the Peter Mangione article because I nominated it for deletion, and instead resorts to threats and accusing me and the author of sockpuppetry. Brickto (talk) 02:25, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is also not a thing we use to recognize notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:5P5, Wikipedia has no firm rules. A selection by Forbes, a reliable and prestigious outlet, for their 30 under 30 list is notable. On top of that, the subject is mentioned plenty in other reliable sources as more than just a passing mention. Did anyone bother to search the woman up or are you just trying to get this persons article deleted for no reason? Brickto (talk) 02:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: TOOSOON, the Cincinnati Inquirer piece is fine. The Sports Illustrated seems to be from the Swimsuit edition of the website, I'm wondering if it's as notable as the main SI site. We'd need a few more RS to cover this person before we could consider an article here. Oaktree b (talk) 21:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Otherwise, coverage is about a swimsuit line, Dancing with the Stars and her relationships. They could help fill in an article, but aren't indications of notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The SI piece is reliable but not really independent, but the other sources I linked above are sound. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 22:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Jenat

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

He only played 90 minutes of professional level before moving to lower leagues. The only secondary coverage I found is a passing mention on BB Online, but I don't think it's reliable. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Slovakia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Hasn't played enough to have enough written about him. Fails WP:GNG – RossEvans19 (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Libero International

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

When I stumbled upon this article, I was surprised to see its only citation was to a Libcom.org archive of the journal's issues, rather than a clearly reliable secondary source. I then tried looking into the journal, searching for information about it on Google Scholar, but I found a dearth of coverage.[22] The majority of the Google Scholar results are false positives, and the few that do mention Libero International are either citing one of its articles (such as the external-linked "Bakunin in Japan" or "Anarchism and the May 4th Movement") or give it a passing mention. I only found one source that told me what this journal was, and it was a wee paragraph in the "Word To Our Readers" column in Libertarian Review.[23] Even that one doesn't give much to go off.

As it appears this subject lacks any significant coverage in reliable sources, I am proposing this article for deletion. Although as an alternative to deletion, this could be redirected to Centre International de Recherches sur l'Anarchisme (the parent organisation of the publishers behind the journal) and any relevant information merged into that. Grnrchst (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, News media, Politics, and Japan. Grnrchst (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuke Nakano

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

Procedural nomination per WP:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 23 § Yusuke Nakano, which concluded that the page was not appropriate as a redirect. The page had been BLARd since 2015 because of a dearth of reliable sources, tagged for notability since 2009. One opinion at the RfD was that it was better to have this as a stub if the subject was notable. Jay 💬 15:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Video games, and Japan. Jay 💬 15:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

West Plaza

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

Reads like a promotion of a neighborhood in Missouri than a normal article. GamerPro64 23:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. GamerPro64 23:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I disagree that it's promotional - it's just a poorly sourced neighbourhood article that fails WP:GNG. I did see some possible hits in book searches, but nothing that was conclusive for notability. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The existence of a neighbourhood alone does not establish notability, and this one in particular does seem to fail WP:GNG. Get a load of Neighborhoods of Kansas City, Missouri, as well - could consider turning that page into a table on Kansas City, Missouri to prevent anyone getting trigger happy on all those redlinks. Kylemahar902 (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, quite a lot of this content is verifiable. It may have been one person's ramblings left untouched and unchallenged since 2009, but it turns out that those are verifiable ramblings. Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Adequately sourced. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Suggest the author clean it up and add photos but I think it's notable per WP:GEOLAND Barrettsprivateers (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see how this article passes WP:GNG, and it also fails WP:GEOLAND.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm pretty sure, as a neighborhood, this is not a legally recognized place and thus fails WP:GEOLAND. The only source I can access, The Kansas City Star article, doesn't seem to mention West Plaza at all. If all three offline sources have substantive coverage then I believe passes GNG. I believe the sources were added by User:Uncle G and I'd be happy to take them on faith if they say there's substantial coverage. Rusalkii (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It's talking about a shop on Bell Street in the Antique District, which is right on the corner of Bell Street and 45th (39°02′48″N 94°36′25″W / 39.04665340171091°N 94.6068127590524°W / 39.04665340171091; -94.6068127590524 (4448 Bell Street)). The Arcadia Publishing source made the connection to the antique district, but as I noted, so too did the original 2009 version of the article. The original content turned out to be verifiable, which was a surprise, as usually such rambling turns out to be unsupported rubbish. Mary Jo Draper is a (retired?) Kansas City journalist who is on the Historic Kansas City preservation board so I trusted that xe knows the subject, or at least fact checked West Plaza local historian Joe Montanari.
  I didn't put too much effort into looking for the 45th Street and State Line Road Art and Antiques District per se, because I already found a source saying that there were over 50 shops there, and had four examples, and I didn't want to make a list of shops. But if you follow the aforegiven map link you'll see two more antiques shops over the road, and one on the opposite corner. ☺
  I'm fairly convinced that when the books discussed West Plaza's main feature being this art and antiques district and the Star having "antique district" in headlines, the 2009 article's claim that "45th Street features a cluster of antique and houseware stores" is not only verifiable but if anything understated. This is known for having become, over the course of a century, Kansas City's 45th and State Line arts, crafts, design, and antiques district, something which the 2009 version of the article buried a bit. ☺
  Maybe there's a rename in order. I did push the fact up into the lead. Although officially it's still West Plaza from what I can see, and "West Plaza neighborhood" is what Draper discussed it as.
  Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Basil Kilani

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

Declined prod. Source was added https://www.newspapers.com/article/the-los-angeles-times-liberian-runner-sh/166592209/ ~~which doesn't appear to name this person~~. Lacking SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Jordan. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Well, he exists [24]. That's about the extent of what I find, there are three other sources in Gnewspapers that just give race results. We don't have enough to meet GNG Oaktree b (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Positively fails WP:SPORTCRIT. Added source is expressly not about him. I know that a certain user will come around here to claim that it is, but it is not. Kilani had unusually slow PBs per Olympedia, literal minutes behind the world elite, so no reason to believe that WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES either - which a certain user will arrive to claim as well. Geschichte (talk) 13:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with great respect to the above !voters' views and contributions, this is only a disagreement about policy. I do believe in using WP:NEXIST very sparingly, meaning I don't think it applies to 99%+ of articles on-wiki. But the simple fact is that that Kilani is a clear case where it applies:
1. . Is there enough WP:V content on Kilani to construct a stub? Yes, the article as written only consists of verified content from WP:RS. So the only issue is notability, not verifiability.
2. . Has Kilani done something that would indicate coverage exists? Yes, Kilani was the best long-distance track runner from his country of millions of people in the 1970s, as evidenced by the fact that he was the only such Jordanian athlete to qualify for the 1984 Olympics. Standards of achievement for athletics have always been specific to regions and sub-groups and not only universal. Of course a universal standard also exists, but for the same reason Sherman Guity is notable despite "pedestrian" sprint times, what matters is not whether Kilani did or WP:DIDNOTWIN but whether he was notable for his accomplishments in a large enough sub-group.
3. . Have we searched relevant archives? Do we even have access to them? This is a resounding no. We know that newspapers and periodicals were widespread in Jordan at the time. But where are the archives? A good start would be searching under the subject's native name Arabic: باسل كيلاني. Once we have those archives, it shouldn't take much, we'd expect coverage from the Olympics to exist on the first sports or news page on the day of Kilani's competitions. But we don't.

Lastly I'll just say that there is a wording issue in the nominating statement, of course "which doesn't appear to name this person" is incorrect because the subject is mentioned in the first sentence of the article. Yes, it's only a mention, meaning it serves to fulfill WP:V but not WP:N – hence why NEXIST is necessary here. --Habst (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But we still have no sources, "Trust me some exist" isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Oaktree b, I have great respect for your edits, but I think you are falling trap to a common misconception about Wikipedia P&G – yes, NEXISTS can be invoked without a specific URL or page number of a citation, and there is some responsibility to search for sources before deletion even if they aren't readily available online. See the closing admin comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Maher Abbas: ... I'm not typically impressed by the "there must be sources" genre of argument, BeanieFan11's is unusually solid: it is true that not a single participant has reported searching Lebanese newspapers (where we'd expect to find the most coverage) and finding nothing. Those points all also apply to this AfD.

A lot of people think that if you look for sources online and can't find any, that's sufficient grounds to delete an article. And in 99% of cases that may be true, but Wikipedia P&G are more nuanced than that. --Habst (talk) 21:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an inclusionist, but without proper sourcing, we can't presume anything. This individual is most certainly notable, but we have nothing to prove that notability. The best source for media in that part of the world that we can access would be the BnF Gallica, simply for the shared language, [25] but there are no sources to be found. A Lebanese athlete would get some mention in the Francophone press if they were this notable, but there isn't any. Oaktree b (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas was Lebanese but Kilani (this AfD subject) is Jordanian, so I don't think a French newspaper would suffice. List of newspapers in Jordan would be a good start – those in the table that would have existed during Kilani's prime would be The Jordan Times, Al Liwaa, Al Ra'i, and Ad-Dustour. To my knowledge, although we know that they existed in the 80s, none have searchable archives from that time, meaning we would need to do some digging like finding old issues. --Habst (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment striked out text, but regardless the added source is a single mention and not SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage here. I get a very choppy translation that says something like:

Basil Al-Kilani, the athlete
1 The unknown who did not participate in the tournament A year ago, he did not have a share 7 0 of the competitions that 0 .. Igham since a year for the national electors after he insisted on continuing training. With determination and deliberation .. until he surprised everyone and the champions

The previous one on the track, so Khalil

And Ham to the constellation in the 00.0 km race And the situation worsened with him, so he finished third, and I think Some people thought it was a stroke of luck, but he confirmed 0 The second day of the tournament 3 His ability to follow 0 The champions in the 101 km race, and he almost 3 won it if it were not for his lack of resourcefulness and experience He finished second and is now developing
5 An organized development.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also get from this:

Student Basil Kilani: One of the champions of the cross-country race
What are the impressions that.
Bear about the sports movement inside the college
He said at the beginning of the year there was no extra interest in athletes and the dean of the college promised that there were privileges for athletes and that they would be exempted from some of the fees or reduced, but one day we were surprised by the dean’s registrar taking us out of the classes and demanding that we pay the full fee.
There was one teacher in the college, which was not enough to train the teams, but finally the college received two sports coaches who led the teams to victory and the college director became the first supporter of sports and athletes

BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Then Sawt Alshaab has a decent article discussing him (and some other Jordan 1984 Olympians) here (Google is not good at translating this stuff...):

In response to what was reported by sports circles and newspapers about our athletics team that represented Jordan in the Los Angeles Olympics, I would like to present a clearer and more detailed picture of this drowned(?) person ... Basil Kilani competed in the 1000[0]m race. He achieved Al-Kilani set a new Jordanian record in the 30.42 1000[0]m race, completing the distance in 30 minutes, thus breaking his previous record of 32.02 minutes by one minute and twenty seconds.
An hour. He came in fifteenth place with a time of 19/2014 and there are many like him ... This is an achievement in a short period of time that is almost unexpected. He participated in the 5000m race, which started at a speed higher than what is required for our player, and he covered the first kilometer in 2.47 minutes and the second kilometer in 2.44 minutes, which is close to his maximum speed time, which was a technical mistake for the player, and thus he lost his record achieved in Germany by 15 seconds.
...
However, we must take into consideration all aspects of the shortage in numbers and capabilities, from technical and other aspects, so that we can achieve better accomplishments in the future...

huge blockquote redacted somewhat by asilvering (talk) 00:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11, please don't drop such huge blockquotes onto Wikipedia, even in an AfD, for copyvio reasons. Thanks! -- asilvering (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just trying to allow others to be able to read the text, which is entirely in another language, to show its extent for sigcov. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. I think the coverage we have is just enough for GNG/NBASIC given the circumstances; I feel like if we did better searches we'd find more coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per BeanieFan11 Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:51, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Let give time for interested editors by draftifying the page and so they may show the subject's notability with additional references through time.Instant History (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom, the subject lacks WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. He also fails WP:GNG. I don't think the WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument holds up either - if they WP:EXIST, then someone should find them and update the article accordingly.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Why is this not sigcov? Also, the NEXIST argument is that no one has looked at Jordanian newspaper archives, only the very limited archive.org collection. I.e. a large number of the newspapers of the time that are likely to have covered him are inaccessible to us. Regardless of that though, I think what's been presented is enough to build an WP:NBASIC-compliant article... BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Runcorn and Helsby recall petition

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

WP:NOTNEWS. I redirected this to Mike_Amesbury#Assault_conviction but was reverted. This petition may happen if some conditions are fulfilled, at which time it may become notable (or perhaps only if it gets the required number of signatures), but for now it is something better treated in one or two sentences at the target article. Fram (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and England. Fram (talk) 15:40, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is common practice to have articles for recall petitions (See here for example). He has already met the trigger point by the custodial sentence that he has received so barring any changes, this will occur. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 16:01, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A recall petition hasn't been triggered, as Amesbury hasn't exhausted all appeals. It's also possible that Amesbury resigns before the petition occurs. CR (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CRYSTAL allows for articles that are likely, even if they are not nailed on. Amesbury only has one appeal route possible: he pleaded guilty, so he can only appeal on the severity of the sentence. It is unlikely that Amesbury's appeal of the sentence will see it sufficiently reduced so as to avoid a petition. I don't think we need to worry about that. It is more probable that Amesbury will just resign, which would obviate the need for the petition, but what we have done in past such cases is start with an election petition article and then re-name it to a by-election article, carrying over content. Bondegezou (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect at least until the petition occurs - if it occurs. WP:CRYSTAL applies CR (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created the article and reverted Fram's redirect. The suggestion that this comes under WP:NOTNEWS is weak and seems to misunderstand WP:NOTNEWS. We have or have had articles for every prior UK Parliamentary election petition. (There have been 6 and 5 led to by-elections, in which cases the election petition article evolved into a by-election article.) The claim that This petition may happen if some conditions are fulfilled is misleading. Amesbury has received a sentence that will lead to a petition. There are 3 events that can override that. (1) The most likely is that Amesbury can just resign, but then we just convert this article into a by-election article, carrying over the content: there is no need for deletion because of that possibility. (2) Amesbury can appeal his sentence: he pleaded guilty, so he can only appeal the sentence. It is unlikely that such an appeal would produce such a reduction in the sentence that a petition would still not be triggered. (This is discussed in the article.) (3) A general election is called. Very unlikely! We have multiple sources talking about an election petition and I promise you there will be more in the next 48 hours. You can already bet on the outcome of the by-election at Ladbrokes (Reform UK are favourites)! We have this conversation every time a petition or by-election is imminent. We usually end up keeping the article concerned. Should something unexpected happen, we can redirect then. Right now, readers will be looking for information on these events. Bondegezou (talk) 17:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Should something unexpected happen, we can redirect then." That's doing things the wrong way round, and is exactly why we have WP:NOTNEWS, WP:SUSTAINED and WP:CRYSTAL. "We have multiple sources talking about an election petition ", yes, see my previous sentence. If and when the conditions are met and a petition actually happens, then is the time to change the redirect into an article. "We have this conversation every time a petition or by-election is imminent." Er, then perhaps it is time another approach is tested? As I haven't participated in these previous discussion IIRC, it seems that quite a few editors have the same concerns about such premature creations. Fram (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Runcorn and Helsby (UK Parliament constituency). Moondragon21 (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is well-sourced and no case has been made why NOTNEWS should apply here. Cortador (talk) 19:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this is now very likely to happen, it's not quite a foregone conclusion. As the article itself points out, all the appeal procedures have to be completed first. The appeal court could reduce his sentence to e.g. a community service order (unlikely but not impossible), or he could resign, or he could die. It's not a case of WP:NOTNEWS (if this does happen it would be news) but WP:CRYSTAL. PatGallacher (talk) 19:34, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRYSTAL does not require that something is a foregone conclusion. We often have articles for things being very likely to happen. Bondegezou (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's met the bar for a Recall Petition, so the only way this doesn't happen is if he resigns before it's formally called, in which case this article is just going to be named 2025 Runcorn and Helsby by-election, so there's nothing to be gained in waiting.MoreofaGlorifiedPond,Really... (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The requirements for a recall petition have been met so WP:CRYSTAL no longer applies. Assuming the petition succeeds, this will be renamed 2025 Runcorn and Helsby by-election. As we have allowed articles for recall petitions to have a stand alone page, and as the sources meet GNG, the page should be kept. --Enos733 (talk) 22:21, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No censorship of Labour misdeeds, please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:CA:2CE5:1:A974:DD4F:454C:265D (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep MP being convicted and jailed is news, Recall petitions are established events in the UK now, and by-elections are long established as notable with local and national coverage (I'd argue separate articles for UK by-elections have 'grandfather rights' here). doktorb _words^deeds 04:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge WP:TOOSOON the existence of this article is misleading as by appearing in search results it gives the impression there is a petition in existence, when there isn't. It doesn't meet any of the exceptions of in WP:CRYSTAL as while we can be almost certain there will be forthcoming Olympics or presidential elections, it is still very possible there will be a different outcome. Merge to Mike_Amesbury#Assault_conviction. Orange sticker (talk) 13:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reply We don't have an article on "2025 papal conclave", even though there is the serious possibility that it will happen, through the death or resignation of the current pope. We don't create by-election articles for a constituency where the MP is known to have a terminal illness. PatGallacher (talk) 01:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, we aren't going to create an article on the by-election before we know it definitely will take place, even though there probably will be one this year, either because a recall petition succeeds or the MP resigns before then. PatGallacher (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hence why when these things happen, if they're unsuccessful it remains as is. If the petition is successful, we merge it into the by-election. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 17:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to say @PatGallacher that you seem out of step on this. Yes, correct, the conclave article doesn't exist yet, but whilst Mike Amesbury is in prison, the current Pope isn't yet dead. doktorb _words^deeds 18:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally see a problem with a Next papal conclave article. We have Next United Kingdom general election, Next Ukrainian presidential election, Next South Korean presidential election, Next German federal election (but currently with an AfD), Next Libyan presidential election, Next New Zealand general election, Next Malian parliamentary election, Next Sudanese general election, Next North Korean parliamentary election, Next Palestinian presidential election &c. and some of those seem less likely than the next papal conclave or the Runcorn & Helsby recall petition! Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note Just to update commentors, he has appealed and the sentence has been suspended. However, as the source says, it still means a recall petition is scheduled so it could mean this AFD is now moot. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Sky piece, he has the opportunity to appeal his new sentence, so the possibility remains that, if he does that and his sentence is further reduced, the petition would then not be triggered. But that is an ever less likely outcome. Bondegezou (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge until we know whether a recall petition will occur I think a merger with the constituency's article should occur until we are sure that a recall petition will take place. If it is confirmed, this article can return. RyanPLB (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This new BBC article from today says, "Mike Amesbury was given an immediate custodial sentence on 24 February, and although three days later this was reduced on appeal to a suspended sentence, a recall petition will now still happen." Bondegezou (talk) 13:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the article now has 22 citations (7 about earlier, background events), twice as many as when the AfD started. Compared to when the AfD started, Amesbury's appeal has been heard and his new sentence still triggers the petition. (While it is technically possible that he can re-appeal, there are no reports that this is happening.) We have articles like the above now using very firm language ("will now still happen" in the above BBC article; or "The suspended sentence still means the process of a recall petition will be triggered in the Runcorn and Helsby constituency" in this Liverpool Echo piece). I think that satisfies any WP:CRYSTAL concerns. The WP:NOTNEWS concerns were never well explained, but the citations and precedence answers those, and likewise for WP:SUSTAINED. Bondegezou (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This piece yesterday says, "This means he will still face a process called a recall petition, which starts the process of removing a Member of Parliament." (It later says, "The recall petition may be cancelled out if Amesbury decides to resign as a Member of Parliament", but, as discussed above, in that case we convert the current article into a by-election article.) Bondegezou (talk) 15:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep, merge or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I quote the most recent link: "In an update on its website, Halton Borough Council, which will organise and run the recall petition in the case of the Runcorn and Helsby seat, said: "A recall petition only opens when the Speaker of the House of Commons notifies a petition officer. This would not be expected until after the appeal period, and when any appeals have been heard.

"Should a recall petition be triggered further information will be shared via the council through its usual channels, including local media outlets." The ECHO understands that the Speaker is yet to notify a petition officer at the council so this process has not officially got underway yet." PatGallacher (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural

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

I'm leaning more towards BLAR than straight deletion, but this isn't a useful DAB page. All entries are PTMs except for Procedural (genre) (which is just a redirect to Procedural drama). It would make more sense for this title to redirect there rather than the current situation. — Anonymous 17:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. — Anonymous 17:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's no policy based argument to get rid of this; see WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bearian (talk) 05:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian, I beg your pardon? The policy being cited here is clearly WP:PARTIAL because, as I said, this DAB page only has one entry that isn't a PTM. Given that this is the only entry that actually belongs here in accordance with WP:PARTIAL, that would mean that this would no longer disambiguate anything if superfluous entries were removed. Therefore, if not deleted, it should at least redirect to the one thing actually simply known as "procedural". I'd also like some kind of explanation as to how you concluded that my deletion was based purely on personal prejudice (?) from my nomination. — Anonymous 12:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clarifying your position. Every nomination should clearly link to the policy or essay being invoked. Otherwise, one only states a personal like or dislike. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Procedural drama which is the only exact match. Google generates enough bad GHits these days without us trying to encourage that. Mangoe (talk) 14:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Procedural drama per Mangoe, the only thing on the list which is clearly called a "procedural" as an unmodified noun. BD2412 T 17:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Procedural drama as the only article known by the title alone. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miriam Steinel

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

Fails WP:NSKATE, WP:SPORTSBASIC, and WP:GNG. Only competed at the junior level and never medaled in the one junior figure skating competition we recognize as significant. 4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Skating, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A bronze medal at the Junior Grand Prix Final is a notable achievement, although I realize it is not included on the list of criteria for WP:NSKATE. That competition is one notch below the World Junior Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was not to include that level of achievement at the SNG for figure skaters when it was crafted by the community, so from a wiki community guideline point of view it isn’t notable unless there is GNG level sourcing that supports that. The junior level of skating doesn’t typically get SIGCOV outside of the World Junior Championship medalists.4meter4 (talk) 06:37, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I am also unable to find enough coverage to support keeping the article. The win could be notable with some good sources; I tried a newspaper search, nothing turns up. Oaktree b (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Claire Holland (politician)

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

WP:BLP of a local politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, councillors at the borough level are not automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of significant reliable source coverage about their work that enables us to write a substantial article about their political impact -- but not a single one of the 22 footnotes here represents proper third-party coverage about Claire Holland in media of record: 17 of them are primary sources that are not support for notability (e.g. the self-published websites of the council she serves on and/or her political party); three more completely fail to mention Claire Holland's name at all, and instead are here just to tangentially verify stray facts about other people; and the remaining two come from a minor community hyperlocal WordPress blog rather than a reliable or WP:GNG-worthy media outlet.
Simply existing as a borough councillor is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt the councillor from having to pass GNG on significantly better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and England. Bearcat (talk) 14:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aris AA missile system

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

Lack of sources Greatder (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Firearms and Greece. Greatder (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cancelled project with limited sourcing and no apparent notability. Intothat darkness 14:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Doug Engelbart Institute

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

The article based on self-published materials, promotional sources and routine descriptions LusikSnusik (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. LusikSnusik (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanical Lloyd

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

lacks significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, fail WP:GNG LusikSnusik (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. LusikSnusik (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Xavier House

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

Mr. Xavier's home does not inherit notability from him. I have been able to find no source that discusses Mr. Xavier or his home other than in passing mention. Please see Talk:Juan Xavier House Oona Wikiwalker (talk) 12:09, 4 March 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 March 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Arizona. Shellwood (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Łukasz Piskorz

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

A developer of two games. And a stub that is not more useful than a category Video games developed by Łukasz Piskorz. IgelRM (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Poland. IgelRM (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NITron

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

Not meet GNG Xrimonciam (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Xrimonciam (talk) 09:45, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Draft:NITron. ДолбоЯщер (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article appears to be notable and likely meets the GNG and significant coverage SIGCOV. However, regarding WP:NMUSICIAN, I am uncertain, as most of the sources are in Russian, which I do not understand. Afro 📢Talk! 08:14, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This appeared suddenly on Welsh Wikipedia today, contributed by an SPA, and I believe it to be cross-wiki spam. Deb (talk) 09:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Linux Software Map

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

Obscure topic without 3RR or importance Greatder (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Greatder (talk) 09:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~: There are a few articles written by a single group: [26], [27], plus some other coverage: [28], [29], [30]. Even though the first group of sources shares roughly the same authors, and the second group of sources doesn't contain a lot of coverage, the sources should demonstrate bare notability. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:59, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Helpful Raccoon Wikipedia is not a manual(Articles should not read like textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples.

These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity.) ref 1 is a passing mention, 3,4 has only one paragraph. 5 is just using the map to find licenses not treating the topic independently. Reference 2 details what LSM is and how they used it, but again wikipedia is not a manual and shouldn't have article on every single topic that is required to publish a software. It is better situated in perhaps Wikibook. Greatder (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is not just a passing mention, it contains plenty of coverage in pages 5-7. However, I'm just now seeing that ref 1 states that this group is closely connected to a major repository that uses LSM, the UNC MetaLab Linux Archives. That's enough to throw independence into doubt, so I'm withdrawing my keep vote. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 09:52, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Things Solver

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

Not notable. Article created by contributor with conflict of interest. Frap (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Frap (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology, Software, and Serbia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Priya Malik (actress)

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

Non-notable actor/author etc. None of the sources cited contribute towards notability of any flavour, and BEFORE finds nothing better. (Also poorly referenced, eg. the entire 'Early life and education' section is supported by one cite to IMDb, but that's just by the by.) Fails WP:GNG / WP:BIO by some margin. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Poetry, and India. DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback. I'll add more citations to the 'Early life and education' section and work on improving the references overall. Thevikastanwar (talk) 17:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bigg_Boss_(Hindi_TV_series)_season_9#Wild_card_entries -Mushy Yank. 19:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Era Tak (3rd nomination) simultaneous nomination‎. Nomination four was simultaneous with nomination 3. This needs to be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Era Tak (3rd nomination), hence I am closing this discussion. (non-admin closure) 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Era Tak

AfDs for this article:

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

Not sure if this meets G4 as the article was recreated via AfC and the article was deleted less than a year ago according to logs, but based on the history, I would suggest a salt against the title to prevent any more disruptive moves. Article is about a writer who does not meet notability standards. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 deleted‎ by DoubleGrazing (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as "Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G4, G11". It has also been (ECP) salted. (non-admin closure) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Era Tak

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been moved all over the place. I don't believe draftification is appropriate. Not shown to pass any notability criteria. Fails WP:BIO. Sources appear to be PR/churnalism. Being invited to literature festivals is not a token of notability. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Artists, Authors, Women, India, and Rajasthan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:35, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent I was indeed about to start this deletion discussion at the same time. Delete the article and salt it. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Salt: I am astounded to see that his is the fourth (or rather the third since number four coincided wuth this one) nomination. Under these circumstances I would normally have suggested salting as part of the nomination. I apologise for my omission. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is nearly identical to the last deleted version, therefore I would be quite happy to G4 (and salt) this unless someone feels there is particular merit to another AfD? --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DoubleGrazing As nominator I am happy to defer to your offer to G4 and salt. I had failed to realise it had been nominated previously, as you can see. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 10:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:NFILMMAKER, WP:NAUTHOR and I can't find WP:SIGCOV about the subject. Taabii (talk) 10:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Philippe Baden Powell

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

This is the subject of coverage by non-WP:RS and WP:BLPPRIMARY sources. No combination of multiple unrelated non-primary sources appears to provide in-depth biographical WP:SIGCOV to this subject. And he fails WP:NMUSICIAN as an alternative criterion. JFHJr (㊟) 02:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, France, and Brazil. JFHJr (㊟) 02:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely don't understand anything anymore. Three Wikipedias have an article about him, and that's still not enough. I give up.--Марко Станојевић (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the sources in the article at the moment aren't the best, and the language is over-promotional, but the other articles in the other three languages use different sources (has anyone checked them? I don't feel qualified to go looking for Portuguese archived articles), and I'm finding quite a lot of shortish biographical bits for him that look at least slightly promising, e.g. at Jazz Music Archives [[31]] (admittedly user-contribution so probably not reliable source), Exclaim! [[32]], and JazzThing [[33]], these latter two looking useable. My feeling is that this might be a knee-jerk nomination without a full WP:BEFORE? A proper source search and assessment would be helpful. Elemimele (talk) 13:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This article was less than one day old when nominated for deletion. It doesn't even have a Talk page yet! Surely it could have been tagged for needing more neutral language, more references, etc, before coming to AfD. Given that there are reviews of his albums in French, German, Portuguese and English, I think he is very likely notable. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CommentThank you for your comments. I just wanted to mention that English is not my native language, which might be why the articles don't look perfect. Regarding what you wrote, I would like to ask something unrelated to this article. My last three articles were literally nominated for deletion just one day after publication by the same user. This wasn't the case before. Previously, if an article didn't meet the standards, it would first be moved to draft. Has something changed that I might not be aware of?--Марко Станојевић (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I'm aware, if you move the article to main space yourself, then a new page patroller probably won't draftify it, because it would be a disputed draftification (i.e. it's assumed that you want it in main space so you are disputing it being in draft space - it's like the move equivalent of an edit war). If you submit it via AfC, then they simply won't move it out of draft space if they don't like it. If, at AfD, editors don't like this particular article, then because it has only been in main space for a short time, "draftify" is an acceptable suggestion. Articles that have been in main space for more than a certain length of time (I can't remember how long) cannot be draftified from AfD. I hope this helps, and I hope someone will correct me if I'm wrong. Elemimele (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the explanation.--Марко Станојевић (talk) 18:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NMUSICIAN Afro 📢Talk! 08:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Truncated triakis tetrahedron

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

Unsourced. Although there exists some kind of this polyhedron in Google Books, it does not qualify the notability with the fact of its general explanation (construction, properties, and usage}. I thought of merging it into triakis tetrahedron, but no.

The same reason for Truncated triakis icosahedron and Truncated triakis octahedron. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 01:37, 25 February 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 February 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (weak) -- 21 years is enough time to add sources. That being said, without knowing anything about this topic, this does appear to be somewhat notable... but we're also beginning to tread on WP:NOTDICT territory, in my opinion. Several other similar articles -- such as Truncated triakis octahedron -- cites no sources, either. Perhaps a list article should be considered. MWFwiki (talk) 02:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no sources mention it, that would be in vain. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 04:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but refocus. I think that as a convex polyhedron, the truncated triakis tetrahedron, it is not independently notable, but that as a fullerene, the one called tetrahedral fullerene, it is somewhat notable. Google Scholar finds 83 hits for tetrahedral fullerence (some in the title) and more like 1880 hits for fullerene C28 (some in the title). I have added a couple of mathematical sources that connect this shape to the fullerene (without themselves supplying notability) and a couple sources from the chemical literature that go into more depth and I think suggest notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:02, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, okay @David Eppstein. But renaming the article per many hits in Google Scholar, and most notably by WP:CRITERIA? Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:35, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it should be renamed after the AfD closes. C28 fullerene is more specific, and more frequent, but it refers only to the carbon molecules with this form (and not, for instance, to water clusters also of this form) so I think tetrahedral fullerene would be a better name. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
C28 fullerene hits more than a thousand, so let's just pick the notable one. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 14:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
C28 fullerene is a named that is only and entirely about carbon. That is a significant aspect of this topic but even in chemistry it is not the only aspect of this subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truncated triakis tetrahedron and refocus it on the chemistry. XOR'easter (talk) 13:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: but rename to the c28 fullerene. Seems to have better sourcing with a focus on the chemistry of it. Buckminster Fuller would be proud (guy they named fullerenes after). Oaktree b (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename but not to c28 fullerene. While this is very close to one of my significant areas of expertise, I don't know all the details. From a quick look these are stabilized by having a metal atom at the center. That is not a trivial addition, it will lead to a radial force on all the carbon atoms which will also probably stabilize the 5-fold rings, and will also yank a bit of charge out. I would suggest getting WikiProject Chemistry involved once the AfD closes. There is much more that would need to be added if this changes to a atomic structure/fullerene page.Ldm1954 (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind someone use the name C₂₈ fullerene or tetrahedral fullerene, or whatever it is, as long it meets WP:NOTABILITY. I have asked this on WP:CHEMISTRY. Dedhert.Jr (talk) 06:13, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Udhcpc

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

All sources listed are either by the program's official website, or sources that aren't independent. Could not find reliable and significant sources describing this program LR.127 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. LR.127 (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is because the actual name of the software package under which one will find it is udhcp, as documented on ISBN 9780596005023 p. 66 and ISBN 9780596555054 p. 304. Fairly obviously from those sources, it is a sub-topic of BusyBox and not substantial enough for its own standalone article. Uncle G (talk) 08:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Very helpful when I needed info. I don't see an advantage of having hundreds of descriptions in a busybox article. On a counter point: When googling the subject, google generative ai generates a very nice overview now, which makes this less important. Daniel.Cardenas (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Daniel.Cardenas (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. – The Grid (talk) 13:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. – The Grid (talk) 14:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Computing. – The Grid (talk) 14:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

White Supremacy Culture

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/White Supremacy Culture

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

This article appears to be promotional in nature and does not meet Wikipedia’s general notability guidelines. It lacks independent, reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage outside of marketing materials. Bruteforce7700 (talk) 04:58, 25 February 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 February 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no significant coverage of this particular concept, and very weird subject matter. The study of how white supremacy can manifest in workplaces??? Followed by some traits that can lead to it like... perfectionism? Very, very niche topic, and imo loosely pulling strings together. jolielover♥talk 08:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes this is a weird subject, but please look at the source in the article by Ryan Grim and his blog post, "The author of a profoundly consequential document says people are getting it all wrong". I started a section on its influence and reception; this is certainly not a promotional article. Kolya Butternut (talk) 08:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The concept of "white supremacy culture" (lowercase) is clearly notable, with multiple academic articles that have significant coverage of this topic:

I'm ambivalent about whether the article should be about Okun's paper, or about the broader concept (which is largely based on the paper). Regardless, the subject is notable: it has also received non-trivial coverage in a series of Reason articles [34] [35] [36] [37] and elsewhere [38] [39] [40] [41]. Astaire (talk) 11:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Most of the references cited either include only trivial mentions of the essay, focus on the author and not the essay, or are biased opinion pieces referencing the essay in passing as part of a broader attack on the notion of DEI. It seems the author might well meet WP:GNG, and a section on the essay could be appropriate there (this approach is suggested for books). But the essay on its own does not seem to warrant a stand-alone article. Mgruhn (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you engage with the academic sources I provided above? All of them define/explain Okun's idea of "white supremacy culture" and use it as their primary framework of analysis:
- This case study explores two projects undertaken at a liberal arts college: a working group and a credit-bearing course intended to reckon with racist, xenophobic or otherwise harmful materials in the college archive. Both projects were informed by the authors' engagement with Tema Okun's White Supremacy Culture [42]
- This case study presents the development and implementation of a library-wide reading group to discuss Okun's (2021) White Supremacy Culture Characteristics through relational meetings [43]
- A few weeks before the first Zoom meeting, Candace shared the Jones and Okun workbook (2001) on white supremacy culture with Érica and Shannyn. The three authors reviewed the workbook and considered whether this framework matched or explained what they experienced with the RY organization. [44]
There are other examples as well, these are just the first three I saw that offered SIGCOV of the concept.

I wouldn't support a rewrite about the author, as I'm not certain Okun is notable independently of the document. Astaire (talk) 22:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's actually unclear what this article is about, specifically.

The article itself, and the third academic article you shared, describes the work in question as a "bulleted list" from a 2001 workbook.

The author's website, cited by the article, describes an essay "originally written and published in 1999."

The second academic source you shared appears to be about a 2021 followup work.

If the author is not notable, perhaps it would make sense to merge this into Diversity, equity, and inclusion, with a broader discussion of the academic underpinnings of DEI? Or, as you suggested, a single article about the topic rather than this specific essay. In any case, per WP:PAGEDECIDE, I think this may be an instance where keeping discussion of all the related scholarly works in a single article "where the relationships between them can be better appreciated" is appropriate. Mgruhn (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was going to make that point in my original comment. It seems like the essay was originally written in 1999 by Okun, then included in a 2001 workbook with a co-author Kenneth Jones, then revised by Okun in 2021. So these articles technically aren't referring to the same document, which is why I think an article about the concept is more workable. Astaire (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the references cited either include only trivial mentions of the essay, focus on the author and not the essay, or are biased opinion pieces referencing the essay in passing as part of a broader attack on the notion of DEI. This is not accurate. Just look at the Ryan Grim piece, "Tema Okun on Her Mythical Paper on White Supremacy". This is an in depth piece about the infamous paper, showing notability right there on the paper not the author. Other articles are about DEI done wrong, not an attack on DEI itself. And this is about the same document which has been updated in 2021. The paper itself is notable for how it has circulated and influenced progressive organizations. The concept could be included in the article on diversity training, but this wikipedia article is on the infamous paper. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:01, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acacia Forgot

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

Very little in-depth/non-trivial coverage. Does not meet GNG. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, Sexuality and gender, California, New York, and North Dakota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per snowball. There's a reason almost every single RuPaul's Drag Race contestant has an entry. That's because being cast on the show essentially guarantees notability per WP:ENTERTAINER; in addition to appearing on the series, participants are cast on the independently notable RuPaul's Drag Race: Untucked, appear on the notable series Whatcha Packin' and Hey Qween!, and participate in notable events and tours such as RuPaul's DragCon LA and Werq the World. Article improvement > article deletion. --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable and receives sizable media coverage. Their CV is extensive and warrants inclusion. Doughbo (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage exists on plenty of sites to meet WP:BASIC such as Billboard, SoapCentral, Entertainment Weekly, Collider etc. Mysecretgarden (talk) 08:08, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not one of these articles is about Acacia Forgot; they all mention her in passing. Does not establish notability. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:34, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

She is quite literally still airing on the show, the article is obviously going to expand more until the show stops airing or she is eliminated. In addition, she is a well-rounded performer who has a lot more to offer than simply her run on a television show. There is no reason to delete this article.

The nomination stems from a person whose name is a wikipedia page with less content than the Acacia Forgot page... so... maybe just maybe this stems from a negatively minded conservative and not a real care towards Wikipedia guidelines.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zanahary - here Zanahary if you care so much about GNG how about you go try to delete an article that actually does not meet GNG and has very little in-depth/non-trivial coverage. 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 17:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOOSOON ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:58, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENTERTAINER 2607:FA49:9C3E:4400:2DFB:DF3D:EA57:C17F (talk) 18:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You made this argument, about the page Zanahary, at the Kori King AFD. This is not an argument for keeping this page per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Not to mention your continued failure to assume good faith and stop Casting aspersions. Also you'll need to actually explain how this meets WP:ENT not just assert it. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This has been linked to on a subreddit with users explicitly directed to vote here by baselessly asserting that the nom is a homophobe or the like Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to RuPaul's Drag Race season 17 or List of RuPaul's Drag Race contestants similar to the reason I gave at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kori King. There's no reliable secondary sources outside of the coverage of their participation on a reality show. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 11:26, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Discovered off-wiki, not disclosing where but will if requested by admin. Delete. The arguments made above are pretty clear: there is no in-depth, sustained coverage of the subject at this time. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 14:39, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's certainly no need for full deletion, as the redirect would serve a purpose to readers and the article history should be preserved. (To be clear, my vote is keep because the subject has already appeared in multiple independently notable series, but the purpose of my comment here is to request redirecting over deletion if the article is not kept. Thanks!) ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that redirection is helpful ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Appearing in a notable series does not make a person notable. Notability includes in-depth sustained coverage—the subject does not have that. Even the Newsweek article reporting the subject's elimination doesn't have their name in the title. The subject is just not notable yet. — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 22:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the subject has appeared in multiple independently notable series. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ENT doesn't say "appeared in multiple independently notable series" but instead significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Appearing in one series of a reality tv show and it's associated Aftershows is clearly not what this is referring to. That would mean, for example, almost every Great British Bake Off contestant would get a page because they're both on the main show and its spin off, even though most are entirely NN outside of the show. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 16:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That was my thought, this or every article on every contestant on Survivor. Most aren't notable enough for a stand-alone article about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject deserves to have a Wikipedia article and passes WP:GNG in my point of view. The subject has got significant media coverage and it is a no-brainer to advocate for retaining the content in the article. Abishe (talk) 16:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 09:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the article about the season itself. The person does not seem independently notable outside of the series. Coverage is mostly limited to a photo and brief paragraph about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Northolt Branch Observatories

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

Appears to be a hobbyist observatories or something that has a handful of telescopes. After checking with Wikiproject Astronomy, I got a response that its not notable. Having done a basic WP:BEFORE, I'm not seeing this group meeting WP:NORG. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Science, Astronomy, Europe, Germany, United Kingdom, and England. Graywalls (talk) 22:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (from the article creator): I am not going to vote because of WP:COI, but I'd like to point out that the article has been quite outdated. Uncle G has started to expand it a bit with more recent coverage (thanks!), and I hope it can get enough coverage to pass notability standards. Uncle G, I'm not sure if Lintott's book mentions the episode of The Sky at Night that featured the "discovery" of BepiColombo? It's the May 2020 episode ("Locked down but looking up"). That may be a useful addition. Renerpho (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Uncle G:, can you name the WP:THREESOURCES that you suggest as the bases for WP:SIGCOV and WP:NORG anchoring purpose? Graywalls (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To repeat my comments from WT:AST: "There are dozens of amateur observatories in just the London area that send asteroid observations to the Minor Planets Center e.g. [45]. I don't see anything particularly unusual about this one. Their telescopes are small hobbyist instruments; admittedly they indicate a serious hobbyist, but no more than you would find at a typical local astronomy society. I was unable to find any substantial coverage on Google Scholar or ADS. Of the references currently cited in the article, there are two unreliable blogs, a Facebook page, and a dead link. The NBC article has merely one sentence that mentions this observatory in passing. The only source with substantial coverage is the HNA article, which appears to be a German local newspaper; I cannot assess its reliability. Even if we accept HNA in good faith, a single source isn't enough to pass WP:GNG or WP:NORG." A quick search did not lead me to additional reliable sources. I'm willing to reconsider if someone can point to substantial coverage that I've missed. Modest Genius ^talk 14:08, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius: Yeah, unfortunately I ~~cannot~~ am not sure if I can add any further sigcov that goes beyond passing mentions. [46] (about 2024 YR4) mentions me with attribution, but again, that's just a mention, like many others that were published about that story in the past few weeks that quoted me. Renerpho (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC) Struck/edited, as I'm not so sure about this anymore. Renerpho (talk) 19:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We did a couple of TV interviews in the late 2010s and early 2020s, about what we do at NBO. I'll see if I can find recordings... Renerpho (talk) 18:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you are the owner and/or operator of the observatory, then you have a conflict of interest in this discussion, as well as with the article itself. I don't think we can weight the opinion of a user with a CoI. Posting 13 separate comments (more than everyone else combined) doesn't help your case either. Modest Genius ^talk 12:32, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Modest Genius: Yes. This discussion started with a self-report at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Renerpho. I had assumed you came here from there. Renerpho (talk) 16:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the disclosure, which seems very relevant here. I had not seen it, because it wasn't mentioned in this discussion. I was alerted to this AfD via WT:AST. Modest Genius ^talk 18:19, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[47] -- Interview from Feb. 5th, which got published today. It's not independent (considering it's an interview with me), but maybe it's worth adding, I don't know. Some pictures of the observatory around 2:40... some discussion of what we do, and what David Rankin has got to do with it. The interview with David (same playlist) is without my direct contribution, and he talks about me a bit, although I think he doesn't specifically name the observatory... Renerpho (talk) 20:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found one of them (2019),[48] discussing [49][50]. We did another longer one in 2018 from Northolt directly, but I can't find a recording right now. Renerpho (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Found one more (2018);[51] not the one I was referring to there in the previous comment, I'm not sure that one is available online. Renerpho (talk) 18:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a third one (from 2017).[52] Very brief one, and a bit improvised. It's no coincidence that all three come from the same YouTube channel. They're the only ones we talked to who seem to have their recordings available online. Renerpho (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SIRS Be completely independent of the article subject. pieces in which the organization itelf is actively involved can not be considered independent. They're not forbidden from being cited, but they simply don't lend credit towards notability Graywalls (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Graywalls: I think [53] passes that bar. I wasn't even aware that that story had been covered since 2020 (and outside Lintott's book which this is apparently based on) before searching for it now. Renerpho (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This NBC News story from 2018 goes into a bit more detail about what we do, even though it's also just a couple of sentences. The situation is similar for This Livescience article from 2019. This is an interview we did with QHYCCD, the producer of the camera we used at that time; it's not exactly independent coverage though.

There are a couple of papers related to our collaboration with IAWN, including [54][55][56]; only the Apophis campaign was one that we were involved in beyond just collecting data (compare, for example, the 2021 section at [57]). The 2022 campaign got some news coverage as well, but nothing that amounts to significant coverage (example). There's also this short paper, which unfortunately came just too late for the radar folks at Goldstone to adjust their pointing... Renerpho (talk) 19:37, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are dozens of amateur observatories in just the London area that send asteroid observations to the Minor Planets Center -- While technically true, most of them are inactive, or have never observed any Near Earth asteroids. Our most active station (Z80) is at #37 in the all-time list worldwide, professional observatories included.[58] (Some of the codes on Peter Birtwhistle's map don't appear in that list because they've never observed anything.) As of 9 February 2025, 2859 of all 151553 observations in discovery MPECs (or about 2%) come from that station.[59] Renerpho (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For the BepiColombo (2020 GL2) story, this IFLScience article from 2024 may be a good addition. At least it has more than just a few sentences (the entire article is about something we did). Renerpho (talk) 19:44, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This popsci.com article goes into more detail about the 2019 story covered by Livescience that I mentioned above. It may pass sigcov. Renerpho (talk) 19:55, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Outfox Magazine, a (now defunct?) Canadian magazine, ran a feature about us a couple of years ago, but I don't think that was ever available online. I could look up the details (issue number, pages etc.) if needed. Renerpho (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there were articles in some London newspapers around 2017-2019, about the observatory in general; I'm not even sure which ones. Either way, those will only have been available in print, I think (I've looked online and couldn't find anything). Renerpho (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If coverage is limited to blip of coverage around 2018, it may fail WP:SUSTAINED Graywalls (talk) 20:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would be worth getting a bit more input on the nature of the sourcing
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 07:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 09:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Mangione

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT.

This article appears to have been created in response to the high profile court case of Luigi Mangione (his cousin) seemingly in an effort to highlight Mangione’s family prominence. The subject does not meet Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline due to a lack of significant, independent, and reliable coverage beyond routine college sport reporting.

Issues with Notability:

1. Fails WP:NSPORT – College sports achievements do not establish notability unless accompanied by substantial, non-trivial coverage in independent, reliable sources. The subject’s accomplishments are limited to Penn State soccer & all coverage is routine game reporting.

2. Fails WP:GNG – The cited sources are primarily college media outlets or local news covering Penn State sports & does not demonstrate independent notability.

3. Fails WP:NOTINHERITED – The subject is only notable by association with his cousin’s legal case, which is not a valid reason for inclusion according to Wikipedia guidelines.

4. Timing– The article was created close to Luigi Mangione’s highly publicized legal case, suggesting it was made prematurely and for purposes other than the subject meeting notability requirements.

The article does not meet the standards set by Wikipedia for individual notability and as a result should be deleted. Brickto (talk) 08:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my nomination Withdrawn by nominator Brickto (talk) 02:43, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Source analysis:
- Source 1: primary source, not independent, doesn't prove notability.
- Source 2: only contains two sentences about the subject. Sam's son Peter Mangione was a star at Penn State, signing with FC Cincinnati 2 earlier this year. Mangione started 23 MLS Next Pro matches in 2024. Trivial mention, not SIGCOV.
- Source 3: passing mention of one sentence, not SIGCOV.
- Source 4: a blog by Penn State students. Does not demonstrate notability per WP:RSSM: student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.
- Source 5: primary source, not independent.
- Source 6: same Penn State blog, still not notable.
- Source 7: primary source from the team he plays on, not independent.
- Source 8: another Penn State outlet, does not demonstrate notability per WP:RSSM.
- Source 9: another primary source from his team, not independent.
- Source 10: same Penn State blog again, does not demonstrate notability.

Astaire (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify (Article creator) Didn't realize Onward State was a student publication, which tends to be shaky ground for notability. Found a couple independent sources but not the strongest case. Seems reasonable to hold the article in draftspace.

I'd request that the nominator strike comments like an effort to highlight [Luigi] Mangione’s family prominence; not my thinking at all, an interesting factoid only. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 16:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: What amounts to a minor league player related to someone else in the news. Little to no notability for their sporting career. Sources are as explained above, just not quite enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the other comments above. Doesn't meet WP:NBIO/WP:NBASIC. Some1 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Quinn-Toye

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

Fails WP:NACTOR, a case of WP:TOOSOON. - The9Man ^Talk 08:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Theatre. - The9Man ^Talk 08:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draft This article should be moved back to the draft space until the subjects needs notability and then it can be recreated.
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: TOOSOON, the theatre career isn't enough for notability, and being cast in future films that might never get released is not enough. Oaktree b (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The "Pressure" film appears to be a trivial role and the "Volton" role seems undetermined. Oaktree b (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Annagudi

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

Not a single mention of 'Annagudi' [60] in the sources, let alone having a conflict around this. Another poorly cited source which doesn't have pages and relies on 2 lines of mentions in footnotes of the book [61], doesn't give confidence that this event pass WP:SIGCOV & WP:GNG. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, India, Europe, and United Kingdom. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep The proposer couldn't find "Annagudi" in the first source because the place is no longer known as Annagudi. The place is represented in the source as Kumbakonam [62]. The article indeed needs to get a fresh work, but not ready for deletion. One of the major reason for me to oppose the deletion is, it is a named battle, with much significance in the Second Anglo-Mysore War. The event is called by the name "Battle of Annagudi" by Spencer C. Tucker [63] (p-955), C. Hayavadana Rao [64] p-1317), and Narendra Krishna Sonna [65] (p-219). What makes it more notable is, it was the battle where Sir John Braithwaite, 1st Baronet got captured and imprisoned for 2 years. We get a lot of sources covering the event, eg:[66], [67], [68], [69]... Many Early British records are too available mentioning this conflict, which itself describe its importance.--Imperial ^[AFCND] 15:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it's named as 'Kumbakonam' I still found no mentions of the event besides in the appendix [70] which gives no insights of the 'battle'. This is inaccessible, even searching through sort method I found no more than 3 lines of coverage. C. Hayavadana Rao was a British official and his work by default falls into WP:RAJ and most of the last sources are also either old or Raj ones, which left us only two sources above which doesn't have enough significant coverage to have this topic its own article. Koshuri ^(グ) 15:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any mentions in some of the sources, and the ones that do mention it, only do so briefly.^[1]^[2] Therefore this subject isn't notable enough for a standalone article. AlvaKedak (talk) 14:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Hazlitt, William (2007). New Writings of William Hazlitt. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-920706-0.
^ Barua, Pradeep (2005-01-01). The State at War in South Asia. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 81–83. ISBN 978-0-8032-1344-9.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Baradi

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

The article has only 1 source, which is unreliable. RealStranger43286 (talk) 08:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One more is added.--Jondel (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are three now. Over at the Spanish wiki, it has been existing for quite some time now.--Jondel (talk) 08:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Philippines. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Added more sources, Baradi is notable as he has won medals at the Asian Championships, SEA Games and World Games. D-Flo27 (talk) 03:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per D-Flo27 --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:11, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment He appears to have been to the world championships three times, but never won a match there. I'm not seeing the multiple cases of significant independent sources. Would someone please tell me which references show that? Thank you. Papaursa (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 08:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic Saidu

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

Declined prod. One of the sources added was https://www.goteamliberia.com/liberia-at-olympics/ which doesn't appear to be SIGCOV. I am still not seeing SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Liberia. LibStar (talk) 22:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXIST, with a possibility for procedural keep. Context for procedural keep: Over 45 articles all in the same narrow topic (Olympic-level track and field competitors) have been brought to AfD or PRODed this month, as compared to a typical one or two per week otherwise. It takes significant effort to do a complete source search for each of these, most of which aren't in English and are from the pre-Internet era from countries that have not digitized their national newspaper archives yet. If a sweeping argument should be made, then make that as a mass nomination, but otherwise these need to be more spread out. Having this many individual AfDs open at once about these historical figures notoriously difficult to research sets up an insurmountable task.

NEXIST rationale: Liberian newspapers from the 1970s haven't been checked yet, we would expect coverage because Saidu was among only five athletes to represent Liberia at the 1972 Olympics, and the only 200m sprinter to qualify in a 16-year period from 1964 to 1980. Other avenue for sourcing: Given that only five athletes were represented, there's a good chance that Saidu might be the subject depicted on this stamp archived by John Lowe. Where did the stamp originate, and how was it used? If the stamp was in wide use, it might be indicative that Saidu was a national-level figure and there might have been related coverage. Asking for Lowe's source might be a good idea. --Habst (talk) 16:12, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can find that stamp on this page [71]. Seeing if I can find more information about them Moritoriko (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that having a stamp makes you notable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Liberia at the 1972 Summer Olympics There is absolutely no argument for a procedural keep based on the fact that clean up is harder then dumping badly sourced material in mainspace. Those who want material can ask for the draft and 6 months to rescue. That said, what are we going to find online for an athlete from 1972 that doesn’t belong in the country at the olympics article. Let’s save time, redirect, and, if the sources ever do emerge, it can be easily undone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:33, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Georges

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

Declined prod. The only source added was a database. Still lacking SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Haiti. LibStar (talk) 22:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:NEXIST. Context for procedural keep: Over 45 articles all in the same narrow topic (Olympic-level track and field competitors) have been brought to AfD or PRODed this month, as compared to a typical one or two per week otherwise. It takes significant effort to do a complete source search for each of these, most of which aren't in English and are from the pre-Internet era from countries that have not digitized their national archives yet. If a sweeping argument should be made, then make that as a mass nomination, but otherwise these need to be more spread out. Having this many individual AfDs open at once about these historical figures sets up an insurmountable task.

NEXIST rationale: Hatian newspapers from the time period haven't been checked yet, we would expect coverage because Georges was Haiti's only 200m sprinter to qualify for the Olympics in a 16-year period from 1960 to 1976. Other avenue for sourcing: We know that Olympedia's image was found by Enric Pla and appears to be of Georges in training. Where was the image originally taken or published – did it originate from Hatian coverage of the subject? Contacting Pla would be a good start. --Habst (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The image is from Tumblr, a picture of the 1970 Haiti national volleyball team, which he was also apparently a member. Maybe we could message "Haiti Legends Tumblr" to see if the poster of the image is familiar with Georges? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually cut and paste the same patronising procedural keep argument into every discussion? Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:58, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Spartaz, just to be clear, the PROD rationale "Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY." was actually copy-pasted nearly 100 times over the last month with no evidence of having done WP:BEFORE, as shown in WP:Articles for deletion/Chae Hong-nak and WP:Articles for deletion/Adalberto García. Sorry to patronize and I'm interested in hearing out the merits of each case, but a process needs to be followed. --Habst (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You cherry picked 2 examples out of 100. Most have been redirected. In any case some have been deleted and disregarded your NEXIST argument. LibStar (talk) 22:25, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Habst, where are the sources? As others have said we're not interested in you recycling your NEXIST argument. LibStar (talk) 22:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, "Most have been redirected" – this actually isn't true by a simple count of the above linked list, but even if it was – you aren't nominating them for redirection, you're nominating them for deletion. If you think they should be redirected, then you should make that clear in your nomination.

The sources would be in Hatian newspapers or magazines, like the one that likely published the photo of the subject that Haiti Legends found. I've done a thorough search for all of the AfDs I've commented in, but for some categories of articles like pre-Internet athletes from Haiti that just isn't enough. We need to do a physical media search or ask someone with physical media to upload it online. --Habst (talk) 21:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shame your close adherence to process doesn’t go as far to respecting the new consensus and helping to clean up those articles that either need to be deleted or listified. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:28, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shame your close adherence to process doesn’t go as far to ... helping to clean up those articles – Actually, Habst has done a very extensive amount of work cleaning up articles in poor shape like this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I happily stand corrected and apologise to Habst, but I stand by my argument that in cases like this we should be routinely redirecting until the sources are found instead of needing to hold discussions for everyone. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Athletics at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres as country article appears not to exist. Says it all really, not sourced… Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Said Khalil Al-Dosari

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

Declined prod with 2 database sources added. Lacking SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Saudi Arabia. LibStar (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on the merits based on WP:NEXIST. Context for procedural keep: Over 45 articles all in the same narrow topic (Olympic-level track and field competitors) have been brought to AfD or PRODed this month, as compared to a typical one or two per week otherwise. It takes significant effort to do a complete source search for each of these, most of which aren't in English and are from the pre-Internet era from countries that have not digitized their national archives yet. If a sweeping argument should be made, then make that as a mass nomination. But having this many individual AfDs open at once about these historical figures sets up an insurmountable task.

NEXIST rationale: Saudi newspapers from the time period haven't been checked yet -- one thing to try would be for an Arabic speaker to attempt searching variations of the subject's native name Arabic: سعيد خليل الدوسري in the archive.org full-text search, we would expect coverage because Al-Dosari was the country's only 200m sprinter at the Olympics. There's a suggestion made by another Wikipedia editor that Said Khalil Al-Dosari is the same Said Khalil that co-wrote Bruny Surin's book about sprinting published in 2009, but I removed that link until we can find more evidence of that. --Habst (talk) 15:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose mass nomination. Each article should be considered on its merits. In any case you will just argue "procedural keep" if a mass nomination is made. Do you have sources to support your keep vote in this instance? LibStar (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, if you oppose mass nomination then they need to be spread out more. WP:NEXIST doesn't require a specific link or page number of source – we can't decide to delete a page when the most likely avenues for coverage have not even been checked. --Habst (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has to be evidence of sources, which you've again failed to provide. If you can't find sources this will be deleted like 2 other articles today. LibStar (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, which two articles are you referencing? I think you are misunderstanding WP:N, which explicitly does not require that and certainly does not recommend deleting articles when coverage hasn't been searched for in the most likely venues; see WP:BEFORE. --Habst (talk) 13:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moustafa Matola and William Msiska were deleted today despite your best efforts to use NEXISTS to argue for the existence of sources without naming them. You must accept this. Why aren't you arguing with the admin who deleted them?LibStar (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another patronising procedural keep argument. How sad. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please comment on the substance of the argument (i.e. the rationale to invoke NEXIST) instead of only calling it patronizing? --Habst (talk) 21:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Athletics at the 1972 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metres. Not sourced and not apparently a country at article, oh well. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:04, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Lewis

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

Local politicians are not automatically notable, nor are they not automatically not notable. Reasons a local politician could be notable are longevity in service (Robert L. Butler, Margaret Doud, or Hilmar Moore) or notable activity in office (Betty Loren-Maltese or Rita Crundwell). Such activity need not be crimes. There are also people like Brandon Bochenski who meet GNG for unrelated reasons and just happen to now hold office. Ronnie Lewis's time in office does come with the kind of independent, significant coverage that would meet the threshold of WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN. Mpen320 (talk) 21:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Mpen320 (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Seems to be enough sources that address the subject in detail. Per WP:POLITICIAN "A politician who has received 'significant press coverage' has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." Seems to meet the hurdle. He was the first Black official and 2nd Black mayor in a city important to the African American political base in Chicago. Did you check newspaperarchive? Patapsco913 (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Second of anything isn't that notable. This isn't Rosa Parks or Marion Barry. Being African-American isn't a slam dunk for notability. Oaktree b (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is more routine political coverage of him than what is included in the article, like these[72][73][74] and others.
By far the most in-depth coverage he received was related to the controversy surrounding his daughter (allegedly) being awarded a government contract during his tenure[75][76][77][78][79][80][81]. The story received substantial coverage over an extended period of time, so it could qualify for GNG (w/ caveat that I don't see evidence of lasting impact or passing 10 year test), but if the article is kept it might need to be re-worked to highlight this issue in greater depth. Zzz plant (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Do you have anything from a newspaper OUTSIDE of the Chicago metropolitan area? A local politician getting local coverage is not significant. While you are just commenting, the first ones you include are run of the mill coverage. As far as the alleged family contract, I don't see it got a conviction. Just a federal probe. The rules regaurding crime perpetrators would apply (i.e. one crime would not make him noteworthy). Also, I promise I did in fact bother to look through newspaper clippings before this nomination. I do appreciate you making the clippings. I'm confident someone working on the Dolton article will make great use of them.--Mpen320 (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Illinois Senate Resolution regarding his death at "Illinois Senate Resolution SR0007". Illinois General Assembly.
Even if the Chicago Tribune is considered local coverage, the WP:BIO guideline does not exclude local coverage from consideration. There is WP:SECONDARY coverage of him becoming the first Black trustee of Dolton, as well as coverage of his career and the coverage does not appear to be trivial or run-of-the-mill per the objective of WP:GNG and WP:BASIC.Patapsco913 (talk) 03:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but it's exclusively local coverage all from the same newspaper (and I will get ahead of this, my opinion will not be swayed if the events are so covered in the Sun-Times, but it could be another source for you to demonstrate it to other editors). Arguably, the articles in the Tribune could be wrapped into counting as a single source for the purpose. Here is a sample of Senate resolutions and House resolutions introduced in the 104th General Assembly. They are often introduced for wonderful people who are outside the scope of Wikipedia. It is not a bad source, but it should not count towards any sort of significant coverage.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:57, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how you are defining significant coverage. The guideline states that "'Significant coverage' addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." The Senate Resolution combined with the other articles written by journalists address the subject in detail sufficient to write an article. There is nothing that requires non-local coverage in the guidelines for notability. Patapsco913 (talk) 04:43, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am defining it as more than several mentions in the local newspaper. This is subjective importance. Wikipedia regularly determines that is not enough because if it were every single small town mayor in a metropolitan area would qualify for an article. That has already been deomonstrated not to be the case. In Illinois I would refer you to Robert G. Abboud and Nancy Rotering. Outside of Illinois, see Brian Blad, David Belle Isle, and Steve Sarvi. Also, I would refer you again to the list and see that getting a resolution is clearly just a legislator knew the family and performed a kindness rather than a sign of notability. I don't really have anything more to add so I'm going to leave it at that.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep linking to essays like subjective importance and run of the mill coverage as if they are guidelines; they are just essays written by someone. That said, "Subjective Importance" only states that you need a reliable source demonstrating the fact you are asserting. You also mischaracterize the "Run-of-the-mill" essay which refers to mundane activities (such as widening a street or changing the streetlights from amber to LED) and not items as put forward by Zzz plant and the part about politicians references "political candidates" and not actual politicians. I ask again: where is it stated that an article must have non-local sources to prove notability as you assert? Also, the "several mentions" as you say are articles about the subject which is required for notability, nay? Patapsco913 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If every mayor in a national prominent metropolitan area's local coverage would qualify for routine coverage of their duties and happenings that are not particularly unique, it would render WP:GNG completely meaningless. Alleging a contract should have been distributed due to connections is not so unique it'd matter to the greater historical record. Local government contracts are regularly controversial. The essays, while not policy, are often mentioned in AfDs. Your characterization that these things only apply to political candidates are incorrect.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Both essays you cited only mention "political candidates" and not "politicans"...and perhaps you should mention that the essays you cite are not guidelines rather than implying that they are. Anyhow The notability of a mayor does not hinge on the population of the city, it hinges on the ability to write and source a substantive article about the mayor's political impact based on reliable sources. All the elements are there as detailed above.Patapsco913 (talk) 02:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayor of a small suburb who received local political coverage only related to being a mayor and is not otherwise notable. We do not normally keep these at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 19:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politicians from small subunits do not usually merit an article and the sourcing isnt enough. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:12, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Might be more GNG-friendly if this person was the first African-American mayor of this place, but seems rather like a local history biography than anything for Wiki. Not quite meeting NPOL. Oaktree b (talk) 17:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pierre-Andre Adam

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE (no specific guidelines for swimming, but by parallel with other sports, simply competing at world championships is not enough) Note: created by now blocked user; recently subject of COI editing. Melcous (talk) 08:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Africa. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belly rub

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

Barely more than a WP:DICTDEF; poorly sourced to a series of blogs; created by a user who is under a community ban from creating new articles (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1171#User:Pek continuing to mass create poor-quality stubs after ban expiry WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removed comment about violating ban; the ban went into effect after this article was created. The rest of the issues stand. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Redirect to Emotion in animals. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
comment Why is this article limited to dogs? Should it be expanded to a belly rub for any kind of animal or even humans? There is no head pat article. Moritoriko (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Body language of dogs. I'd rather keep it, because all good dogs deserve a belly rub, but there's not a lot of good and on-point sources on Google. Ping me if you rescue this. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge If the article would stay as it is. then yes I would agree with Bearian for it to be merged to Body language of dogs, now if it is to be considered as a standalone article, then I would agree with the idea of Moritoriko to expand it for other animals as well, I mean just do a google search for Belly rubs for Pigs, and you'd get substantial hits too for potential article materialVillkomoses (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge content to Body language of dogs, but perhaps consider converting this particular page into some sort of disambiguation per Moritoriko. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not find any good sources for this. I searched G-Scholar and G-Books hoping to find something at least approaching scientific. The sources I did find, like the ones in this article, have no basis in fact. Lamona (talk) 22:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If its not sourced it does not merit an article and why would we merged unsourced material to degrade the proposed target? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:08, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Good dog. Good boy! Herostratus (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Herostratus: Sounds a lot like WP:ILIKEIT. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Do I get a biscuit? Herostratus (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Patti

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

Why is this even a battle? What significance does this battle give? It's just a Mughal victory of 10,000 versus five, Where is the notability or even significance at all of this? Noorullah (talk) 19:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a totally daft way of presenting what in the history books (including the ones cited) is called "the rebellion [or revolt] of Qasim Khan", a short-lived rebellion against Mughlani Begum. Uncle G (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and India. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sikhism, and Punjab. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Page was vandalized by IPs and I added the best suitable changes back from an old revision. RangersRus (talk) 22:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't change a thing. It's not the figures. Its the description of this as a battle of Patti at all, when the sources, including Hari Ram Gupta the first one cited, are talking about Qasim Khan's rebellion. Most sources outright label it that way, in titles or in marginal summaries. (See, for example, the margin of Chhabra, G. S. (1968). Advanced History of the Punjab: Guru and post-Guru period upto Ranjit Singh. Vol. 1. New Academic Publishing. p. 400. LCCN 70913973. OL 5746881M. Qasim Khan's revolt.)
  That version of Gupta's History cited doesn't, choosing a tabloid-esque section title, but begins the account with "Bhikari Khan's rebellion was followed by that of Qasim Khan, a Turk, […]". Gupta's 1944, 1952, and 1978 editions of History of the Sikhs start the very same account with the section title "Qasim Khan's Rebellion, C. March 1754". It'a also how xyr earlier Later Mughal History Of The Panjab at the Internet Archive reads.
  It turns out that the version of Gupta cited here is a posthumous edition from 2007, from "Munshiram Manohai lal Publishers Pvt. Ltd." who appear to have sensationalized Gupta's original text. That is still no excuse for writing this as a "battle of", though, when the prose below the title is largely the same and describes a failed revolt right down to its ignominious end: "The same day they cut off his tent ropes, dragged him to the Begam who confined him within her palace enclosure and kept him under strict guard.".
  Uncle G (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - My note was just awareness about the mess and incorrect details on the page before I reverted to last suitable revision. You made some talking points for discussion. What title or description do you suggest? RangersRus (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I thought about this as I was checking all of those history books, and if I were writing I wouldn't be writing a standalone article at all, but expanding Mughlani Begum, because her and the development of the Rakhi system are what the historians are talking about. Uncle G (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      I see, so possible Merge instead of outright deletion? Sounds fine by me. Noorullah (talk) 18:10, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero mentions of any such "battle" in reliable sources available to me. Possibly merge salvagable content without redirect as per the above discussion. utcursch | talk 22:41, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 20:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the sources don’t even support the title then this is unsalvageable. Don’t merge, use actual sources to expand possible targets rather than degrading them with this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:16, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Mughlani_Begum#Qasim_Khan’s_Defeat_and_Imprisonment_(1754). Most of the content can be merged with reliable sources. RangersRus (talk) 03:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Darling

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

WP:BLP of a city councillor, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, city councillors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- the only other current Saint John city councillor who does have an article previously served in the provincial legislature, and thus passes NPOL #1, while city councillors otherwise get articles only if they can show a credible reason why they should be seen as special cases of significantly greater notability than the norm for city councillors. That is, a city councillor doesn't just need to show personal life and career background, they need to show substantial and properly sourced evidence of their political impact — specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their time on council had on the development of the city, evidence of nationalizing prominence, and on and so forth — but there's no content of that type here, and this is just written as background info on a city councillor who exists.
Having previously been a non-winning candidate in a provincial election also isn't grounds for notability -- even at that level, the notability test for a politician still requires holding a seat in the legislature, not just running for one -- and notability is not inherited, so being the child of a previous mayor of the city isn't grounds for notability either.
But the referencing here is a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and the purely run of the mill local campaign and election-night coverage that every city councillor in every city can always show, which is not enough in and of itself.
Existing as a city councillor is not enough for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, but this article is not evincing any reason why Mariah Darling would qualify as a special case over and above the rest of their council colleagues. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only sourcing is WP:ROUTINE coverage of election results. Fails NPOL. Astaire (talk) 21:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Little to no coverage outside of election results [82]. Nothing that makes the individual stand out that I can find. St John is a mid-size city, but simply being on council isn't enough for notability. I don't see any outstanding political activities or anything that would help notability. Simply a politician doing their job. Oaktree b (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added additional sourcing and info, including coverage of them as a high school student, LGBTQ+ advocate and president of the town Pride. I think this is enough to meet WP:BASIC. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Going through the current sources in the article:
- Source 1 is a primary source, not relevant for notability.
- Sources 2 3 4 and 11 are routine local election coverage.
- Source 12 (broken) is both primary and local election coverage.
- Source 8 is a trivial mention.
- Source 6 is routine coverage about high school students going to summer camp. There's no way this contributes to notability unless we want to have thousands upon thousands of articles about talented students who get written about in their local paper.
- Sources 7 9 and 10 include a few paragraphs quoting the subject as a voice of authority/opinion. They're not SIGCOV about the subject in the way that is needed, and there's very little encyclopedic value that can be extracted from them.
- Source 5 is the "best", in that it has multiple paragraphs about Darling as a person. But it still has major problems: it's from a local paper which means notability is dubious, and half of it isn't about Darling, but the broader topic of Policy 713. The source is not clear about what this "ongoing fight to protect Policy 713" entails, and so this source is much more about the subject's opinions, rather than their work. As with the other three sources, this isn't encyclopedic in the way that we need.
Even if we grant Source 5 (which I don't), a single source means the subject still fails WP:GNG, and certainly fails WP:NPOL. Astaire (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly every town has some sort of a Pride committee; being LGBTQ in 2025 isn't notable. Being involved in the Pride committee is no different than any other town committee, the local zoning or heritage committees don't warrant an article for those that serve on them. Oaktree b (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete city councillors need to show they are notable above and beyond being a city councillor, and that is not the case here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per RebeccaGreen. I think the !deletes can't see the forest for the trees. While individually, some of the sources might be poor, overall there is significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a single source here which isn't local, and for someone only notable for being local politician, more is needed. That's standard throughout the project. SportingFlyer T·C 23:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

One tree isn't different than the others in this case. You could replace A with B in the notability and still get basically the same result. Oaktree b (talk) 17:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inadequate sources and a bunch of substandard sources remains short of the two good source standard. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Milton (Southend-on-Sea ward)

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

As er previous discussions at Wikiproject UK Geography, wards do not come under WP:NPLACE, and such must meet WP:GNG. This article does not meet GNG, as it only has two supplies of reference, 1. Southend-on-Sea City Council electoral records which are not independent, ans 2. A Thesis of electiral results from Plymouth University which clearly does not meet GNG, being it is a list of results Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasons as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward). MRSC (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But how does it neet GNG. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a Gazetter and this article is just a list of local election results, which is not encyclopedic. None of the references are anything but official results or results that have been collated from official results. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Westborough (ward)

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

The page originally existed under the premise of WP:NPLACE?, but was merged into the settlement Westcliff-on-Sea after a discussion at the UK Geography Wikiproject, where Wards were identified as not meeting NPLACE by concensus. User:MRSC has re-instated them, and as per discussion raised on both the Wikiproject UK and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography, he has stated that this is electoral and so not part of NPLACE. Therefore, the page must meet GNG, to which the references provided are 1. Southend Council electoral results, which is not an independent reference and therefore fails GNG, and 2. a thesus from learners at Plymouth University which is not clearly not enough to meet GNG. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reasons as given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward). MRSC (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But how does it neet GNG. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a Gazetter and this article is just a list of local election results, which is not encyclopedic. None of the references are anything but official results or results that have been collated from official results. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Frumess

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

Not having any notable works, lack of secondary sources supporting notability. - The9Man ^Talk 08:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Film. - The9Man ^Talk 08:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are already multiple pages that link to it. A project he's directed has already been deemed notable for an entry. The page can also be rewritten as needed, and there are more sources to draw from. -Disco dude rock (talk) 02:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chalkwell (Southend-on-Sea ward)

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

The page originally existed under the premise of WP:NPLACE?, but was merged into the settlement Chalkwell after a discussion at the UK Geography Wikiproject, where Wards were identified as not meeting NPLACE by concensus. User:MRSC has re-instated them, and as per discussion raised on both the Wikiproject UK and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography, he has stated that this is electoral and so not part of NPLACE. Therefore, the page must meet GNG, to which the references provided are 1. Southend Council electoral results, which is not an independent reference and therefore fails GNG, and 2. a thesus from learners at Plymouth University which is not clearly not enough to meet GNG.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 12:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Geography, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:31, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could the following almost identical nominations be combined with this one to avoid having the same discussion three times?

Thanks. MRSC (talk)

Keep. This article was for deletion in 2019. The result was keep. Since then it has been susbstantially improved, expanded and is well referenced. The description of the outputs of the Elections Centre at Plymouth University as "a thesus from learners" is a misrepresentation. It is quite right that articles should be well referenced and in this case the {{refimprove}} template would have been more appropriate. MRSC (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But how does it neet GNG. Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia not a Gazetter and this article is just a list of local election results, which is not encyclopedic. None of the references are anything but official results or results that have been collated from official results. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilyas El Maliki

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

Fails GNG and WP:PERP. Ignoring the usual online influencer unreliable sources like WP:DEXERTO and WP:SPORTSKEEDA, this guy is only notable for having been sued for a few minor charges and serving two months in prison [83]. The other sources that are not about this lawsuit are mostly routine announcements and do not talk about him in any significant depth. This page was previously created by blocked sock User:IMDB12, deleted per WP:A7 on January 1, and was now recreated by a different new COI account. Badbluebus (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, Internet, and Morocco. Badbluebus (talk) 03:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject meets WP:GNG with multiple independent sources covering his career beyond any legal issues. The article cites Hespress, Yabiladi, Morocco World News, and Kings League, which are all independent, reliable sources discussing his achievements in streaming, sports, and digital media. Dismissing Dexerto does not negate the fact that there is substantial non-routine coverage of his career.

The claim that this is a WP:PERP case is misleading. WP:PERP applies when a person is only known for a legal issue, which is not the case here. His coverage in independent media predates and goes beyond any legal matter. The sources clearly establish his streaming success, leadership in the Kings World Cup, and industry recognition, including being named Moroccan Influencer of the Year.

As for the claim that this article was recreated by the same blocked user, there is no actual evidence to support this—no IP check, no behavioral analysis, nothing. An accusation without proof should not be a basis for deletion. If there are concerns about sockpuppetry, they should be handled separately through proper channels, not used as an argument in AfD.

This is a well-sourced article about a notable subject, and per WP:GNG, it should be kept. Datamanager3000 (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I meant to add this at the start of my previous comment but forgot. Just clarifying my stance. Datamanager3000 (talk) 05:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator. I checked all of the sources in the article and it is extremely weak. There is no indication that most of these are even reliable sources, and in my opinion, using unvetted sources for a WP:BLP (unless the source is obviously reliable) is a very, very bad idea and should not be able to help notability at all. λ NegativeMP1 04:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I dont know where you're from but in Morocco these are all very reliable sources apart from LGAMINGMA. Datamanager3000 (talk) 04:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But do they meet our criteria for a reliable source? No, I don't think they do, since sites like LGaming.ma don't have any editorial policy or about us page, and therefore no proper credentials. Furthermore, are those sites listed on WP:RSP or WP:VG/S? No, they aren't. λ NegativeMP1 04:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am defending the retention of the article about Ilyas El Maliki because of the independent sources cited, such as Hespress, Yabiladi, and Morocco World News, which highlight his success in streaming, sports, and digital media. This success is not only tied to legal issues but is supported by significant media coverage of his career and achievements, including his participation in the Kings World Cup. Additionally, he was named Moroccan Influencer of the Year, which underscores his prominence. Furthermore, the claim that the article was recreated by the same blocked user is unfounded and lacks evidence. Based on these facts, I believe the article should be kept according to the guidelines of the encyclopedia. Hkatib (talk) 04:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see what guidelines you're talking about because notability can only be demonstrated by reliable, secondary sources. None of the sources in the article can contribute to notability. See WP:GNG. λ NegativeMP1 05:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The argument that “none of the sources in the article contribute to notability” is not accurate. Hespress, Yabiladi, and Morocco World News are among the most widely recognized and referenced media outlets in Morocco. These are established, independent news sources that cover a range of topics, including politics, sports, and entertainment. Just because they are not listed on WP:RSP does not mean they are unreliable—WP:RSP is not an exhaustive list of every reliable source.

The subject's notability is clearly demonstrated by substantial independent coverage in multiple sources, including his rise in streaming, his role in the Kings World Cup, and his recognition as Moroccan Influencer of the Year. These are not routine announcements but sustained coverage across different aspects of his career.

Additionally, dismissing a source simply because it is not listed on WP:RSP is not how Wikipedia determines reliability. If there is a specific policy-based reason why Hespress or Morocco World News should be considered unreliable, that should be demonstrated with evidence. Otherwise, they should be evaluated on their actual editorial practices and reputation within their region, rather than being judged against a list that is primarily Western-focused. Datamanager3000 (talk) 05:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hespress, Yabiladi, and Morocco World News are among the most widely recognized and referenced media outlets in Morocco." And Fox News is among the most widely recognized and referenced news outlets in the United States. Low and behold, we consider it mostly unreliable per WP:RSP. And I never said that a source HAS to be on RSP or VG/S, but it is a good idea. Especially for BLPs, where it is recommended to only use the strongest sourcing available and sources that are low-quality in any fashion should be disregarded. Either way though, you haven't proven how any of the sources are reliable or useful at all. I gave my evidence and Grayfell provided his input as well. Please prove in your own words how they are reliable sources by our standards. λ NegativeMP1 06:57, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Morocco World News source uses very strange and simple English. I cannot find anything on that page about its editing standards or fact-checking/corrections or similar. How does this outlet meet WP:RS? Same question about LGAMING.MA.

Hespress is slightly better, but again, who are its editors? Le Matin (Morocco) seems to be a legit newspaper, but it's a passing mention, at best.

The Yabiladi source doesn't appear to mention Ilyas El Maliki, making it useless for notability even if it were reliable. Grayfell (talk) 06:16, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like Yabiladi.com uses machine translation to plagiarize articles from other outlets. For example this article Euractiv.com is beat-for-beat copied by Yabiladi.com's version, but significantly worse in just about every way. The site has no indication of editorial oversight or fact checking. It likely shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia at all. Grayfell (talk) 20:39, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this source from a outlet called Le 360 is a single sentence and a photo followed by a bunch of social media posts. It's not useful for notability. Grayfell (talk) 00:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

Ilyas El Maliki is a well-known and influential figure in the fields of streaming and digital media. His success goes beyond video games, extending into sports and even fashion. Being named "Moroccan Influencer of the Year" in 2025 is clear evidence of his significance in the media landscape. This achievement has been documented by reputable and independent sources such as Hespress, Yabiladi, and Morocco World News, which cover his success in detail, including his contract with the streaming platform Kick and his participation in the Kings World Cup.

On the other hand, the argument to remove the article due to legal issues or conflicts with other individuals lacks any solid foundation. Indeed, every individual faces challenges throughout their career, but Ilyas has proven through his achievements and his global recognition that he deserves his place in the encyclopedia. Many people follow and interact with him across social media platforms, and he is widely acknowledged as a public figure of prominence.

Keeping the article would be a reasonable step to maintain accurate and factual documentation about a prominent figure who has had a significant impact both locally and internationally. According to the guidelines of the encyclopedia, articles about public figures who have a broad influence and notable achievements should remain in the database. Hkatib (talk) 06:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)— Hkatib (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Notice: The above user is currently a suspected sock-puppet and their argument is based on ideas proven false by both me and Grayfell. Also, there is no mention of sports and fashion in this article. This comment is quite literally just making stuff up. λ NegativeMP1 06:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the discussion was negatively impacted by the behavior of the creator of the article, but the topic is notable I believe, especially when searching in non-English sources (consider that English is neither a native language nor the primary foreign language in Morocco). I was in fact planning to write an article about him at some point, as he's undoubtedly hands down the most famous Moroccan streamer. None of the explicitly linked sources below mention him just in passing. Some of them are from websites of famous Moroccan newspapers (such as L'Opinion, Alalam and Al Ahdath Al Maghribia), in addition to known non-Moroccan source such Al-Arabiya and The New Arab. I also tried to avoid blog-like sites and purely tabloid news, and keep only international and national, rather than regional sources.

English sources: hespress.com 1, hespress.com 2 (more articles about him on hespress.com), walaw, MWN (more about him on MWN), Assahafa.com

French sources: L'Opinion 1, L'Opinion 2 (more about him on L'Opinion's website), Linformation.ma, le360.ma 1 (link dead), le360.ma 2 (more on le360.ma), lesinfos.ma, médias24.com, lodj.ma 1, lodj.ma 2, h24info.ma 1, h24info.ma 2, h24info.ma 3 (more on h24info.ma), walaw, bladi.net, primesynergy.ma, lenew.ma, footdumaroc, fr.hespress.com

Arabic sources: alaraby.co.uk, almashhad.com, hibapress.com, goud.ma 1, goud.ma 2 (more about him on goud.ma), alkhaleej.ae, various Arabic articles about Ilyas El Malki on hespress.com, ar.le360.ma, alalam.ma, al3omk.com, lesiteinfo.com, ahdath.info, barlamane.com, aljarida24.com, alarabiya.net, rue20.com, febrayer.com, assabah.ma

Spanish source

Dutch source

--Ideophagous (talk) 18:16, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

additional links: araby.co.uk 2, araby.co.uk 3 --Ideophagous (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd welcome a source review of recently added sources to this AFD earlier today. We have diverging opinions here about these sources from Morocco but these new sources are coming from a variety of countries.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The laundry list of sources above only seem to link to the main page for the various news outlets, not any specific article about this person. I spot checked the first four in the French list, they're of no use. Oaktree b (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The links somehow stopped working or I didn't copy them properly. I'm re-posting the first 2 French sources here again (and also correcting them at the original location): 1, 2. French source n°3 links to the search page of "L'Opinion" with the keywords "ilyas el maliki" since I didn't want to spam this page with more sources than necessary. French source n°4 actually works. I would suggest checking the rest before forming a final opinion. Ideophagous (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The additional sources provided by @Ideophagous strengthen the case for notability, particularly in non-English media, which is important given that English is neither a native nor primary foreign language in Morocco. The subject meets WP:GNG as there is significant, independent coverage across multiple reliable sources.

The sources include established Moroccan newspapers such as L'Opinion, le 360 and Medias24, as well as well-known international outlets like The New Arab and Al Araby. These are recognized as reliable sources for covering public figures in the region. The coverage is substantial and not just passing mentions, with multiple reports on his streaming career, legal issues, and involvement in the 2025 Kings World Cup Nations.

It's true that some of links @Ideophagous mentioned in his early message only led to the main page of the listed source, but his new message is better organized with all the links leading to articles about Ilyas El Maliki.

Thus, the breadth of coverage across different languages and media types confirms that the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability standards. The article should be kept. Datamanager3000 (talk) 06:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is your third time voting keep on this discussion. And your wording across all of them is repeating the exact same points. It's starting to come off as WP:BLUDGEON-ing the process. λ NegativeMP1 06:54, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Spent four months in prison [84] and was acquitted of other charges. Doesn't meet criminal notability, and there is no coverage outside of the trial that would meet notability for a streamer. There doesn't seem to be anything about this person outside of the trial. Oaktree b (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b There's plenty, not just the prison sentence:
- Most famous streamer in Morocco
- He was arrested and on trial several times, and went to prison
- Wide coverage due to his crucial involvement in Morocco's participation in the 2025 Kings World Cup Nations.
The links above cover all 3 aspects of the topic. My opinion is that this is sufficient for notability. Feel free to check again for yourself. Ideophagous (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm reorganizing the list of links I posted above, to highlight the aspects supporting notability (in my opinion), and make it easier for other participants to navigate. I just don't think this topic should be dismissed so easily and quickly, and as I mentioned already, I think there are 3 main aspects that make this person notable (last aspect split to two because there are too many sources):

Streaming:
- Named Moroccan Influencer of the Year (en), top viewed streamer (fr)
- Other streaming-related news: 1, 2, 3
Arrest, trial and imprisonment (my understanding is that he went to prison twice, one time for 3 months, and another for 4 months shortened to 2 months):
- English: leaving prison and Kings League, 2, 3
- French: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
- Arabic: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
- Dutch: 1
Coverage due to the 2025 Kings World Cup Nations:
- English sources: 1, 2, 3
- French: 1, 2, 3, 4
- Arabic: 1, 2
- Spanish: 1
Coverage due to the Kings League in general:
- English sources: 1, 2
- French: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Mixed coverage focused on Ilyas El Maliki: araby.co.uk, almashhad, le360.ma, alahdath

Ideophagous (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edgewood Lake, Indiana

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

Aerials show this to be a NN subdivision from the 1960s. Mangoe (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And a local guidebook from 1983 reveals
Edgewood Lake 2½ mi. E. of G'castle off SR 240, on 250S. Swimming, fishing, picnicking, boating. Seasonal. Private property. Fee charged.
So it's a bunch of private lakehouses. Around a lake. It turns up in various 1970s and 1980s camping and outdoor recreations guides, as well. You could play horseshoes, volleyball, and go canoeing. And use the flush toilets.
Edgwood Lake—a rural CAMPGROUND with grassy sites and a lake.
— "Indiana". Woodall's Campground Directory. Woodall Publishing Company. 1980. ISBN 9780671251604., p. 212
There's a 1967 Recreation Survey that reveals that the lake was man-made in the early 1960s. Which is why it isn't on the 1958 Greencastle map. Uncle G (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. No substantial coverage either in the article or cited above. Does not appear to be a legally recognized settlement in the sense required by GEOLAND. As a lake, and not a community, it is clearly a verifiable feature of physical geography and I hate to delete those. But there is no guideline based reason to keep in the absence of GNG level sources which are lacking here. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trumplican

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

WP:TRUMPCRUFT and WP:NEO, a very specific term unlikely to gain sustained, significant coverage. jolielover♥talk 07:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and United States of America. jolielover♥talk 07:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A11. The user's edit summary when creating the article was "Coined Term, Trumplican" and well, that says it all really. Astaire (talk) 10:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as WP:HOAX and WP:A11. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. No references. The external link provided does not mention the term/word "Trumplican". Gjs238 (talk) 22:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solex Energy

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

Passing mentions, WP:TRIVIALMENTION, fails NCORP. Coverage mostly about announcements and and is based on statements from the CEO and other company representatives. For example: The company's CMD Chetan Shah said "Moving to the NSE main board will enable us to access a larger pool of investors, enhance our market credibility, and accelerate our vision of delivering clean and sustainable energy solutions globally." Cinder painter (talk) 07:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Engineering, and Gujarat. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that when searching four sources, there is also a South African company with the same name. For the one subject to this AfD, outside of unreliable sources and WP:NEWSORGINDIA, there is nothing that meets WP:CORPDEPTH. They are routine announcements or churnalism which start with things like "Solex secures," "Solex Energy Aims," "Solex Energy Targets," "Solext Energy Collaborates," which are all classic headlines associated with regurgitated press releases. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agartala–Khongsang Jan Shatabdi Express

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

Non-notable, this is an unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Superfast Express" (redirect therefore makes little sense). Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. Викидим (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTIMETABLE and the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. There are only two sources given and the first one [85] is not SIGCOV - it is an article about the Indian president inaugurating several new trains and this is simply mentioned in passing as one of the trains. No sign of WP:GNG. Astaire (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Assam, Manipur, and Tripura. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ernakulam–SMVT Bengaluru Superfast Express

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

Non-notable, this is an unnamed train and the "name" is basically "[TERMINAL A]-[TERMINAL B] Superfast Express" (redirect therefore makes little sense). Delete as a very wordy and hard to read substitute for run-of-the-mill line(s) in a railroad timetable. As such, all the arguments of WP:NOTTIMETABLE, WP:NOTADATABASE, WP:ROTM apply. A full discussion about multiple similar articles can be found at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. Викидим (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTTIMETABLE and the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barauni–Lucknow Express. The two sources provided [86] [87] are just news articles about temporary disruption of service. Nothing to indicate notability. Astaire (talk) 10:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Karnataka, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sutton Bonington weather station

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

Not notable according to WP:GNG, there are hundreds if not thousands of such weather stations in any each country around the world. Nyanardsan (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is no claim to notability for this station as such, and not even really a claim to the notability of the weather it records. And the latter is really the issue: the one case where Americans are aware of a weather station, it's because the one at the peak of Mount Washington records some of the worst readings in the country. There's some discussion in the article of what it takes to record the weather there, but it hardly needs an article its own. As it is, the references here are all in passing, most of them simply reporting the data collected there. Mangoe (talk) 11:34, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Environment and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, a quick books search hints that this somehow belongs with the University of Nottingham School of Agriculture. … Ah! I've now spotted Campuses of the University of Nottingham#Sutton Bonington weather station. That seems like a possible alternative to deletion. Uncle G (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on the alternative to deletion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sex, Gender and Disability in Nepal

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

Not a notable book. Insufficient sources. Not a single neutral source. First reference is about some other Novel written by author. References 2,3 are not reputed media outlets in Nepal. Ref 4 cant be used as a supportive source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Disability, Sexuality and gender, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a few more independent sources the editor suggested. Thank you for such a helpful community to guide the content/article creator like me. Traillek (talk) 08:17, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Now the references look strong. 168.20.179.92 (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article's only hope of meeting WP:NBOOK is criterion #1: the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. However, it fails. Reviewing the current sources:
- Source 1: the author's bio on the publisher's website. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
- Source 2: the author's website. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
- Source 3: an op-ed by the author that only mentions SGDN in the bio at the end. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
- Source 4: an article about a different book written by the author that mentions SGDN once. SGDN is not the subject.
- Sources 5 and 7: The same book review of SGDN posted on two different websites, which are of questionable reliability. Regardless, this would only count as one "published work" for the purposes of NBOOK.
- Source 6: an scholarly article written by the author before SGDN came out. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
- Source 8: a scholarly article written by the author of SGDN that contains a single citation of SGDN. Not independent and SGDN is not the subject.
- Source 9: The book itself. Not independent.

Astaire (talk) 07:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Securian Financial Group

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

Tagged as possibly a COI article for more than four years - all sources linked are either from the company itself or aren't independent. Could not find reliable and significant sources myself LR.127 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, United States of America, and Minnesota. LR.127 (talk) 01:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - 144 year-old company. A Fortune 500 company in 2023 and some other years. There are several articles that establish notability: 1, 2, 3, 4, and hundreds of hits at newspapers.com, since the company is so old.98.149.219.81 (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No stance on notability yet, I need some more time to go through the coverage. But the vast majority of the newspaper hits I found were advertisements from the company, and also some marriage announcements / obits of people who had worked there. I can compile some clippings of non-promo coverage later because there was some, but I would not use the number of hits as a metric here. Zzz plant (talk) 13:49, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shota Saito (footballer, born 1994)

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

Played 16 times professionally in 2014, hasn't played professionally since, fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:05, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:12, 25 February 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 05:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Due to another Shota Saito with the same Kanji for both first and last name plus a basketball player, a manager of a company, an actor (different Kanji but still picked up by Google News). It's super hard. This article by Gekisaka is only I could find Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – None WP:SIGCOV presented. Svartner (talk) 19:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.

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

Red Barn (RIT)

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

Place fails to meet WP:GNG. Only news stories I can find on Red Barn are from the RIT website. No significant coverage from any other reliable sources. Merging into the RIT article under "Student Life" section might seem more appropriate. My Pants Metal (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Sports. My Pants Metal (talk) 18:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Upon looking into this further, it seems the Red Barn is mentioned in two books: The Insiders Guide to Colleges 2005 and The Insiders Guide to Colleges 2006 (see here). However, these appear to be passing mentions and not significant coverage. --My Pants Metal (talk) 18:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@My Pants Metal, did you check the local media? There's a list in Media in Rochester, New York. https://archivesspace.rit.edu/agents/corporate_entities/949 says that the library's archives contain clippings from 1982, which means that there were newspaper articles written in 1982. The building itself is over 100 years old, so I'd also check 2008 to see whether there were any 100-year-anniversary celebrations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this! I will check local media sometime today or tomorrow and see what I can find. My Pants Metal (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete GNG failure Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any updates on the clippings?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:44, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia's place notability standards. A editor from mars (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete‎. A7 and G11. charlotte ^👸♥ 21:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Lawrence Yap

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

No evidence of notability from sources and WP:BEFORE search. Fails GNG SK2242 (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Philippines. SK2242 (talk) 05:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. CR (how's my driving? call 0865 88318) 09:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as WP:G11. Also Google News Yield no result. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - previously deleted via A7 and not single source even found. Dam222 🌋 (talk) 18:02, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

July 2025 Uttarakhand local elections

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

These panchayat elections are not notable enough as all of the candidates officially run as independents and non-partisan candidates. Previous panchyat elections were also included together with the municipal elections article where both were held in same year. In case where both held in different years the article can be created. — Hemant Dabral (📞 • ✒) 04:42, 4 March 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 March 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:05, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Politics, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anglican Adam Preaching Society

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

Questionable notability, and WP:PROMO problems run too deep that it is probably better to start over from scratch. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Christianity and Nigeria. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The U13 Dubai Intercontinental Football Cup

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

Children's sports are almost never notable, especially as young as middle schoolers, and this tournament is no exception, with only trivial and promotional news. Geschichte (talk) 04:45, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Dubai, Football and United Arab Emirates. jolielover♥talk 05:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:07, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salma Arastu

AfDs for this article:

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

Questionable WP:Notability, with most information sourced from subject's own resume —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 04:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Gujarat, Rajasthan, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've trimmed a lot of the puffery/fluff, unsourced claims and items sourced solely to her own resume on her website. I have retained the reliable sources, although I'm not sure about the L.A. Voyage, it seems like a blog. The article previously was extremely promotional and seems the work of a PR agent or was heavily edited by the artist themself or someone connected to the artist. A before search finds tons of churnalism, pay-to-play publications, native advertising which points to SEO activity and PROMO. However, she is in two collections that I could verify, and had a review in the Los Angeles Times,[88]; is mentioned an academic journal article (not certain how extensively)[89], has a short entry in the book Muslim Women in America: The Challenge of Islamic Identity Today on page 139 [90]. I'm leaning towards K*eep because I think there is a good chance she is notable despite the promotional efforts, but want to do a Newspapers.com and a JSTOR search first before !voting. Netherzone (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - after deeper searching and cleaning up the promo and poor sourcing from the article, I have found definitive evidence of her notability. I've added numerous citations in reliable sources to the article. A search on the Wikipedia Library revealed everything from feature articles to academic journals, I didn't even have to go directly to JSTOR to find additional hits. I tried logging into Newspapers.com via the WikiLib, but could not access the site (a perpetual problem it seems). Nevertheless, she meets both WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In light of what you've raised, i would support keeping this page, but i believe that it would still need some ~~major~~ more work done to bring it up to quality standards. —Mint Keyphase (Did I mess up? What have I done?) 05:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists and Visual arts. Netherzone (talk) 16:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Saint Thomas, Indiana

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

There may indeed have been a short-lived post office ehre, but the topos and GMaps make it quite clear that everything here was and is part of the church property. Indeed, a bunch of the topos don't show the church at all, and label the school; the GNIS entry comes from a highway map. Mangoe (talk) 04:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you have just come from Purcell, Indiana (AfD discussion) you will know what is going on here. Uncle G (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elenite

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

Doesn't reach WP:NCORP; a black sea resort referenced only by a travel website: exclusively promotional. I had placed a PROD, but this was contented on the grounds "I think it's notable as a quasi-populated place". I don't think that a resort should be assessed as a 'populated place', but rather as a business. Unable to find reliable sources discussing this resort; other language versions don't seem to help either. Klbrain (talk) 22:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Geography. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Soft keep. As per my removal of the PROD. This is a holiday resort area of around 10 hotels, all or most of which are owned by a single company. Its status is indeed debatable: in 2005 it was listed by the Bulgarian government as a "settlement of national importance", but this was revoked by a court. The area does have the status of a "climatic sea resort of local importance", but under the name Kuzluka (which is unknown to the wider public, unlike the name Elenite) and bundled in together with the nearby Sveti Vlas. The resort has been mentioned in The Sun and Daily Mail. — Toдor Boжinov — 08:42, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Settlements and administrative regions says:
Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history. Census tracts, abadi, and other areas not commonly recognized as a place (such as the area in an irrigation district) are not presumed to be notable. Also, if the class of division is not notable (e.g. townships in certain US states) its members are not notable either, even though technically recognized in law. The Geographic Names Information System and the GEOnet Names Server do not satisfy the "legal recognition" requirement and are also unreliable for "populated place" designation.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features), which says:
Notability on Wikipedia is an inclusion criterion based on the encyclopedic suitability of an article topic. Geographical features meeting Wikipedia's General notability guideline (GNG) are presumed, but not guaranteed, to be notable. Therefore, the notability of some geographical features (places, roadways, objects, etc.) may be called into question.

Sources
1. Shishkova, Elena; Ivanova, Maria; Dimova, Rosit︠s︡a (1998). Destination, Bulgaria. Burgas: Selekta. p. 106. ISBN 978-954-8371-490. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Elenite Holiday Village which opened in 1985. It is roughly divided into two colonies of two-storey villas clustered around amenities one would normally expect to find in a classy holiday centre. Situated between a mountain massif and the sea shore around a large bay the villas face a beautiful stretch of clean sandy beach and the sparkling blue sea. Like the other holiday villages Elenite has sprung up to meet the growing demand for holidays of more privacy and comfort. This is exactly what the self-contained villas offer. Each comprises two large and well-appointed sea-facing studios, with a terrace on the ground floor and a balcony on the first one. The studios have separate entrances and are more or less of the same design. But the villas in zone A unlike those in zone B, have kitchenettes with cooking facilities. The Emona Hotel is perched on a hill in the north-eastern part of the village. Although it is called a hotel, it consists of villa accommodation like the rest of the village. It has its own reception area and other amenities including an attractive restaurant and a day bar. A new hotel in the northern part has just opened and another one, much larger, is being built in the south- ern part. The two zones of villas share a reception located in the Service Centre which comprises restaurants with indoor and outdoor dining, conference halls, bars, a gym, etc. The speciality restaurant The Fishing Net (Talyana) in the centre of the village tempts tourists with fish dishes. The Old Oak Tavern (Stariyat Dub) is attractively designed and offers a varied selection of wines and beers. For those who prefer preparing their own meals Elenite has a well-stocked supermarket in the shopping centre. Elenite is superbly equipped for sports enthusiasts. It has a sea-water pool for adults and another one for children, a sauna, three tennis courts, a gym."
2. "Bulgaria". Sofia Press Agency. 1986. p. 28. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "Elenite Tired of the tall concrete towers called hotels, of the queues outside lifts, of the crowded beaches and bars, all considered to be the 'comforts of big holiday resorts all over the world, the modern tourist started dreaming of Crusoe's island ... at least for the limited duration of his holiday. But how could he get this? Specialists saw the answer in building holiday villages located amidst exotic scenery. "Why did you choose Elenite for your holiday? " I asked Mr and Mrs Kvarken, a young Finnish couple whom I met on the beach. "We were looking for peace and quiet, and found it here, in addition to rare, exotic surrounding. We feel quite at home." The formula "less people, more peace", in the felicitous combination of a picturesque setting and original architecture, this is the Elenite holiday village in a nutshell. It is situated 15 km away from the old town of Nessebur, just where the oak-clad slopes of the Balkan Range descend gently towards the Black Sea. The village boasts fine conditions for holidaymakers—the beach is to the south, sheltered by the mountains to the north, in addition to the pleasant meadows cut by the rocky bed of the river Kozloushka. After interest was expressed by foreign tourist firms, the Bulgarian Association for Tourism and Recreation signed an agreement with the Finnish and French firms Matkarengas and Tourisme et Travail to build a holiday village accommodating 2,000 to the east of the river. It was built jointly by Bulgarian and Finnish construction workers, and welcomed its first visitors in 1985. The village is a far cry from the traditional resorts consisting of Sunlight is equally caressing at the beach and in fro of the bungalo Though there are no sharks special pools have been built for the naughty children where they can swim to their heart's content while mum and dad are having the time of their life in the sea."
3. Dinchev, Evgeniĭ (2001). A Guide to Bulgaria. Sofia: Alexander Tour. pp. 303, 313. ISBN 978-954-9942-18-7. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "Elenite is a resort situated east of Slunchev Bryag (Sunny Beach) at the beginning of an eight-kilometre long no through road. It is 50 km north of Bourgas and 442 km east of Sofia. The nearest village is Vlas. In the past it was given the name of a monastery destroyed by the Turks. The resort complex consists of one-family bungalows and villas surrounded by lush green vegetation. The whole complex is designed as a park and offers deluxe holidays. This small separate settlement has its own private beach, several luxurious restaurants, sports facilities and equipment for water sports, tennis-court. ... One can get to Elenite by minibus from Slunchev Bryag or by taxi, but most frequently holiday-makers come here in their own cars. velop and practice all water sports using the services of coaches, facilities and equipment, horse riding with coaches, water slides, a policlinic, and several big shopping centres for food, clothes and souvenirs. There is an amphitheatre with more than 1000 seats. Accommodation: The most famous are Kuban Hotel, Bourgas Hotel and Diamond Hotel. The hotels Delta, Amphora, Zephyr, and Esperanto in the Black Sea Complex that is part of the resort. The two camping sites — Emona and Slunchev Bryag (Sunny Beach) cover a large area and therefore the sites there are practically unlimited. There are also bungalows in the camps, and these can only be reserved in advance."
4. Bousfield, Jonathan; Richardson, Dan (1999). Bulgaria: The Rough Guide. London: Rough Guides. p. 352. ISBN 1-85828-422-8. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Internet Archive.
  THe book notes: "Buses continue northwards to the Elenite Holiday Village, 6km further up the coast, a predominantly package destination divided into two villa colonies sharing restaurants, bars and discos. It's a well-run, well-looked after resort with a good beach, good sporting facilities, and childcare provision in a central kindergarten, although it can seem rather isolated if you’re after more than just a beach holiday. A central reception desk (#0554/82423, fax 85147) allocates rooms, although costs are high for independent travellers, with prices of around $70 per person per day in the high season — meals, daytime drinks and entertainment are all included, though. The villas themselves come with cable TV, fridge and kitchenette (although the choice of food in the local store is limited, making the idea of self-catering unappealing)."
5. Tanner, Adam; Watson, Ian; Schrag, Zachary; Kaplan, Andrew (1995) [1987]. Frommer's Budget Travel Guide: Eastern Europe on $30 a Day (5 ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishers. p. 126. ISBN 0-02860092-4. ISSN 1044-7792. Retrieved 2025-03-02 – via Internet Archive.
  The book notes: "Northeast of Sunny Beach at the end of a dead-end road is the resort of Elenite, a favorite of Western Europeans on the coast for comfortable facilities and a peaceful setting. Unlike the mass of hotels across the Bulgarian coast, Elenite is an imaginative modern complex built by Finns and opened in 1985. Villas with two to four rooms spread out on a hill overlooking the seaside account for most of the lodgings here; there’s also a conventional hotel with 46 rooms. Villa rooms are decorated with terra-cotta tiles and blond-wood furniture, and have large balconies. Half the villa rooms have small kitchenettes with sinks and fridges but no stoves. ... Facilities: Several food stores, restaurants, and discos operate in the village complex. At the hotel’s private beach you can rent Windsurfers and umbrellas. There’s also a gym, swimming pool, sauna, and tennis court. A variety of excursions can be booked from the office in the main lobby, such as an all-day excursion ..."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Elenite to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 06:28, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly have no real clue how to assess this one - Cunard's sources are all travel guides, which I don't think necessarily count towards significant coverage and certainly don't towards WP:NCORP. It's also not clear as to whether it's a village under WP:NGEO or a collection of businesses under WP:NCORP. What I do know is the article does not currently pass WP:GNG, since we can't assume the travel guides are secondary or independent (#2 might be the best, but it's potentially promotional.) SportingFlyer T·C 06:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete wikipedia is not a travel guide and this isnt even obviously the name of the location. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minister of Railways (Bangladesh)

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

Similar article Ministry of Railways (Bangladesh) already exists. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 13:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Bangladesh. ––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 13:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Ministry of Railways (Bangladesh) as there is nothing here that isn't already there, so no need for a merge. Mangoe (talk) 14:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See List of ministries of transport by country for several countries where editors chose to have separate articles for the minister and the ministry. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 08:24, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By name of this article it seems to be related to Railway Minister, but it's actually about the Adviser of Railways in Bangladesh. This post is almost equivalent to Railway Minister and populated by an adviser temporarily.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 09:30, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adviser is not a regular position in Bangladeshi government. When there is no government, advisor acts and do what ministers do. After election advisor don't work in ministry anymore and new minister comes. It happened many times in Bangladesh, for this insignificant reason, deleting is not good idea. We can show the position as "empty" on the article or we can show advisor as the in-charge. Nothing wrong with that and not even a big deal. Even showing this reason is not a policy based argument. If there is any scope to expand this article then the article is notable indeed. Mehedi Abedin 20:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As far as concerning current status of this article, there is not enough references apart from official government website and also their are several examples like Minister of Railways (India) is proposed to be merged with Ministry of Railways (India), which shows that any articles doesn't gain notability for only being a higher government position but it should to be structured like that which would decide the future of this article.––kemel49^{(connect)(contri)} 17:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sofia Toufa

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:SINGER, and the only mention of her music I could find from a reliable source comes from an LA Times covering Tommy Lee's engagement, which is also one of only two sources within the Wikipedia article. Seems like a no-brainer. Melonkunn (talk) 10:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, Germany, and Greece. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added more sources and releases and improved formatting. Rumrtm73 (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, digging deeper, the article does not fail WP:SINGER, as "Sofi Needs a Ladder" that features Sofia literally appeared in UK and Canada's national music charts. The sources that I added complement the article, and it doesn't seem like it fails WP:BASIC either. Rumrtm73 (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a no-brainer; rather just a poorly-written article that needs some polishing and overhaul. Rumrtm73 (talk) 05:47, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose She has a notable song which is Sofi Needs a Ladder, plus also @Rumrtm73 has more evidence above. Nedia Wanna talk? Stalk my edits 02:56, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Purcell, Indiana

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

Given that the road which crosses the tracks at this point is (acto Google) called Purcell Station Rd., I think it's safe to deem this a rail point, especially since the station building itself shows up in a 1958 aerial. Mangoe (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A search of the Baker|Emerson|Cauthorn county history takes one directly to Jonathan, John, Noah, and finally Andrew Purcell, the farmer whose farm is where Purcell Station was located in Johnson Township. It was a railway station, on the Evansville & Terre Haute Railroad, and a post-office, named for the Purcells. The Greene county history adds that this was all about melon farming, and lists the E&THR railway stations on v. 1 p. 370.
And Baker of course already said that this was a railway station and a post-office. But Baker also claims that this was a village too. Which is contradicted outright by the Greene county history, which on v. 1 p. 380 explains that all of those melons may have been shipped from Purcell's Station (as it was actually spelled), but the "hamlet" was the "thickly settled" St Thomas. Yes, Saint Thomas, Indiana (AfD discussion). So guess what's coming up for that AFD discussion! ☺
There's no village of Purcell in Knox. Not only would Greene's 1911 History have caught that, but the Steinwehr 1873 gazetteer records Purcell's (again, properly spelled) as a post-office in Knox, and the 1880 Lippincott's records it (properly spelled as well) as a post-office on the (renamed) E&CR. The icing on this cake is that we even have the 1876 atlas with a little square blob on the railroad line.
There should be a list of the railway stations in the E&THR article, and this should just take one there, and not be categorized or navigation templated or listed in the county/township as a GNIS cop-out "unincorporated community" when we even know the name of the farmer.
Uncle G (talk) 06:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Tsvetkov

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

Fails WP:NSKATE, WP:SPORTSBASIC, and WP:GNG. Lacks independent significant coverage. Only competed at the junior level and never medaled in the one junior figure skating competition we recognize as significant. 4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 00:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Skating, Germany, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:09, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A bronze medal at the Junior Grand Prix Final is a notable achievement, although I realize it is not included on the list of criteria for WP:NSKATE. That competition is one notch below the World Junior Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus was not to include that level of achievement at the SNG for figure skaters when it was crafted by the community, so from a wiki community guideline point of view it isn’t notable unless there is GNG level sourcing that supports that. The junior level of skating doesn’t typically get SIGCOV outside of the World Junior Championship medalists.4meter4 (talk) 15:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Table of metaheuristics

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

Per WP:NLIST.

Some of the items (e.g. Genetic Algorithm) indeed have notability.

Otherwise, notability the list is not shown. Are there any mentions of metaheuristic algorithms as a group other than a reason to introduce another one, or to take action on unchecked creation of such algorithms?

As metaheuristic algorithms still continue to be introduced at a pace of (conservatively) dozens per year, this list is arbitrary in nature, which is another argument for not having it.

For more context, there is an attempt to have such a listing elsewhere, also lagging behind the current state.

Another possible course of action is to clean the list up (to those algorithms with a Wiki page) and merge into the main article.

Neodiprion demoides (talk) 17:38, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:26, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably delete, as there is no overarching citation that discusses metaheuristic algorithms as such. Perhaps "optimisation" would cover much of it. Without that, the article is close to WP:SYNTH. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Optimization is too broad for this topic. If new ones are introduced, only major should be listed or some classification of them should be described (i.e. improve). Solar Apex (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note that without any citation that describes the topic as a whole, WP:SYNTH --- i.e. WP:OR applies. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayesha Bakhsh

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

Brief mentions are not enough to pass WP:SIGCOV requirements. Fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 17:52, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Pakistan. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:28, 16 February 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 00:08, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as [91] [92] Timtim76 (talk) 15:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 1 is an interview and ref 2 is three sentences in total with brief mention of the subject. Nnev66 (talk) 15:45, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I can’t find any WP:SIGCOV of the subject. Willing to re-assess if I missed something Nnev66 (talk) 15:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ayesha Bakhsh has been a prominent TV journalist and a TV anchorperson in Pakistan since 2007. Tried to improve the above article by adding more reliable sources to it. It is much improved now, added many newspaper references to it. In my view, it passes WP:GNG now...Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the analysis:
- [93], [94] are database entries.
- [95], [96] are routine news reports (WP:PRIMARY)
- [97], [98] passing mention in a company's publication she worked for.
Gheus (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Willis, Indiana

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

Another post office about which I can find nothing. The location is an intersection where there is nothing. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:26, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1904 Lippincott's has Willis Grove as a post office on p. 2432, confirming Baker. But all of the Willises in the county histories are people; and there's just nothing else to be found. Uncle G (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Name doesn't appear on topographic maps until 1958: [99], long after the supposed post office disappeared. And there was a total lack of infrastructure even then. Not a community and never was. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conway triangle notation

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

MathWorld is notorious for neologisms, and this is one. MathWorld in turn sources this notation only to an unpublished book manuscript that uses this notation only in the formulation of a single formula. My prod saying as much was reverted by User:Mast303 with no improvement and a WP:VAGUEWAVE at notability, so here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's surprising - you can find LOTS of people mentioning this convention, but very little discussion of the convention itself. For the amount of hits you get back, I'm definitely surprised to discover that it doesn't really seem to have enough support to justify inclusion at the moment. PianoDan (talk) 23:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fin Shepard

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

Article is pure plot, and does not establish notability. Tagged almost a year ago. Cambalachero (talk) 03:01, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Film, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sun Crush

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

Fails WP:NPRODUCT. No reliable sources. This is a brand produced by a company owned by Sri Lankan cricketer Muttiah Muralitharan. Information can be hosted there under a new heading called business venture. Chanaka L (talk) 02:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and Sri Lanka. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete under NPRODUCT. Also promotional, as a side note. (Acer's userpage |what did I do now) 02:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, concur it fails WP:NPRODUCT, lacks any in-depth coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 02:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG, nothing really that's worth merging into the owner's page since it's mostly WP:OR. The brand should be mentioned on his page though, as a business venture. jolielover♥talk 04:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as the creator of the article, I understand that it fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:GNG. I'll get better as I go on!

🔥FERO𝕏IDAN🔥talk — Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Capcom Coin-Op

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

Only notability is being a division of Capcom. Most sources being databases with minimal information on the company as well as two from Incredible Technologies, a marginally related entity. A large amount of information are unsourced, with properly cited information, consisting of a Polygon article writing about an obscure product of the company as well as a Capcom official document indicating consolidation, being too little for the subject to prove its own notability. I personally would prefer to redirect this to Capcom or List of Capcom subsidiaries, with too little substantial content available for a proper merge to happen. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Companies. MimirIsSmart (talk) 02:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator makes no attempt to explain why the lengthy Polygon article does not establish notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 05:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of highway rest areas in North Korea

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:LISTN criteria. PROD in 2022 was contested so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation, Lists, and North Korea. Let'srun (talk) 02:06, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Kind of surprised we had this subject as a list. And, yet, we have Category:Rest areas. I think maybe there needs to be more feedback on the subject lists. — Maile (talk) 04:04, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Heydens

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

Does not appear to meet the criteria of NMOTORSPORT. Also, additional information did not appear readily on a Google Search Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 01:47, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Motorsport, and Belgium. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – No claim to significance, not meaningful coverage, and none is going to emerge. 5225_C (talk • contributions) 03:03, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG, only able to find one news source, which is only a passing mention [100].
p.s. NMOTORSPORT is only a recommendation, not a definitive guideline GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Fails WP:GNG. Could redirect to 2004 Le Mans Endurance Series be an option as WP:ATD?Canary757 (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Most coverage I can find for his name is about a cyclist; which may well be the same person... but fails WP:GNG. Don't think the above suggested redirect is suitable. MSport1005 (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Delete per fail on WP:GNG.Canary757 (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

United States complicity in Israeli war crimes in the Gaza war

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

Essentially a WP:POVFORK of United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. The media coverage and military support sections are duplicative of their parent articles. The "context" section is duplicative of Gaza genocide. Meanwhile, the "reactions" section is a disparate grouping of opinions which are better covered in United States support for Israel in the Gaza war#Backlash to US support. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Military, Politics, Israel, Palestine, and United States of America. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 01:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:FORK, nothing that can't be covered in United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. jolielover♥talk 04:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Unnecessary fork. WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS? Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: For reasons mentioned above. Also, the wording "complicity in Israeli war crimes" is POV. "United States support for Israel in the Gaza war" is neutral as far as the title wording. — Maile (talk) 04:50, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:POVFORK. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. A clear CFORK, also note that the article is written in the tone of fanpov. – Garuda ^Talk! 07:49, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as blatant WP:POVFORK, the best option here is either merge it or redirect it to United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:37, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the question of whether the United States is complicit in war crimes is a separate topic from what support the United States is providing to Israel. In addition, that article is already incredibly long with 456 listed references, 260,286 bytes, and about 27,000 words (about 17,000 if you don't include the words used to describe the 456 sources, which add up to 10,000 words). Keep in mind that WP:TOOBIG says that a word count of >15,000 words should "Almost certainly should be divided or trimmed." So we already have an issue of article length. Not to mention, I put the tag on yesterday for more information about the Trump administration's support for Israel, as that article currently focuses a lot on the Biden administration. So no, this should not be merged because that article is already TOO BIG. This article currently serves as the main article to the "human rights" section of the support article. Separately from this, let's get a few thing straight. WP:FORK is talking about forks of Wikipedia which is an irrelevant policy for this discussion. The correct thing to cite is WP:POVFORK, as a few users already pointed out. Although POVFORK is relevant policy here, I don't think that you can make the assessment that this article is a POV fork based on the description provided at WP:POVFORK: "...In contrast, POV forks generally arise when contributors disagree about the content of an article or other page. Instead of resolving that disagreement by consensus, another version of the article (or another article on the same subject) is created to be developed according to a particular point of view. This second article is known as a "POV fork" of the first and is inconsistent with policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. As Wikipedia does not view article forking as an acceptable solution to disagreements between contributors, such forks may be merged or nominated for deletion." That was clearly not the case for this article. This article was created by User:Ghazaalch with the original title of "Accusation of US complicity in Israel's alleged war crimes in Gaza" and that article was focused mainly on scholars, international human rights experts, and activists who were accusing the United States of complicity. And, as shown in this edit, this article is spillover from the Gaza genocide article too. This idea that this article was created as a POV fork of the support article is just not true. This article's content is covered under WP:SUBPOV. If you have concerns about WP:NPOV and feel that this article needs balance, feel free to add more pro-US and pro-Israel positions that are underrepresented in this article. The solution is not to delete this article.--JasonMacker (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this should not be merged because that article is already TOO BIG. I'm not proposing a merge. I think virtually all of the content in this article is redundant with other articles. The only difference is this article describes US support for Israel as complicity with war crimes.

If you want to convince me it's WP:SUBPOV you'd have to show me that this covers something different than the parent article. Give specific examples of content not covered in United States support for Israel in the Gaza war. Chess (talk) (please mention me on reply) 19:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sentimental Yasuko

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

Not clear that this film passes WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Only cited source is to a vendor selling the film on DVD, and an IMDb listing in the external links. Poor sourcing also in foreign language wikis.4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Rotten Tomatoes has nothing... There is no Japanese wiki article, so that's no help. One link here isn't enough and I can't find sources. There might be some in Japanese, but I don't see any we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There is a Japanese Wikipedia article here. The film is based on a stage play. While the Japanese Wikipedia page is primarily about the stage play, it also includes substantial information about the film there. lullabying (talk) 02:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article definitely needs cleaning up, but I found an article from Movie Walker [ja] (owned by Kadokawa Corporation), an article from Oricon, and several articles on Eiga, one of which includes an interview with the director. lullabying (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kei Horie#Directing. Not opposed to Keep, per Lullabying. Opposed to deletion. Please contact Project Japan or ping users to verify a standalone article about the play or the film is not indeed warranted. Added coverage myself but have no time to do more. -Mushy Yank. 11:08, 4 March 2025 (UTC) [reply]
Keep per lullabying. I should add this Eiga article. Though I'm surprised this does not have any Natalie Source. I think you should search the Japanese name of the article on google as a BEFORE search. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:46, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maid in India

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

Non-notable web series. The sources in the article are a press release and an article about the actress that mentions the series. I'm unable to find significant coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 00:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Taabii (talk) 10:14, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no sufficient coverage. Drushrush (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Little to no coverage, and no likelihood of additional coverage coming to light as the show appears to have only run for one season almost 10 years ago. -- LWG ^talk 20:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Hazlitt, William (2007). New Writings of William Hazlitt. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-920706-0.

[2] Barua, Pradeep (2005-01-01). The State at War in South Asia. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 81–83. ISBN 978-0-8032-1344-9.

[1]

[2]

Eisspeedway