Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 23

< February 22	February 24 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Akin Busari

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the singles he has released are notable. Majority of the sources cited in the article are press releases. None of the awards he has won or been nominated for are notable. His debut album (and only one so far) Free Me fails WP:NALBUM. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mobb music

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

Unsourced article, possibly containing original research. This was previously a redirect to West Coast hip-hop#Bay Area hip hop, where it remained since 2009. However, page appears to be a bit older than that, and actually dates back to 2005 (when it was created initially as an unsourced stub). CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, United States of America, and California. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a tiny topic here, one that is not represented very well by the current text. Sources to consider include NPR, The Fader and The Standard. Mobb music is mentioned in passing in each of these sources, described as gritty hardcore rap with heavy funk and thick production, all from the San Francisco Bay Area, starting in Vallejo with producers Mike Mosley and Khayree. The current text based on unreliable Rate Your Music sourcing should be thrown away. Binksternet (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Journal of Central Banking

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

Hijacked vanity journal, low IF and of questionable notability - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Academic_Journals/Journals_cited_by_Wikipedia/Questionable1 I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 23:34, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals and Economics. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altadena Community Church

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

As was the case with St. Mark's Episcopal Church, this is a local church with no notability outside of its association with a single event; as such, I don't believe that the reporting on this church's destruction will be enough to support an article in the long term. Sources 3–13, 15, 16, and 18 are purely local articles of WP:ROTM events at the church that provide no notability at all. If the argument were to be made that these sources provide WP:SIGCOV, then nearly every church in the US may as well be notable. Source 1 is an NYT article that mentions the church. Source 2 is an article from a religious organization that reports exclusively on matters that concern its churches and as such cannot be considered an independent source. Source 14 is an LA Times article about the congregations resilience, 17 is a Time article which is basically the same thing, 19 is a Deseret article reporting that the church burned down, while 20 and 21 are similar. The community can decide if these sources are enough to provide long-term notability. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Christianity, and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carla Perez (actress, born 1970)

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

This is not the subject of in-depth coverage by multiple reliable sources; she fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. JFHJr (㊟) 22:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Philippines. JFHJr (㊟) 22:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josep Roca i Fontané

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

WP:BEFORE shows some mentions in online news, but only incidental coverage, and not enough to demonstrate notability under WP:GNG. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Wine, and Spain. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Panos Christidis

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

This subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. This is an WP:RS-free WP:BLP. JFHJr (㊟) 22:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Greece. JFHJr (㊟) 22:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Don't see how it meets WP:NMUSICIAN. Also noting the COI by Panos2315 at Draft:Panos Christidis. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That draft is a blatant self-promotion. So I tagged it for G11 speedy consideration. JFHJr (㊟) 23:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantin Korobov

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

This subject fails WP:NARTIST as well as WP:GNG because he lacks significant coverage by unrelated third-party WP:RS. In-depth coverage about this subject is by related parties publishing about their own awards, and otherwise pretty scant. JFHJr (㊟) 22:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, and Russia. JFHJr (㊟) 22:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Millhouse

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

This subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN, as well as WP:GNG due to a lack of significant in-depth coverage by unrelated third-party reliable sources, to exclude the likes of IMDB and self-publications/blogs. JFHJr (㊟) 22:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, United States of America, and New York. JFHJr (㊟) 22:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand. The man played on Broadway. This is not the IMDB site but IBDB (Internet Broadway Database). "IBDB (Internet Broadway Database) archive is the official database for Broadway theatre information. IBDB provides records of productions from the beginnings of New York theatre until today. IBDB provides a comprehensive database of shows produced on Broadway, including all "title page" information about each production. IBDB also offers historical information about theatres and various statistics and fun facts related to Broadway."

You have to understand that jazz and classical music are not as widely covered by the media. This is already the second article in a row that has been marked for deletion. I assume the same will happen with the third article I'm currently working on. Since it's obvious that I'm doing something wrong, maybe it's best to go back to Wikipedia in my native language. There's no point in wasting my time if none of the articles can stay.--Марко Станојевић (talk) 22:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Nothing found for this musician in RS. What's now in the article is just confirmation of performances given. I don't see a pass at NMUSIC. Oaktree b (talk) 22:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Metcalfe

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NSINGER. No WP:SIGCOV about her career, can only seem to find primary or unreliable sources referencing her briefly. – Meena • 21:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Music. – Meena • 21:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmad Vaezi

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

A7/ The notability of the individual needs to be reassessed. The sources are not particularly relevant to the person and are merely news coverage. Persia ☘ 20:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Philosophy, Islam, and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Escuela para suegras

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

Unreferenced film article. Not clear this film passes WP:NFILM or WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 19:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indrid Cold

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

I highly doubt that Indrid Cold is notable as a character and I don't think it was very useful as a disambiguation page either. It could be redirected, though I'm not sure where; probably either to Mothman or The Mothman Prophecies (film). AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Paranormal and West Virginia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Youngman

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

Fails WP:GNG. Lack of SIGCOV on search. Canary757 (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 19:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brock Colyar

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject does not appear to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. The references used are interviews, primary, or via deprecated and/or unreliable sources (the New York Post, Fox News (political), and Know Your Meme.) WP:BEFORE turned up another two interviews, one written by a contributor for The Tullahoma News (Colyar's hometown paper). JSFarman (talk) 19:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep subject of the article has several notable sources and are deserving of a Wikipedia entry. Eric Carpenter (talk) 19:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Journalism, New York, and Tennessee. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can’t find source from the news tab Gratefulking (talk) 20:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaazhnila

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Yaazhnila

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

Name page that fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT and lacks any evidence of notability whatsoever. The only sources I can find are random baby name websites of questionable reliability. I only bring it to AfD because it was deleted via PROD back in 2013, and so is ineligible for that. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nitin Mehta

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR (or WP:NMODEL). Mostly all of the sources are from Generic Bylines, see WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The Article from ThePrint is a Press Release from ANI, while TOI is just a passing mention. The subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. Taabii (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. Taabii (talk) 18:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Virendra Sachdeva

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

The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. The subject is a State President of a Notable Political Party, but it does not contribute to the notability of the subject. Taabii (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Delhi. Taabii (talk) 18:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KPBJ

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

Fails WP:GNG. Only FCC database information; no secondary sources.

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason as above:

KBAL-FM
KBRI (AM)
KBYO (AM)
KCLR (AM)
KDLA (AM)
KENA (AM)
KHZK
KJAL
KLBW
KLWJ
KPBB
KPBE
KPBM
KPCQ
KPVA-LP
KQGC
KRMY
KSHY-LP
KUOL (Texas)
KWTM
KZPI
WAGE (FM)
WAKK (AM)
WCLC (AM)
WCMR-FM
WDUF
WDXL
WELB
WERH (AM)
WFWO
WGAT
WHPF
WJEH (AM)
WJOS (AM) (no sources)
WJPI
WJXP
WKJQ (AM)
WKVG (AM)
WLMS (FM)
WMLC
WMUP
WNBN
WOOW
WPPT (AM)
WPVH
WQST (AM)
WRAR (AM)
WSEM
WULA
WVBS
WYAH-LP
WZCT
WZZG Chuterix (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Texas. Chuterix (talk) 18:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I suspect this bundled nomination will get bogged down by featuring both five-ten year stations only ever operated in this century, most of which never should have had articles (and only did because of the too-low inclusion standards of pre-2021 in this topic area), and 75-year stations that simply have no real current content. The only unifying factor is being "minimally-at-best-sourced articles on defunct radio stations", which is not necessarily a one-sized-fits-all circumstance. A 54-article nomination under any circumstance is also likely to be a trainwreck. (At most, only KPBB, KPBE, and KPBM should be bundled with KPBJ specifically as all four appear to be short-lived Paulino Bernal stations that were part of a network. KCLR (AM) also ended its existence in this network, but had a considerably longer history before that.) While a wider culling of undersourced if not unsourceable permastubs in this topic area is long overdue (and again, has been since that 2021 media notability RfC), this should be done over only a few (e.g. five-ten) non-bundled nominations at a time over many weeks, not all at once. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lix Technologies

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

This startup has received some coverage here, here, and here. However, I cannot locate any other sources with significant coverage and argue that these three do not meet WP:SIRS to establish notability. Uffda608 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Denmark, Companies, and Education. Uffda608 (talk) 18:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KCKQ

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

Fails WP:GNG.

Defunct radio station WVQR should also be deleted per same reason. Chuterix (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Puerto Rico, and Nevada. Chuterix (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While both are short-lived defunct radio stations that probably do fail the GNG, I don't think bundling a Puerto Rico station with a Nevada station is a sufficiently common bond; they should be separate nominations. As it currently stands I cannot really give a proper opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KWJG

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

Fails WP:GNG. KMJG should also be deleted. Chuterix (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Alaska. Chuterix (talk) 17:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of radio stations in Alaska#Defunct stations: both KWJG and KMJG are listed there, making it a valid-enough alternative to deletion for both articles. (Bundling these two stations does seem valid; both were commonly-owned stations in the same general area with the same format and largely-similar histories, such as they were.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Vahidnia

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

The sources lack any indication of WP:GNG (significant coverage). Xpander (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Xpander (talk) 10:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy and Iran. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are a few sources but they all seem to relate to one event, namely his criticism of Ali Khamenei as a student [1]. I'm not sure if that is important enough to mention on Ali Khamenei or 2009 Iranian presidential election protests or a similar article but if it is then a merge could be an alternative. Shapeyness (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:47, 16 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) 17:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails SIGCOV. Wikipedia is not news. Herinalian (talk) 19:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Godo Holo Airstrip

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

Per WP:GNG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources (none of which are WP:RS) contained any significant coverage of the airstrip itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airstrip. Source assessment table below:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
http://www.gcmap.com/airport/SMGH		WP:SPS	There's no actual coverage of the airstrip itself, only data and statistics.	✘ No
https://www.google.com/maps/@4.05847,-54.78616,812m/data=!3m1!1e3		~ See WP:GOOGLEMAPS	No coverage of the airstrip itself.	✘ No
http://bluewingairlines.com/english/scheduled-flights/	Airline operates at the airstrip		No significant coverage of the airstrip itself.	✘ No
http://www.gumair.com/destinations?5c9dc4b79c23ba6a007ee9697830b5e9=0719f9b031fbd87ec38c0eaeb912ae59	Airline operates at the airstrip		No significant coverage of the airstrip itself.	✘ No
http://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20100515-0			Only coverage is about an accident that happened at the airstrip.	✘ No
http://landewers.net/PZ.TXT	Most likely	WP:SPS	No significant coverage of the airstrip itself.	✘ 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}}.

Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and South America. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainty theory (Liu)

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

The article seems to fail to meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines (WP:NOTE) and might be a fringe theory (WP:Fringe). However, this is not a clear-cut case, so it would require a detailed review from people familiar with the field.

The article relies almost entirely on primary sources—Liu’s own book (Uncertainty Theory, Springer, 2015) and papers by closely associated researchers in niche journals (e.g., Journal of Uncertain Systems) or conference proceedings. I didn't find evidence of recognition, critique, or adoption by the broader mathematical community, unlike established fields like probability theory or fuzzy logic.

Additionally, the article’s heavy reliance on Liu’s work without secondary sources violates WP:V and risks being original research (WP:NOR). Its technical depth, unmoored from independent context, suggests it’s more a summary of Liu’s publications than an encyclopedic entry reflecting widespread significance. Without proof of impact beyond its proponents, it doesn’t warrant a standalone page.

The main counter-argument to deletion is that Liu's book is published in Springer, and is currently in 4th edition. According to Google Scholar, the citation count is over 4000. However, such a high citation count should be accompanied by many more non-primary articles talking about the topic. It makes me think that these citations might be "fake", or from individuals connected to the author, which isn't unheard of in China, where academic fraud is especially prevalent.

Note that this was previously discussed in 2009, without consensus but with many people supporting deletion. Since then, a potential deletion was brought up by several other individuals in the talk page. 7804j (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. 7804j (talk) 17:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, we certainly can't base notability on Google Scholar citation counts alone. Those include anything that Google can scrape: non-peer-reviewed preprints, self-citations, papers in journals that don't actually provide a serious peer review, etc. The current state of the article makes a good case for WP:TNT even if notability could be established. XOR'easter (talk) 21:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jaydeep Sarangi

AfDs for this article:

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

questionable notability Soumyapatra13 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 17:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Bengal-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found only this[2] from an independent reliable source but nothing more to establish notability. Herinalian (talk) 19:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of mainstream pop performers

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

List with subjective and arbitrary inclusion criteria. "Mainstream pop" is not a genre in its own right per se, but just a term which positively or negatively (depending on your perspective) distinguishes pop musicians who have succeeded in becoming famous from pop musicians who haven't -- for instance, there's no major stylistic difference between the music of Adele (who is here) and the music of Emeli Sandé (who isn't), Adele has just had more big international hits than Emeli Sandé has had, so the distinction between them hinges on fame rather than genre differences. So essentially this is just an arbitrary list of pop musicians that the page creator has heard of, rather than a list of people operating within the context of a clearly defined "genre".
But if you restrict it to pop musicians who've achieved certain specific levels of fame, then it's based on invalid arbitrary inclusion criteria -- while without that restriction, anybody whose music fits into the parameters of "pop" at all could be added, making it indiscriminate. And the referencing here consists entirely of some (but not all) of the artists' AllMusic biographies, which genre-tag them as "pop" rather than "mainstream pop" and thus don't constitute support for a "mainstream pop vs. non-mainstream pop" distinction. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and Music. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Have to agree with Bearcat here. The word "mainstream" makes the inclusion criteria entirely subjective. But I'd even argue for deletion if the title was List of pop performers because the size of such a list would make it completely useless. Pichpich (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexey Zarov

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

Doesn't meet WP:NACADEMIC or general notability (perhaps on the basis of hospital administration); the references don't seem to be independent of the source or their employer. Scopus search shows only two publications. Created by a single purpose account. Klbrain (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Medicine, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madras Central (poem)

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

notability, promotional editing (paid?) Soumyapatra13 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 16:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Vijay Nambisan. Not independently notable. Created by a sockpuppet blocked for promotional editing. Jfire (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nesbit Bentley

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

This came up at WP:AWSE and I'm nominating it because I think it fails the WP:GNG criteria. There are ten similar cases at AWSE, all short stubs concerning Olympic competitors who did not win medals. I haven't used AFD until now, and I've decided to nominate only one initially, as advised in WP:BUNDLE. Depending on how this one goes, I may then nominate the other ten.

This was a one-line stub based on statistical information at Olympedia. I'm not sure if that should be regarded as a reliable source. I found some extra information, although it is purely routine stuff about family and profession, so I've managed to expand it a little, but the only other sailing information I've got is the name of his club. As Bentley did not win a medal at the 1956 Games, the article fails WP:NOLYMPICS, and the lack of significant coverage overall fails WP:SPORTSCRIT.

I should explain that, when I was reviewing the AWSE items earlier, I tagged numerous Olympic ones for notability and was going to leave it at that. I later realised that these eleven were created by a former editor who will not be able to take action, and so I decided to bring them to AFD.

I think the two sorting lists I've selected are okay. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do. Spartathenian (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Olympics. Spartathenian (talk) 16:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fiji-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Sailing at the 1956 Summer Olympics – Finn as an appropriate ATD. No sources found, except to verify the subject did participate in the 1956 games. Please do not bundle Olympians because they all can be redirected to the event the subjects participated in. --Enos733 (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bentley is already listed there so I agree with redirecting. Thanks for your advice about the bundle, Enos733. Redirecting them will be much easier. Spartathenian (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Coffin Maker

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

notability, promotional editing Soumyapatra13 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gopi Kottoor. Not independently notable. Created by a sockpuppet blocked for promotional editing. Jfire (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Digging...

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

notability concerns. promotional editing. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 15:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gopi Kottoor. Not independently notable. Created by a sockpuppet blocked for promotional editing. Jfire (talk) 16:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shampa Sinha

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

BLP- notability concerns; possibly promotional; see similar articles created by User:Sahasrara Soumyapatra13 (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, Poetry, and India. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 15:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Reliable source coverage is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. The single poetry prize is insufficient for WP:NAUTHOR, and Sinha is not notable as a doctor. I could only locate a very brief blurb about the Churchill Fellowship in The Mercury (ProQuest 2870165755). Jfire (talk) 16:44, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Games of the Discworld

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

Sadly, this is just WP:OR/WP:FANCRUFT that fails WP:GNG. A poorly sourced (to primary sources or fansites) plot summary of minor elements from the fictional universe that is not notable (and if we consider it as a list, it also fails WP:NLIST). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Literature, Games, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is WP:OR and doesn't have reliable independent coverage, failing WP:GNG. This could be redirected to or Discworld or Discworld (world) as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 17:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL on ABC results

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

Subject does not appear to meet the WP:NLIST criteria. Let'srun (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 15:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NLIST - No independent reliable sources on the topic. SimplyLouis27 (talk) 18:14, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This serves as a navigational list for the long List of Monday Night Football results (2020–present). Page views reflect that it is doing its job. Esolo5002 (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Patriot

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

Another fictional (comic) "exoskeleton"-cum-character that is is pure plot summary and list of apperances. My BEFORE shows some hits, but I what I see is pure plot summary - although I was hoping to find some discussion, as some similar 'dark/nationalist' heroes occasionally get academic writeups. Maybe someone will have better luck; if not, this should be redirected (or slightly merged) somewhere (probably to list of Marvel Universe characters, or maybe Features of the Marvel Universe, if folks feel this is more of a gadget than a character...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if any sources can be found or merge with List of Marvel Comics characters: I in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Spider

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

Fictional... exoskeleton? Really? Sigh. Well, it's probably just a badly written lead. Realistically, this is a fictional character (per WP:DUCK :P). Regardless, it seems like a niche comic book non-notable character; the article is the usual plot summary+list of appearances, with no reception/analysis. My BEFORE fails to find anything. Assuming we agree this is a character, it should be merged to list of Marvel Universe characters; otherwise, probably to Features of the Marvel Universe (since we don't have Technology of the Marvel Universe article). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Farmer's Ghost

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

notability; doesn't warrant a seperate article. one of many promotional articles created by a blocked user. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect: to the author, or !merge if that's also acceptable. There is some critical notice of the poem, but not enough for a whole article. Oaktree b (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Summer (poem)

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

notability; doesn't warrant a seperate article. one of many promotional articles created by a blocked user. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, nothing is notable about this poem. References do not adequately support GNG. 2405:201:404B:A3:ACAB:9E06:2F5F:CACB (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calcutta If You Must Exile Me

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

notability; doesn't warrant a seperate article. one of many promotional articles created by a blocked user. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing significant, fails GNG. Herinalian (talk) 19:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hunger (poem)

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

notability; doesn't warrant a seperate article. one of many promotional articles created by a blocked user. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per GNG. Herinalian (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kali (poem)

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

dubious notability, article creator has created multiple such articles with identical wording. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 14:40, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly fails GNG. Herinalian (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NASCAR on ESPN broadcasters

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

Article could fail WP:NLIST, and contexts in this article already exists in NASCAR on ESPN#Announcers. MysticCipher87(alt-account) (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Television, and Motorsport. Zeibgeist (talk) 20:14, 19 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NASCAR on ESPN#Announcers: that seems like a valid-enough alternative to deletion in this case (and oddly enough, the section actually has more material than the separate page does). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptex

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

This is another OR/fancrufty mess, with just three footnotes - a YouTube video, a patent and a fancrufty book companion. BEFORE shows some mentions, but in various contexts, including some plot summaries and possibly some real-world products inspired by this. There may be something notable here (14 interwikis; although the pl wiki article I checked is just pure plot summary...), but what we have is just a mess (OR, V, GNG issues) in need of WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Science fiction and fantasy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion reactor

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

This is pure WP:OR, very poorly referenced, and mostly discussing real science. BEFORE shows this term is used - for real science. What we have here, however, is a mess (mostly unreferenced science essay following a brief introduction that talks about SF...). WP:TNT is needed, IF this is even a notable concept. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR, basically an editor's essay, lightly touching down on the science here and there. Best we start over, but Wikipedia has plenty of coverage on the underlying topic already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:15, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this is WP:OR and we already have better articles on similar topics. If someone wants to recommend a redirect, I'd support it as an WP:ATD. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:53, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and WP:NOT. Herinalian (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murderworld (comics)

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

Fictional location. Pure plot summary and list of appearances; no WP:GNG visible in the article (no reception/analysis), nothing in my BEFORE. At best, WP:ATD-R suggests we can redirect this to Features of Marvel Universe or such. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, and Comics and animation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sunday Airlines

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

Per WP:GNG and WP:NORG – From what I've been able to find, none of the sources contained any significant coverage of the airline itself and only contained more or less passing/trivial mentions of the airline. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, Aviation, Transportation, and Kazakhstan. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SCAT Airlines. Djflem (talk) 14:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Googling "авиакомпания sunday" did seem to produce some results about the subject in google(+news), mostly with .kz or .ru domains. I'm quite unfamiliar with the media landscape of those two countries. Someone who speaks Kazakh and/or Russian would be helpful here to parse out if any of the sources meet WP:SIRS. Zzz plant (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lower rusocician

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

Not a single search result for "Lower Rusocician", "Dolno Rusocicki" or "Delnjo Ruzōciki" on Google or Google Scholar. At best a non-notable local dialect, at worst a complete hoax. Contested draftification. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Poland. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 13:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No content found on any search engine. No source and failing WP:GNG. Deletion is the only option. Sackiii (talk) 13:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i don't think think thats necesary but i mean like you can delete it but its spoken there are no sources because its not recognized by the people and others. Yihanbai98 (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

or maybe the person who made it meant an non-notable local dialect Yihanbai98 (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, just curious, how did you find this AfD on your very first edit? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ohh my friend told me to go here Zdyhan (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oke please delete this already i don't need it on wikipedia Zdyhan (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In a case where this is not deleted (i.e. merged, kept, redirected). Someone kindly do a WP:HISTMERGE with Draft:Lower rusocician as an editor just cut and paste the article. Also, No opinion Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 14:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a WP:HOAX. I am concerned that the new editor who created this is mostly edit warring adding weird niche "local" names to article, and now this. On his talk page they say they are doing this for fun b/c they don't know what else to do on Wikipedia. WP:NOTHERE is a concern. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Punarnava (poem)

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

Non notable, possibly promotional Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no notability with the poem or the author. I can’t see any significant coverage either. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 13:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect: to Rajlukshmee Debee Bhattacharya, the author, if that article is not deleted. This article is definitely super promotional, but I can find mentions of it in a few places [3], [4]. Doesn't seem to be sigcov, but worth a mention at the poet's article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:56, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GNG. Herinalian (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajlukshmee Debee Bhattacharya

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

Apart from the cited links, I couldn't find much info on the web supporting notability. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Women, and Literature. Soumyapatra13 (talk) 12:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Her name is often given just as Rajlukshmee Debee (same birth year established here). It looks like she got an obituary in Indian Literature. On the one hand that is kinda brief and by a friend (Debjani Chatterjee), but on the other it was published in a significant journal. here she is described as "a major voice in Indian poetry and women's writing". There's a dearth of coverage but some indications of significance. Will keep looking. This and this maybe have some review content? It looks like The Touch Me Not Girl got a couple of reviews ([5], [6]). I also imagine there might be more coverage in Bengali. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bengali version is a translation of the English article. She has some mentions but not enough to establish notability. Herinalian (talk) 20:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interstitial

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

This is not a valid disambiguation page. "Interstitial" is an adjective with many applications, and WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Every entry on this list is a WP:Partial title match. Disambiguation pages are not lists of articles whose titles contain a particular word, and an (incomplete) list is not better than Search. Delete also all incoming orphan redirects: Intersitials, Interstital, Interstitials, Interstitially, Interstition, Interstitions, Interstitial (disambiguation). PROD removed by @Mast303: with no edit summary. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While it is true that this word has many uses, this article is not a definition. It merely contains one. It simply lists the meanings in case someone searches for "interstitial". Mast303 (talk) 18:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Evolution-Data Optimized network equipment suppliers

AfDs for this article:

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

Now I'm no computer whiz, but this seems an awful lot like a directory. I fail to see the encyclopedic benefit to a list of companies from which you can acquire specific networking technology. Kylemahar902 (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, Computing, and Lists. Kylemahar902 (talk) 11:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lokenath Brahmachari

AfDs for this article:

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

Still not convinced this article meets WP:GNG since last deletion. BangJan1999 02:01, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Philosophy, Hinduism, and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a lack of reliable sources offering significant coverage, not sure what has changed since last AfD. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marissa Kurtimah

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

Nominated by 99.142.64.153 (talk · contribs) for the following reason:

I feel she should be deleted because I couldn't find any sources that mention her competing in any Olympic events and she doesn't seem to have any coverage from local events either. I don't think this article should exist just because she was nominated for an Olympic team.

This is a procedural nomination; I am neutral. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I added several sources that cover high school and collegiate track accomplishments, some of which I added to the article. Nnev66 (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sport of athletics, Sierra Leone, and Canada. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her accomplishments do not appear to satisfy WP:NTRACK, and a couple of short newspaper articles are little more than announcements from her hometown paper[7] or university-related,[8][9] so WP:GNG isn't satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Had no career on the international level, therefore only local coverage. Geschichte (talk) 11:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Per Tilastopaja the subject was nominated for the Canadian 2016 Olympic team and competed at the 2015 World University Games advancing to the semi-finals and finals, so the statement that she "had no career on the international level" simply isn't correct. Subject was also the 2016 Bajan national champion over 100m so she fulfills WP:TRACK prong 1 and prong 4, it's incorrect to say that she doesn't satisfy NTRACK.

Now getting to the actual coverage, above article from the Springfield News-Leader can't be dismissed outright because it's a "local paper" -- that still qualifies as "independent" per the WP:GNG definition, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent.

I've found several other high quality GNG-contributing sources, for example:

"Guleph sprinter proves she belongs with Canada's best". Waterloo Region Record. 16 Jul 2016. p. 1. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
"Olympic potential seen by teacher". Waterloo Region Record. 16 Jul 2016. p. 2. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
"Missouri State track star will run for Canada". The Springfield News-Leader. 12 Jul 2016. p. D1. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
"Kurtimah finishes 13th in 100-meter dash at World University Games". The Springfield News-Leader. 10 Jul 2015. p. D4. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
"Royal City showdown fizzles". Guelph Mercury. 11 Jun 2012. p. B1. Retrieved 16 February 2025.
"Triple threat off to blistering start". Guelph Mercury. 1 Jun 2013. p. 13. Retrieved 16 February 2025.

The next step is to improve the article using these sources, which I think I can take on in the coming days. But the case for deletion isn't backed up by P&G with the newly found sources. --Habst (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Being nominated" counts for nothing in a career, and the World University Games is not an international meet - it's an international age-specific (and profession-specific, really) meet. "Strong keep" is ridiculous and you still mix in routine coverage with other coverage. Geschichte (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The coverage uncovered by Habst isn't the most impressive, but it appears to have enough combined independent coverage about the subject to meet WP:NBASIC. Let'srun (talk) 04:05, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is enough here for the article to be kept. The article isn’t brilliant but there is enough coverage. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 11:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewaj Chettri

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

Article about a non-notable businessperson that doesnt meet WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. News sources are regular WP:PROMO. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and India. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Honestly, I think there’s just about enough notability for it to be kept. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ScrabbleTiles, can you elaborate on "just about enough notability"? How did you come to this conclusion? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He has coverage in Forbes and has won an award there. I think that is enough for him to have an article. ScrabbleTiles (talk) 12:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A Forbes under 30 list does not exactly mean the subject is Notable. Jamiebuba (talk) 13:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a lot here to establish notability. There are also multiple third party sources that talks about the subject of this article: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15] [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. All of these cannot be called WP:PROMO. The sources cited (e.g., EastMojo, Northeast Now, Humans of Northeast, etc.) are independent media outlets that have covered Rewaj Chettri without direct affiliation to him. Several of these articles have named authors, indicating that they were written by professional journalists rather than by PR agents or the subject himself. EastMojo and Northeast Now are widely recognized trustworthy media organizations in Northeast India that report on business, politics, and social issues. The subject has been featured in Forbes India 30 Under 30, which is an independent and prestigious recognition. You do not get into a Forbes list via PR agents. Also since the articles discuss Chettri’s entrepreneurial journey, challenges, and impact rather than just his company’s products/services, they contribute to an encyclopedic understanding rather than mere promotion. There are also multiple non english articles about him: [21], [22]. There are also research articles that talks about him: [23], [24], [25] Flyingphoenixchips (talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Nepal and Sikkim. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:47, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin Records (Ireland)

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

Article about a record label that does not show WP:SIGCOV or provide In-depth coverage on the subject. Sources are just WP:PASSINGMENTIONS. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jamiebuba (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or at least draftify, as an alternative to AfD. Very premature nomination - the article was literally created today and is still a stub, and will no doubt be expanded. A brief WP:BEFORE gave me these additional references: The Irishness of Irish Music, Mary Black's autobiogrpahy; coverage of stores closing made national media: coverage of iconic store closing, and here; interview with an MD; — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bastun (talk • contribs) 04:53, February 23, 2025 (UTC)

Delete: While those sources are technically enough to meet WP:GNG, I don't think it could feasibly be enough to merit an article. A few problems with the sources provided are:

The coverage provided in The Journal, I feel, isn't significant enough to reasonably aid the article itself on it; unless I see it implemented significantly in the article myself, I doubt its usefulness.
From what I'm seeing, there is only a single sentence in the Irish Examiner, which falls under WP:PASSINGMENTION.
Interviews are WP:PRIMARY and is by the music director (MD), and non-independent, failing both "independent" and "secondary".

I also looked at the sources in the article, and the majority of them fail the source guideline at WP:GNG one way or another. I should note that I haven't myself done a WP:BEFORE search. Concluding, even if it does meet the notability guideline, it only meets it barely, and I believe we should use common sense and delete the article anyway, without regard for the deletion policy. It simply isn't notable. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 21:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley built-up area

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing mostly to Nomis/ONS, with a few additional. The book source appears not to use the term. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to repeat what I said at length about original research machine-generated statistical areas and false conurbations at the two prior AFD discussions, but what I said there holds here as well.
Indeed, reading the 1966 source by Freeman, which couldn't possibly support an ONS invention from 2011, reveals that indeed it doesn't support a "built up area" at all, or even a conurbation. It talks, in fact, of the "weaving area" towns of Lancashire, also called the "cotton mill towns", and more formally the Lancashire cotton industry, which a redirect to a couple of sentences really does not do justice to, given the existence of entire books just on that subject (e.g. Mary B. Rose's History since 1700 and stuff by Sydney John Chapman) and articles like JSTOR 2589825, JSTOR 621119, and JSTOR 1810346.
This article has no bearing on improving Lancashire cotton industry and its "weaving" or "cotton mill" towns into a break-out sub-article, however. This subject has not escaped the confines of its creator in what is now 12 years. Delete.
Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- How are they false conurbations? I weakly support deletion but this is definitely a conurbation by definition of the word. Its just not notable enough for an article. The 1966 source (conurbations of Great Britain) has a whole section on the Burnley conurbation on page 240. Amongst other things it says: "Along the road and canal through Brierfield to Nelson and Barrowford there is continuous town". I'm unsure what you mean about the Weaving area? That book clearly says that the weaving area includes four conurbations: Blackburn, Burnley, Accrington and Rossendale and then goes into detail on all four. Eopsid (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - How can you be mis-reading the book this badly? Freeman has the words "The 'weaving area' Towns" in italics right there in front of you, and then goes on to list towns. Burnley is called a "town" in the very first sentence below that heading, and several times further on on that very same page; a town "in what is commonly called the 'weaving area' of Lancashire". We have an article on the town of Burnley: Burnley. If you had looked in the index, you'd have found Burnley also on page 222, where it is called a "cotton town".
    This is false sourcing by an article creator that often just string-matches highly inappropriate sources, in this case a source that pre-dates the ONS creating these statistical polygons with a computer by 45 years. (That's not the worst of it. Another article from this creator had a 19th century report of a cricket match being used to support a 21st century false suburb, when — just as here — we already had an existing article on the cricket club by almost but not quite the same title. And the "suburb" is actually a park, the remnants of a 19th century manor house and grounds, which encompasses the cricket club.) The stuff about the canal isn't about a group of settlements in the source, as this article has it; it is specifically about "the valley to the north of Burnley". We already have an article on the River Calder, whose valley it is, too; and that article already even has mention of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal that Freeman mentions crosses the valley.
    If you'd then tried to find out what Freeman meant by "weaving area towns", you would have almost immediately turned up sources such as Manchester and its Region (roughly contemporary with the Freeman source, at 1962 and published by MUP) which has the "Weaving area" followed by the "Spinning area", both groups of towns (it saying the word "towns" 5 times in one paragraph) that include for the weaving area "The three larger towns of Blackburn, Accrington, and Burnley". The larger context of what it is discussing for these "area"s is the textiles industry, i.e. the Lancashire cotton industry. It's what Rex Pope is talking about in xyr 2000 book Unemployment and the Lancashire Weaving Area: 1920-1938.
    There are loads of books and articles on the economic/industrial history and geography of the Lancashire cotton industry, many explaining what the towns in Lancashire's "weaving area" are, and it is not good to prefer to merge falsely sourced bad content trying to prop up a statistical polygon than actually address a proper topic, especially when a mis-used source explaining a group of "fifteen town units in what is commonly called the 'weaving area' of Lancashire" is staring us all in the face.
    Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry but I dont think I'm misreading it. Its a book called conurbations of Great Britain and has a section on a conurbation it calls Burnley. It also calls Burnley a town but that doesnt mean there isnt also a conurbation centred on Burnley. The source even gives seperate population figures for the town of Burnley (80,600) and the group of towns (i.e. the conurbation) centred on it (156,000). Eopsid (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is the misunderstanding here that we are using different definitions for the term conurbation? Eopsid (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. You are simply substituting the book title for the book content. Always read beyond the title. Freeman starts on p. 222 by discussing the town of Burnley, an industrial area, and after going through several other types of towns, gets back to the town of Burnley on p.240 as one of the "'weaving area' Towns" that is a part of the Lancashire cotton industry. We have an article on the town of Burnley. It is Burnley. That population figure is for a "group of towns" that are "in the Calder valley". We have an article on the River Calder whose valley it is, too, that even has a "Settlements" section. Neither the Calder valley nor what Freeman discusses is "centred on Burnley". Not only is that clearly wrong from looking at a map, but Freeman even says that this group of towns is "along the road and canal", i.e. that it is the road and canal that are the centres, for obvious reasons given the industry, not the town. Uncle G (talk) 11:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Are we reading the same book? It first discusses Burnley on page 222 yes as an example of an older industrial area. But its discussing these areas under a chapter it calls "The smaller conurbations and towns" and states that older industrial areas are one of the "types" of these conurbations. It discusses Burnley again under a section it calls Minor Conurbations of the North. Where it goes into detail on which towns form part of the conurbation describing the area as having "continuous town" i.e. a conurbation between parts of it. Eopsid (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ - I think this should be merged with the Burnley article Eopsid (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It is badly sourced inaccurate content, not even correctly representing what the Freeman source says, for starters, that should not be re-used. As explained above, we already have the town, the valley, the canal and others in their proper articles; and this content isn't accurate or on point for the Lancashire cotton industry, because it's just throwing misrepresented factoids together as synthesis for a statistical polygon. Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was created by someone who did not understand the subject. Now it will be deleted by people who do not understand the subject. Classic Wikipedia! @Uncle G: Adding more bullshit to try to coverup the limitations of your understanding is hardly helpful. "Built-up area", "urban area", "Metropolitan area and "conurbation" all practically mean the same thing. The idea that these where invented for the 2011 census is ludicrous.TiB chat 18:11, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- TiB - the personal attacks on other editors, here and in the edit summary, get us nowhere. What would assist is if you could provide some R/S that use the term. KJP1 (talk) 18:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Which term? Which is the point I made. Not that it matters. This is already a done deal. There is no point saving this article and deleting all the others. Also, I attacked the content not the person who wrote it.TiB chat 19:50, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - “Someone who did not understand the subject” / “people who do not understand the subject” / “the limitations of your understanding” / “bullshit” / “wtf”. But still no R/S to suggest. Ah well. KJP1 (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      - I stand by every statement. I am in a bad mood today and on another I might chosen to be less robust, but if people are offended by the truth that is their problem. As I already said, there is no point wasting more time with extra research. I already found a fantastic source for all these articles (Freeman) and shared it at WT:UKGEO four years ago. Not only did nobody do anything about it then, it is now being severely misrepresented here. I don't have the time to fix all these articles and I doubt almost anyone will care if they go. I'm just howling at the moon.TiB chat 22:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- It is rather absurd to point to 3 different encyclopaedia articles to make the argument that they mean the same thing. The reality is that you didn't find a fantastic source for a concept that came along 45 years later than the source did. You found an impossible one. Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting in case Trappedinburnley wants to bring new RS into the discussion. Sorry for your frustration, AFDs can have that effect, but, please, civility even in the midst of heated disagreements.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support keeping if more sources can be found. Searching google books and news for things like Burnley / Nelson conurbation does come up with stuff. But it’s mostly just passing mentions when discussing other things. I was hoping to find some discussion in local papers or their websites about potential merging of Burnley and Pendle districts, thinking that would have some discussion on the conurbation. I'm sure I've read something like that before, but I couldnt find it. Eopsid (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This, based on the 2021 census, no longer even seems to define BBuA as it was defined in 2011, and as it is described in our article (see map on p3). If we were to merge to Burnley, we could perhaps describe it as a short-lived census area? KJP1 (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- They've renamed and redefined the concept in each census, 2001 it was urban area, 2011 was built-up area and then now built-up conglomerations (which are made up of built up areas). And they havent even released the built-up conglomeration data yet. See ONS talking about it The renaming makes finding sources harder. Eopsid (talk) 17:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - And as shown below, there was a nonce "M.A." made up in 1951 by an urban research unit at the University of California, Berkeley. (It's still there, although the name has changed slightly.) The amusing thing is that they even went to some effort to explain that this wasn't the same as any other concept or nomenclature, including the U.S. federal "Standard Metropolitan Area". Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've spent about three hours searching for some independent RS that would improve the notability situation, and while I've learnt stuff, I've found also rather limited success. Added to the evolving terminology, the older terms have become vague. I've found references to the town of Burnley as a conurbation and also much discussion of the urban areas within it. Even tracking down the relevant census data for the 1961 - 1991 period has thus far proved impossible. One potentially useful source I found is METROPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT IN THE UNITED KINGDOM (1962) by Leo F. Schnore. I also found English Conurbations in the 1951 Census by E W Gilbert. It doesn't mention Burnley but it neatly explains the early history of the study on a national level. If this article does not survive, perhaps along with Freeman, it could be used to expand urban area and/or List of urban areas in the United Kingdom?TiB chat 19:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you read Schnore all of the way through, you find that there's no Burnley conurbation in it. It's a County Borough ("Burnley CB") in a different nonce never-took-off "BURNLEY-NELSON" from another census analysis, which had "Metropolitan Area" as its nonce term. I'm apparently the only one reading these sources. Because surely anyone who read Schnore would also spot Schnore bringing in that Leeds and Liverpool Canal again, just like Freeman. Schnore even goes to pains to point out that the nonce "M.A." is not a conurbation. So much for the "they mean the same thing" argument. And Schnore even lists the conurbations, six of them, which doesn't include Burnley.
    What a lot of time expended on synthesizing together a whole succession of nonce census inventions that never take hold and never last beyond the next census! There's a whole lot of geography that is not nonce census statistical polygons that these sources are practically waving in the faces of the nonce census polygon hunters. Lancashire cotton industry and its "weaving" and "spinning" areas, Leeds and Liverpool Canal, Burnley, River Calder.
    Uncle G (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thankyou for reading all of Schnore, but did you read Gilbert? I used the words "neatly explains" for a reason. Although it is not fundamentally relevant to this article I will give a brief synopsis of the subject. As the Industrial Revolution massively accelerated the growth of urbanisation, people realised that this was the engine of similarly accelerated economic growth. Governments and academics thought that it was an important field of research. Census data would obviously be important, but it was tabulated according to local government districts and in many places once neighbouring villages had grown into conglomerations that although effectively a "continuous town" were still being administered by sperate government districts. So on both sides of the Atlantic the researchers got out the maps and processed the data using marginally differing mythology. The 1951 UK census was the first to include data on the very largest conurbations. After Freeman's work, the 1961 census was expanded to add many more (including Burnley-Nelson). This continued until (I believe) 1991. By then (along with a total local government reorganisation in 1974), a new computerised system lead to alterations in the methodology and a new name adopted. The rest has been explained by Eopsid [26] Although the differing methodologies mean that the data is not perfectly comparable, they are IMO sufficiently similar to justify inclusion in the same article, given sufficient explanation. I apologise if I have misunderstood your level of experience with this subject, but if not, I hope this sheds new light on the sources.

I did not create this article and when I became aware of it I was immediately concerned about the title and the lack of appropriate sources. So I spent just enough time on it to IMO cross the notability threshold and alert other interested users to the modifications I felt could rescue the other articles. And I satisfied myself that "built-up area" was (although least used) in fact, the most current. I note that other (better) urban area articles have thus far survived the cull (perhaps you guys are working in reverse quality order?), maybe the third most populous urban area in Lancashire doesn't make the cut, but at least (on that day) I tried to fix it rather than denigrating the efforts of others.TiB chat 17:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom as this article is duplicative and not really discussed in secondary sources. SportingFlyer T·C 03:25, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Very happy with that suggestion. It's the route followed with other BUAs, where there wasn't a consensus to delete. KJP1 (talk) 17:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a small conurbation yes, but it has been described in sources going as far back as 1961. More recent sources have described the same area but under slightly different names and with slightly different definitions. Eopsid (talk) 18:25, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this discussion is absorbing a deal of valuable editor time. And it looks to me that the Keep and Delete positions are so firmly held that a compromise of Merge/Redirect is unlikely to find favour. In those circumstances, would it be simpler if I withdrew the nomination, and we maintained the status quo ante bellum? KJP1 (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AE Industrial Partners

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Merge with history to Belcan. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Do not merge - better to delete. I converted this article from a redirect to a stub article on seeing that AE had bought Israeli spyware company Paragon Solutions (currently redlinked, but in my opinion notable, they attracted notice by successfully attacking users of WhatsApp on behalf of state actors; spyware in my opinion is nasty) and that the company name redirected to Belcan, one of several companies that they had owned but no longer do. I was accused (totally falsely) of possible COI; see the discussion on my Talk page for my very detailed response about this article. If the consensus is that the article is not notable, I have no particular objection to it being deleted, though I think a $6b corporation that sells spyware is notable if not admirable; but it shouldn't redirect to Belcan, which AE does not own. It's just a stub at the moment, and can certainly be expanded and improved. If it is to be a redirect, it should redirect to Paragon Solutions, currently redlinked but notable,, not Belcan. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I read the Keep vote above three times and I still don't understand the point it's trying to make. We make judgments about notability based on sourcing. There are no carveouts based on arbitrary, magically made-up criteria like whether they sell spyware or bring in billions of dollars for shareholders. If you disagree, go read WP: GNG and WP: CORPDEPTH. I also don't think Belcan is an appropriate merge target. AE Industrial Partners sold their stake in that business to Cognizant last year. All the sourcing I could find is plainly routine coverage; it's not enough to establish a standalone article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following my weak "keep" above, an article has just come out explaining my concerns about this company and its purchase of Paragon. Whether this is deemed good reason for its inclusion in a work of reference like Wikipedia is up for debate, but it's certainly becoming increasingly noteworthy. Kirchgaessner, Stephanie (10 February 2025). "Revelations of Israeli spyware abuse raise fears over possible use by Trump". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article only mentions AE Industrial Partners once: "The person also pointed out that Paragon was now a US-owned company, following its takeover by AE Industrial Partners.". This is a trivial mention and plainly does not rise to the standard of significant coverage necessary. Do not insert any more sources into this discussion until you've read and fully understood WP: SIGCOV. Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It is a passing mention used in a single sentence, trivial zero information on the company. It is a complete fail of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I'm sure there is something else going on here. scope_creep^Talk 05:53, 11 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!} 19:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete did not find significant coverage to establish NCORP/CORPDEPTH Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neoauthoritarianism (China)

AfDs for this article:

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

The article should be deleted because it is essentially an extension of Conservatism in China article and does not warrant a separate entry. Neoauthoritarianism is referring to the conservative ideology within the PRC, making it more appropriate as a section within the broader article rather than a standalone page.

Merging the content into the Conservatism in China article will provide a more organized discussion of conservative thought in China without unnecessary fragmentation. Guotaian (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Conservatism in China and Neoauthoritarianism (China) are different; pro-ROC, Falun Gong, other conservatives. And 'neo-conservatism' and 'neo-authoritarianism' are not synonymous. ProKMT (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This !vote, along with a lot of the article, is incoherent. The article makes no mention of the ROC or the Falun Gong. It also does not matter whether neoconservatism and neoauthoritarianism are different. What matters is whether neoauthoritarianism is a notable concept and, if so, whether a standalone article is warranted (WP:PAGEDECIDE). Toadspike [Talk] 10:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism, Politics, and China. Shellwood (talk) 10:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should be keeped, there are difference between Conservatism in China and Neoauthoritarianism. Neoauthoritarianism doesn't only has a cultural aspect but also a economical which is for Market socialism. 77.183.214.120 (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is not the first time that this article was nominated for deletion. It was nominated because it violated Wikipedia core content policies. The article should be merged into Conservatism in China rather than existing as a standalone entry because, after the removal of WP:SYNTH, there is not enough substantive content left to justify a separate article. The original version was heavily reliant on a single 2008 source and conflated Neoauthoritarianism with Neoconservatism, an issue that has now been largely corrected but at the cost of significant content reduction. What remains is a narrow discussion of the ideology, primarily tied to a few individuals rather than a well-developed political movement. Given this, it makes more sense for Neoauthoritarianism and Neoconservatism to be treated as a subtopic within Conservatism in China, where it can be properly contextualized alongside related ideological currents. This would prevent undue weight being given to an underdeveloped topic and that Neoauthoritarianism contributes to a more comprehensive analysis of conservatism in Chinese politics. Hello top 1123 (talk) 01:01, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete this article? Why not delete the article on conservativism in China?

Damien.Otis.x (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to 'Merge' with a Conservatism in Greater China article rather than delete a Neoauthoritarianism (China) article? It's about switching to Redirect. ProKMT (talk) 12:52, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to delete the article, but public opinion seems to support it. So I'm working on merging existing Neoauthoritarianism (China) article into Conservatism in Greater China#Neoauthoritarianism article. ProKMT (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@ProKMT why is there Conservatism in Greater China at all? This seems like a clear POV fork of Conservatism in China. Simonm223 (talk) 13:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK I've created a deletion discussion for Conservatism in Greater China. As it directly pertains to this AfD I'm including a link here. Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a little misleading. I moved the title from "Conservatism in China" to "Conservatism in Greater China" in order to avoid editorial disputes with Guotaian and to compromise. So, that legacy should never be deleted, and if there's a problem, it should go back to "Conservatism in China". ProKMT (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep / Merge I was thr one who nominated this article the first time and I am also the one who stripped out the extensive WP:SYNTH. Neoauthoritarianism is a real historical ideology but it is largely an historical remnant at this point and should not be conflated with neoconservatism, Xi Jinping Thought or other successor ideologies. It is a notable ideology, and if the consensus is that the more narrow article doesn't merit a full article I would strongly encourage merging it into the core conservatism in China article, whatever that ends up named. This might allow us to better histtoricize this ideology without resorting to synth. Merging is my preference, but if others don't believe a merge appropriate I would keep the article rather than deleting it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nufan

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

Per refs given, fails WP:N and WP:NORG. No in-depth independent coverage of this org. Related: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AFC Crewe (2nd nomination). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Football, and United Kingdom. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT - AFC Crewe has been deleted twice at AFD, this is clearly an attempt to bypass that - I'd also consider blocking the creator for disruption. GiantSnowman 13:51, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I’ll delete my own account if you can evidence any signs of my disruption.
  I’ll reiterate what I said in a different discussion on the Nufan page; my creation of the nufan article was simply to prove that some admins have much higher influence over others and the nufan article being edited and accepted by the community until I referenced you guys into it does to at least a small extent prove this.
  Regardless of your opinion of me or of AFC Crewe the organisation Nufan has had significant coverage. Irrelevant of what the football elite admins deem significant, two bbc cites, a German TV interview and the article in The Manc newspaper is more than enough for an organisation to be deemed notable.
  So I suppose we will see how much influence a very few number of people have over the largest ‘community ran encyclopaedia’ In our history over the coming days.
  Regards Iblethebible (talk) 17:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Manc [27] mentions Nufan in one sentence, compare that with WP:GNG. The BBC radio refs mentions Nufan very little if at all, and consists of people connected to AFC Crewe talking about it. Such sources can have some WP:ABOUTSELF use, but they don't help the case for WP:N. I hope you'll be able to make an AFC Crewe article stick at some point, as I understand it they've done quite well, but this is not the way to go about it. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 22:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The irony is almost tangible when I read a single-purpose account, putting this subject into a number of pages, saying how everyone else apart from that 1 person writing the single purpose all over Wikipedia is "a very few number of people" influencing Wikipedia. I'll take Gråbergs Gråa Sång's word for the BBC sources, since they aren't written sources. Checking out what The Manc is, it turns out to be a "social media publisher", which tallies with the source proffered being a bunch of Twitter posts. Other The Manc "news" turns out to be recitations of Twitter posts, too. So this is Twitter, Project:Reliable sources/Perennial sources#Twitter, regurgitated. The idea that if something is said on Twitter it must be true, does not make a source reliable. The best that I could find was something that was called the Nantwich News; but that turned out to state that it was a web log. I'd like to say that it could be considered reliable, but its offer of free press passes to whomever rocks up rather militated against the idea that its authors are skilled at fact checking. Uncle G (talk) 06:34, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw, the BBC refs are about 3 min each. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That’s three minutes of British Broadcasting Corporation coverage * 2. One of the most respected and notable news groups in the world. Iblethebible (talk) 21:46, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But not about Nufan, correct? Fwiw, I mentioned length to indicate it won't take much effort to listen to them. 6 min is enough time to say a lot of interesting stuff. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thankyou my mistake. Nufan is mentioned as the parent company of the club as is the structure etc. Iblethebible (talk) 12:43, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And of course the club its structure and nufan were spoken about in depth on the largest sports television channel in Germany: Pro Sieben. Iblethebible (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have made many edits on other pages and I'm trying to be a good contributor but sometimes it's hard when it feels like there is a lot of pushback. I have made edits on pages I can and I have created pages based on what I know about. I am really trying not to be a single purpose account. Iblethebible (talk) 12:44, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Cochran (Survivor contestant)

AfDs for this article:

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

Reading the prior nomination on him, the "keep" votes were based on (presumed notability of) other existing Survivor winners (until recent years of AFD noms on certain winners).

This discussion isn't about the article quality. Rather it's about this person's general notability and any other sort of (applicable) notability thereof. He might or might not, but most of the sources used significantly covered him as the winner of Survivor: Caramoan, especially one EW article of winners list and a university's article about alumni and a CBS magazine article.

A recap article by EW details his cameo appearance in Survivor: Game Changers, but then that's just a recap article, despite the magazine being highly reputable. (BTW, the author of the article has expressed his opinions in other articles.)

I'm kinda cautious about using an ABA Journal article to verify his notability. The source was probably promoting his then-upcoming interview, which is a primary source, one of which to never use to verify this person's notability per GNG. (Will describe some other sources soon.)

I don't wanna argue with others back and forth similar to the other AFD discussion. Nonetheless, I fear similar arguments made in that discussion would be inevitable.

As said in that discussion, if WP:BLP1E isn't applicable to you, then how about WP:BIO1E instead, WP:NBASIC, WP:PAGEDECIDE, and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL? Furthermore, WP:BLP should also apply. Indeed, I'm not confident (yet) about his notability for his Survivor: South Pacific gameplay and its compliance with the BLP policy itself.

Sure, his roles in Survivor have been significant, but his amount of major roles IMO hasn't come close to meeting WP:NACTOR. Well, he's been a post-Survivor television writer, but whether he meets WP:NAUTHOR isn't the main issue. Rather WP:NBASIC and WP:BIOSPECIAL should supersede his (non-)compliance with WP:NAUTHOR. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Academic journals, and Washington, D.C.. George Ho (talk) 08:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to find reliable sources verifying his (general) notability, but I can't use this questionnaire answered by the article subject himself. Entertainment Now cites IMDB, which is an unreliable (user-generated) source. I'm uncertain whether to use this profile page either. I can say the same about this source, which is citing (if not reporting) the same EW questionnaire that I wouldn't use.

Almost forgot: The page should be redirect to his winning season, Survivor: Caramoan. George Ho (talk) 08:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per my messages below — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 15:28, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thowing every magic word in a attepmt to get pages you demonstrate a WP:IDONTLIKE is counter productive Wwew345t (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wwew345t, this discussion is not about George Ho, but about the article. Feel free to take your concerns to his talk page, but following him around AfD is not productive. I'll also note your comment on this talk page. win8x (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

apologies i missread the reporting system I thought I had to bring my concerns ti the page I feel the problems are occurring Wwew345t (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless my vote is still KEEP as there are secondary sources proving notability Wwew345t (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

where should I put my concerns? Wwew345t (talk) 15:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also voted keep based on WP:NACTOR there are plenty secondary sources that establish his notability the primary sources are there to complement the artcile furthmore he doesnt meet all 3 critiera for BLP1E Wwew345t (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://patch.com/virginia/oakton/is-this-the-end-for-cochran https://www.nydailynews.com/2011/11/24/survivor-season-23-recap-coachs-scheming-side-shines-through-keith-and-whitney-couple-up-cochran-is- seasons-worst-storyteller/ https://www.masslive.com/television/2011/11/survivor_cochran_kicks_a_littl.html all of these are secondary sources covering his south Pacific appearance clearly demonstrating notability for more then one Survivor appearance also the notion that "it's a reliable source but the author has opinions" is redundant the debate is to establish sig cov in relablie secondary sources which the sources do just because the author has opinions (which is kinda the point when your covering entertainment articles lol) doesn't make a reliable source unreliable Wwew345t (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Patch article was an opinion piece by an ordinary citizen (who is a Patch member). The NY Daily News article is a recap of an episode. So is the one by The Republican (MassLive). Recaps are (summarization of) primary sources, which are discounted by GNG~~, so I gotta treat those recaps as such~~. I'm unsure how and why you reply too much and argue with me and others back and forth. George Ho (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC); edited, 00:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Secondary sources by definition get their info from a primary source hence where they are called secondary sources the fact thats its a summarization of a primary sources makes it a secondary source Wwew345t (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a primariy source unless its an interview of someone with first hand knowledge of the event in question a receap of what happned in a tv show doesnt qualfiy as that Wwew345t (talk) 20:25, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading this page and that page about what a secondary source is, well.... CBS recaps episodes... Actually, used to, but I consider CBS somewhat a primary source. (Trying to find other sources explicitly categorizing recaps as either primary or secondary sources.) George Ho (talk) 00:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

according to wikipedias definition of secondary sources stuff that is made after the fact with hindsight are considered secondary sources and the recaps are covering the events of episodes that had happened a couple days prior so by a very loose definition I believe they are secondary especially since no one is actually interviewed in said re caps Wwew345t (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Itd be a lot easier to determine if they listed who wrote the recap unfortunately they dont so it could be anyone that works for cbs regardless of wether or not they had anything to do with Survivor Wwew345t (talk) 00:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's "a very loose definition" in the sense that "made of strawberries" is a very loose definition of a motor vehicle. CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 00:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well sure you could make a case for the CBS pages being primarys but there are still the EW sources Wwew345t (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:23, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Redirect per nom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 21:24, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominaters stance is to redercit the article not delete it Wwew345t (talk) 22:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I don't mind the article being deleted, but redirection is my preferred stance. George Ho (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect so specific strikes me as a bit pointless, so i felt a delete would be more appropriate. Allan Nonymous (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, other certain articles about Survivor winners have been redirected per multiple AFD discussions. Well, two other articles were technically deleted from the public eye per AFD. I'm not trying to push you into changing your mind/stance about redirecting. Nonetheless, I wonder whether you can think further about pros and cons on deleting and on redirecting (and other methods seen in WP:ATD).

(Technical) deletion would result in deleting all revisions of the page. On the other hand, redirecting is... still redirecting, but it preserves historical data of pages. Plus, it helps readers realize why the page would no longer be in the current article status and decide what to do about the (redirect) page. Furthermore, redirecting is more of a compromise between keeping and deleting, especially when the AFD result is enforced. George Ho (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says:
People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject.
- If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability.
Sources
1. Andreeva, Nellie (2015-12-11). "CBS Developing Comedy From 'Survivor' Winner John Cochran & Greg Garcia". Deadline Hollywood. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "John Cochran’s dream Hollywood run continues. After winning Survivor: Caramoan, he landed a comedy writer job on the CBS series The Millers. And now the 28-year-old Harvard Law graduate is getting a shot at creating his own show with the help of his mentor, The Millers creator Greg Garcia. ... Cochran co-executive produces with Amigos de Garcia’s Alix Jaffe. ... Cochran had been a huge Survivor fan since the reality series’ first season. He handed out Survivor newsletters during high school, wore a Survivor-style buff on his arm and at Harvard Law, he won the Dean’s Scholar Prize for writing an essay about the Survivor jury system as compared to the one employed by American courts."
2. Otterson, Joe (2017-11-29). "CBS Developing Multi-Cam Legal Comedy From 'Survivor' Winner and Dr. Phil's Stage 29 Productions (Exclusive)". Variety. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "CBS is developing a multi-cam legal sitcom that hails from “Survivor” winner John Cochran and former “Modern Family” writer Dan O’Shannon, Variety has learned exclusively. ... Cochran appeared on the 23rd season of “Survivor,” finishing in 8th place. He returned for the 26th season, winning the season and the $1 million prize. Following a post-show interview with host Jeff Probst, Cochran revealed his desire to be a comedy writer. He was subsequently contacted by Greg Garcia who offered him a job on the writing staff for the CBS series “The Millers.” Cochran also developed “Bob’s Your Uncle,” a comedy pilot for CBS and CBS Studios with Garcia executive producing. He has also written for the CBS comedy “Kevin Can Wait.”"
3. Nordyke, Kimberly (2013-05-23). "'Survivor: Caramoan' Winner John Cochran Lands CBS Writing Gig". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "Survivor champion John Cochran has followed through on his pledge to become a writer in a big way. ... Cochran, who studied law at Harvard, first revealed his plans to forgo becoming a lawyer and instead pursue writing during Survivor’s live reunion show, which aired May 12."
4. Ross, Dalton (2021-02-02). "Survivor Quarantine Questionnaire: John Cochran explains why he will not play again". Entertainment Weekly. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "John Cochran did not stand a chance in hell of winning Survivor: Caramoan, and I told him exactly that right before the game began. After all, who in their right mind would want to align with the guy after he betrayed his entire alliance by refusing to go to rocks in the recently aired Survivor: South Pacific, ensuring not only their destruction but his own. So, naturally, after being told there was no point in even going out and playing, not only did Cochran go and win Caramoan, but he did so in epic fashion—completing a perfect game with zero votes cast against him all season while also receiving every single jury vote for the win."
5. Jackman, Tom (2013). "Oakton's John Cochran wins 'Survivor' show, and $1 million". The Washington Post. ProQuest 1353218261.
  The article notes: "In Oakton, John Cochran was watching from the start, as a 13-year-old in 2000, and he calls himself a show superfan. Now, he is a part of Survivor history. Cochran, 26, won the 26th season of the show (there are two per year) in a live ceremony announcing the winner in Los Angeles last week. The episodes were filmed last year on Caramoan in the Philippines, where Cochran had to eat nasty things and do all the other physical and mental torture tests required of the contestants. He collects $1 million for his troubles. Cochran also competed in season 24 in 2011 but did not win."
6. Wong, Tony (2013-08-16). "Survivor winner John Cochran goes from Harvard to Hollywood". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2025-02-16. Retrieved 2025-02-16.
  The article notes: "It’s not hard to pick Harvard law graduate John Cochran out of this Louboutin-heeled crowd. He has played the role of fish out of water all his life. On Survivor, he used that to spectacular effect, winning a million dollars in May in a script seemingly lifted from Revenge of the Nerds. ... Some people may be surprised to learn that the ultimate outsider is now part of the Hollywood dream factory, closer to cool kid status as a writer on The Millers, a new CBS sitcom ... But Cochran proved to the world that the most important muscle is the brain. (Naturally, he won the Dean’s Scholar prize at Harvard for his essay on the quirks of Survivor’s jury system.)"
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow John Cochran to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Sources #1 and #2 seem to be more about (promoting and verifying notability of) the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself, IMO, despite those article happiness.~~ (Per Cunard's reply below and WP:SIGCOV. George Ho (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2025 (UTC))[reply]

Source #3 significantly covers him as the Caramoan winner. I admire your quoting the excerpt about his educational life, but the source mentions it like a summarization of his cover letter or something like that and mentions post-Survivor writing career like a mere resume in prose.

I already explained why I discounted source #4 as a primary source, didn't I?

Source #5 still does the same thing as source #3. Source #6 doesn't convince me why his Harvard background (and essays)... or his career writing for short-lived series and a Star Trek animated series is worth visualizing and teaching readers about him. Rather it still verifies his notability as a Survivor winner. George Ho (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sources being more about "the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself", Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources each provide significant coverage about John Cochran. The 2015 article in Deadline Hollywood and the 2017 article in Variety are in reputable publications. They are not promotional sources. They are independent reliable sources. The third source provides significant biographical coverage about him in The Hollywood Reporter, another reputable source. The fourth source contains non-interview content so is not merely a primary source. The author provides commentary and analysis about what the subject did on the show. The fifth and sixth sources provide further biographical background about the subject.

The sources were published in 2013, 2015, 2017, and 2021 and cover both his appearances on Survivor: South Pacific and Survivor: Caramoan and his writing career on other shows like The Millers and Kevin Can Wait. There is enough sustained coverage about the subject to establish notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria and to demonstrate that the subject does not fall under WP:BLP1E and WP:BIO1E. WP:BLP1E says "Reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." The sources show that Cochran is not being covered only in the context of a single event. Cunard (talk) 23:17, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, those publications are highly reputable. Well, I'm trying to find a policy or guideline that can help me refute your argument about reliability of sources being sufficient, but no such luck yet.

Regarding the sources being more about "the then-upcoming sitcom than about the person himself", Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." These sources each provide significant coverage about John Cochran. Struck my comments about sources #1 and #2. Still, I dunno whether they verify his notability as a writer as much as his post-Survivor activities themselves, IMO. But I'm not gonna argue further about those sources.

The fourth source contains non-interview content so is not merely a primary source. The author provides commentary and analysis about what the subject did on the show. Well, every questionnaire that Dalton Ross wrote does, but that even non-notable contestants were given similar questionnaires, like Gabon winner (AFD) and Island of the Idols winner (AFD).

The fifth and sixth sources provide further biographical background about the subject. Not all articles, if not "not everything", should be included/preserved in the project, ya know? To put this another way, even so, I can't help wonder whether his pre-Survivor background should suffice to verify his notability. Even non-notable contestants have their own backgrounds.

Oh crap, I'm not supposed to compare too much, am I? George Ho (talk) 07:55, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first two sources about his writing career and the extensive coverage in reliable sources about John Cochran's appearances on Survivor are enough for him to meet Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria. Regarding "every questionnaire that Dalton Ross wrote does, but that even non-notable contestants were given similar questionnaires", that does not exclude the source from contributing to Cochran's notability under Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Basic criteria, which says "multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". The Entertainment Weekly is an independent reputable source and Dalton Ross is a reputable journalist. His analysis and commentary about John Cochran contribute to demonstrating notability. Dalton Ross's coverage about the other contestants gets those contestants closer to passing the notability guideline but may not be enough to establish notability if there are not other sources that show those contestants do not fall under WP:BLP1E. Cunard (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am convinced by Cunard's arguments and by the sources identified. Thanks. Therefore I would suggest to Keep this. -Mushy Yank. 15:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:11, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per significant coverage in sources provided, definitely meets GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plandora

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

Fails WP:NSOFT; no independent, significant coverage could be found. This article was originally about a non-notable project management application, but it appears to have been recently hijacked by a different software application also named "Plandora". Neither application meets WP:NSOFT so it should just be deleted. dePRODed in 2011 by the article's creator. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Travel and tourism, Software, and Singapore. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:29, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I wasn't able to find SIGCOV for either of the pieces of software. The original subject has some passing mentions, mostly in older sources comparing different open source project management tools, but I wasn't able to find anything approaching SIGCOV. The new subject (the travel software) appears to be very clearly non-notable. MCE89 (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to keep and revert to this diff. Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The lead of the first version of the article said:
Plandora is an open source tool to manage the software development process. It can be useful for teams that have problems with resource bottle-necks, parallel projects, workers in several projects at the same time, critical deadlines and project documentation demands.
As the nominator noted, the article was "recently hijacked by a different software application also named 'Plandora'". The lead of the hijacked version of the article says:
Plandora is a web-based travel planning application that transforms social media content into personalized travel itineraries. Developed by TBA.LABS PTE.LTD., Plandora streamlines travel planning by allowing users to capture inspiration from Instagram and TikTok, automatically extract key details, and generate editable, visually engaging itineraries.
I was unable to find significant coverage for either of the software applications. Both do not meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to keep and revert to this diff per the significant coverage found by HyperAccelerated below. Thank you for finding those sources! Cunard (talk) 08:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Given how much software gets discussed in books, which in fairness far too many editors overlook when it comes to computing topics, it was a very bad sign when a books search immediately leapt to an 18th century work by Johann Christoph Beer (1638–1712). I concur with the above. No in depth sources for either one to be found. The older piece of software, whose creator was coincidentally the same name as the Alberto.pereto (talk · contribs) who wrote the original article, showed promise, but the supposed academic coverage in Brazil turned out to be a list of merely namechecked pieces of software given as examples of tools. Uncle G (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and revert to this diff. I don't think the travel application is notable, but the project management software has been the subject of several studies: see here, here, and here. It's not a lot, but I do believe that collectively this establishes that this meets WP: GNG, albeit barely. I think we should revert procedurally, because we can disambiguate pages rather than hijack them, but since this AfD is open, I do worry that reverting now might confuse other people who want to participate in this AfD. HyperAccelerated (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources aren't really studying Plandora, they're using it as a testcase for the actual tools they're studying. I can't extract any significant coverage from these sources that can be used in the article. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It still counts as WP: SIGCOV. The threshold is "more than a trivial mention". These papers give software quality metrics about the code of Plandora, which is more than a trivial mention. You might find the content of these sources uninteresting, but the question we're here to discuss is whether significant coverage exists, and IMO the answer is clearly yes. Thanks. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperAccelerated Significant coverage should address the topic directly and in detail. These sources only indirectly cover Plandora, since the coverage focuses on evaluation of their experimental tools rather than evaluation of Plandora. In the first two sources, the coverage of Plandora is nothing more than raw data, which is definitely not significant. The third source contains more mentions, but it still isn't coverage of Plandora itself, it's coverage of whether the authors' SQL translation mechanism works on an example database. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The use of these experimental tools produce metrics about Plandora. That is significant coverage, because these metrics give detail beyond a trivial mention. The papers are primarily about new tools, but significant coverage does not necessitate that the subject be the main topic. I also disagree that any of these papers even present "raw data"; that argument might apply if the papers consisted of large copy-pastes of Plandora source code. What is happening is that the authors are describing their methodology in detail and then describing the application of that method to analyze Plandora's codebase. It does not matter whether that analysis is automated or manual -- the presence of this analysis alone establishes significant coverage. In any case, thanks for reading the sources, but I don't think we're going to reach agreement on this. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your perspective, even though we disagree. Thanks for the discussion! Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:00, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 07:59, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Ahnaf

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

WP:BLP of an actor and model, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actors or models. As always, actors and models are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific markers of achievement supported by reliable source coverage -- but the attempted notability claim here is staked entirely on supporting or bit parts in films that don't even have Wikipedia articles about the films, and the article is sourced entirely to short blurbs and public relations fluff rather than substantive WP:GNG-worthy coverage.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Malaysia. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Significant roles (including various lead roles) in series and films (that have a Wikipedia page in Indonesian/Malay) and received coverage in those languages and, to a lesser extent, in English. The page needs expansion

The productions include: Syurga Itu Bukan Mudah (2023); Kahar: Kapla High Council (2024); Scammer Geng Marhaban (2023); Gamers Mangkuk (2023).) Coverage in English includes: https://sea.ign.com/entertainment/208982/news/explores-the-lives-of-amateur-esports-players-in-new-comedy-series-gamers-mangkuk ;https://www.cinema.com.my/articles/news_details.aspx?search=2025.n_kaharheadtoastrofirst_68231 https://thesun.my/style-life/prequel-that-stands-on-its-own-HG13375222 https://thesun.my/style-life/fight-back-to-school-EL10826442

A lot of interviews have introductions that allow to verify the roles and their significance (as well as the notability of the productions). https://www.nst.com.my/lifestyle/groove/2024/10/1124348/showbiz-thats-not-my-photo-why-am-i-being-blamed-–-amir-ahnaf for example or "people/fashion" coverage allowing the same, such as https://www.mens-folio.com/style/boys-will-be-boys-smir-ahnaf-aedy-ashraf-sky-iskandar-superdry/ https://hype.my/2023/324380/actor-amir-ahnaf-on-his-darkest-moment-feeling-empty-after-projek-high-council-success/

A lot more exists in English and in other languages. -Mushy Yank. 00:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 00:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Fashion, and Indonesia. -Mushy Yank. 00:21, 9 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!} 19:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

George DiCaprio

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

WP:NOTINHERITED, George here is only known in connection with his famous son Leonardo DiCaprio. His "acting debut" is a very small few second cameo, his work as a writer/artist (not really clear) fails WP:ARTIST and his work as a filmmaker fails WP:FILMMAKER, getting a small stint editing on local newspapers does not make you notable. Source 5 in the article shows he's worked on... three comics? Don't know if it's even reliable as a source but clearly not noteworthy in itself. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Artists, and Authors. jolielover♥talk 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — Note expanded bibliography, which establishes DiCaprio as an active editor and writer in the underground movement in the 1970s (extending into the early 1980s). -- User:Mikeross22 (talk) 19:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He stills fails WP:AUTHOR, as none of his work in the bibliography is notable. jolielover♥talk 03:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. The entire underground comix movement was designed to change people's perceptions of what stories were "worth" telling in the comics format, so many products of that era fail a mainstream definition of "notablity". Nonetheless, the material produced during that era changed the comics industry forever, heralding the alternative comics movement and the rise of the graphic novel. That history has been well established. DiCaprio's role during that time as a writer, publisher, editor, and distributor is also well-established. Not to mention that he collaborated with such "notable" artists as Justin Green and Jay Kinney, and contributed to anthologies such as Arcade and Slow Death. -- User:Mikeross22 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yours is an admirably expressive and nuanced opinion. However, our own take matters very little as far as a person's notability is concerned. Sources rule-The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:GNG and is not saved by WP:ARTIST. Wikipedia is not a collection of random articles nor a directory of artists. And the fact that the text has been created by a kamikaze account does not exactly help. -The Gnome (talk) 20:07, 5 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!} 17:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because there are at least three good sources. However, there are several sources that need to be removed and the article tagged as needing better sources, if it is kept. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about the sources, obviously Leonardo DiCaprio's dad is going to have a plethora of articles about him no matter what he did. The issue is that he has no notability outside of being Leo's father. jolielover♥talk 05:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft Keep I agree with the above needs better sources and some expanding. I say keep for now and maybe re-nominate in the future if its not expanded on much better sources found. ContentEditman (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article's had 15 years to work on jolielover♥talk 10:30, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, you need to have notability on your own, not from your son. Fails on the not inheritied grounds. Iljhgtn (talk) 16:37, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: His work in underground comix is notable, not his relationship to his son. I added some more verified sources on that part of his life, from the likes of The Comics Journal and published books on the movement -- User:Mikeross22 (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Delete or keep?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - while the subject's notability is questionable, he has SIGCOV from WP:RS. Herinalian (talk) 20:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heptagonal tiling honeycomb

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

Subject is a random hyper-compact tessellation. Nothing to establish notability. Of the sources in the article the only one that mentions this particular hyperbolic tessellation is the Nelson & Segerman preprint, which uses it as an example.

I could not find any coverage on this particular tessellation in specific anywhere (Google scholar and JSTOR come up with zero results, TWL has nothing useful). I really suspect the title for this article is WP:NEO which does confound the search a little bit.

It would be shocking if this was notable, since the article fails to provide anything other than a generic description. Pretty much everything here could be said about any hyper-compact hyperbolic tessellation, with only the specific numbers changed. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 03:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There are many polytope articles we could do without, such as truncations (and cantellations and runcinations ...) of polytopes of dimension 5 and higher. —Tamfang (talk) 06:57, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I unfortunately do not have the time to devote to a campaign of sorting through these and determining which are supported by the given sources, salvaging what can be salvaged, and nominating what cannot. I just take a look at one page every so often. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nor do I expect anyone to. —Tamfang (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's a little more to go on than with most polytope/tessellation cruft. I'd consider {7,3,3} Honeycomb and {7,3,3} Honeycomb Meets Plane at Infinity to be reliable sources; they're written by John C. Baez and hosted by the American Mathematical Society. Two items by the same author generally count for less when evaluating wiki-notability, however, than two items by different authors. So far, I haven't found enough to warrant a whole page on the {7,3,3} honeycomb, but there's a decent case for mentioning it in a related article and redirecting there. XOR'easter (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum Pursuit Vehicle

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

While this has a short receptions section, it is made of a few WP:SIGCOV mentions in passing, listicles, and even some passing commentary from a minor YouTuber. this fails WP:GNG. At best, this can be redirected, per WP:ATD-R, to Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very surprised if this didn't have enough sources for an article; this is almost certainly extremely well documented from 1960s and 1970s sources alone. I haven't looked too far yet but the very first result is something that isn't even in the article yet, a 2001 Billboard piece reporting Vince Clarke and Martyn Ware naming their album this. Second result (ISBN 9781785306396) is about Dinky dedicating an entire plant to just this one toy. Third result is Bentley's book, already liberally used in the article. Fourth result is an Amberly book that has the SPV, not even used in the article (ISBN 9781445648736). Given the designer, almost certainly ISBN 9781932563825, again not even used in the article, is probably worth a look. The next result is ISBN 9780563534815, already used by the article. And so on. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @Uncle G Note that subsequent comments suggest lack of SIGCOV. Did you see anything that you consider meeting SIGCOV in the sources you checked? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't have copies of Bentley's books, but the fact that the article at hand at the time of nomination cites pages 21 and 53 of the 2001 one and pages 81, 163–164, and 196–197 of the 2017 one indicates that it isn't just mentioning the subject in passing. The Amberley book gives the toy form just under a page of prose followed by another half page of captioned pictures. The August 2006 PC Magazine cited in the article is indeed that whole page and directly about the relevant computer kit. I don't have a copy of the Fryer book ISBN 9781781555040 which calls it a "Spectrum SPV", which is RAS syndrome.
    One telling source is the Haynes Manual Captain Scarlet Spectrum Agents' Manual already cited at the time of nomination which treats the subject in detail and with the taking-non-cars-seriously approach of the the Haynes series according to every blurb and review that I can find. One describes that book as having "fully annotated cutaway drawings of Spectrum vehicles", and that seems to agree with the article at hand citing 6 pages of it, which some copyright violators on Pinterest hint to be several 2-page spreads with prose.
    The reason that I suspect there to be many contemporary sources, difficult to find in the (ahem!) 21 century, is that in my own second-hand book collection there is a 1967 Captain Scarlet Annual, which has a 2-page annotated spread on pages 50–51, although with no production information; and that didn't turn up in any catalogue search that I did.
    Uncle G (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I am dubious about there being WP:SIGCOV as opposed to a lot of trivial mentions, and the same is true of all the vehicles in this series. Merging them all to a list of vehicles might be apt if they are talked about as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Coverage isn't much more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons: I agree with nom that the sources are trivial, but I definitely think it could be salvaged. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since nomination, the over-long "appearances" section has been removed and the rest of the content expanded. I have most of the cited books. Significant coverage was already present from the Boxtree book, the Anderson biography and 21st Century Visions, which together discuss the more unusual design aspects (e.g. the reversed seating) across several pages. Hardly trivial or passing mentions. The topic is also significant commercially, with a large number of toys and models through the decades, which have been discussed directly and in detail by multiple print sources (from Meccano Magazine in the '60s, to the Burman book linked by User:Uncle G, to the recent reviews in Diecast Collector). Sources are clear that this was one of the all-time best-selling diecasts, at least in the UK, and certainly Dinky's most successful product. Additionally, there is demonstrable cultural impact from the Scott coverage, which was picked up by Motorsport Network and Boing Boing (and with ~ 8 million subscribers / 2 billion views, is Scott really a "minor" YouTuber?) – plus the LaCie coverage, Andrew English in The Daily Telegraph and some pretty deep stuff from Mark Bould, a published academic. When all these elements are taken together, the topic passes the GNG. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 02:35, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SuperMarioMan I do appreciate you working on this, but hmmm. You say "Significant coverage was already present from the Boxtree book", but the description I see of that book (I am unable to locate it for browsing - if you have a link, please share) suggests it is a plot summary; and indeed in our article it only cited for in-universe info (stats - speed, engine, etc.). By "the Anderson biography" I assume you mean The Authorised Biography of Gerry Anderson? We use it for a few quotations from the show creator about it; sadly, I cannot find that book to browse online either. I am concerned it fails the independent requirement - the show creator (effectively, the vehicle creator) talks about it, for what I assume are a few paragraphs in his biography - but who else does so at length? Ditto for 21st Century Visions, as it is a book by the other designer of this vehicle ("The SPV was designed by special effects director Derek Meddings based on a brief description given in the Andersons' original script for the first episode" - as our article says). I am concerned that this is borderline not enough. I'll ping User:Daranios and User:TompaDompa who have good track of reviewing such content and sources and who may be able to say more (and I'll note that Uncle G already pinged by you found some other sources that may or may not be relevant). This might be saved, but looking at the article's reception, I still fear we are just cobbling together mentions in passing from here and there. That has not been enough to save fiction-themed articles in the past (having said all of that, I certainly see there's a lot of useful content here for merging somewhere...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:39, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The exact contents of the Boxtree book escape me, but I do know that it goes into the minutiae of the vehicle. The Anderson biography is not just Anderson's comments; author Hearn talks about the commercialisation and toy design process (that part is not yet in the toys section). The toys section already cites non-trivial (several paragraphs to full page length) write-ups in print media. The reception section includes the vehicle inspiring a YT experiment (which other media then commented on); the vehicle providing the lead-in to a national newspaper preview of a real-life vehicle; and multi-page discussion from an academic, relating to the design aspects discussed further up the article. To consider all of this only "passing" coverage relies on a very broad definition of the term. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 16:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Please review additions provided since the article's nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the referenced article content and the sources found by SuperMarioMan. This might not be the most well-covered subject, but what we have in my view is enough to fullfill WP:ALLPLOT, WP:WHYN and therefore WP:GNG. And it's enough in volume that this seems better as a separate article as opposed to a section in Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons with regard to WP:PAGEDECIDE; the latter would still be clearly preferable to deletion, as we just do have encyclopedic content, most notable in the Bould source. Daranios (talk) 16:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Sophisticatedevening. I do not find that there is significant real world (non plot summary) coverage for a full article. But what we do have could be placed somewhere via WP:PRESERVE. Archrogue (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quipu (cosmic structure)

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

Standard example of WP:TOOSOON. Proposed cosmology structure based upon a single article which was accepted for publication in January 2025 (a week or two ago), plus a writeup in a popular science magazine (Smithsonian Magazine) a few days ago. No secondary sources, work is far too new to have been analyzed by the wider community. Article was draftified, pointing out that Wikipedia is not for recent proposals or neologisms, only for established science with secondary sources etc. Editor ignored draftification and moved back to main without any attempt to explain or generate a consensus. Wikipedia is a trailing indicator, not a leading indicator. Pages such as this belong on Facebook or similar until there is a body of secondary sources, not Wikipedia. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Astronomy. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Yep, that's prime WP:TOOSOON territory. Wait for some secondary literature to pick up the term, then try to write an article about it. Sheesh, the sole source hasn't even been formally published yet. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per above. An alternative would be a redirect to List of largest cosmic structures, where it is linked. Praemonitus (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, please note that the original editor reverted a Draftification, so I am not sure if that will be useful. A redirect looks like a good alternative. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AfD frequently functions as the "draftification enforcement board" - if that is the consensus and it is not heeded, then there is the base for an admin to act accordingly. - Redirect would be okay IMO. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are already a host of secondary sources and news outlets about this structure, and there has been some media mentions that qualifies criteria 3 of WP:NASTCRIT. Keep in mind that WP:TOOSOON is a personal essay, not a general guideline like WP:NASTCRIT, so I am not sure it can be solely used to justify deletion. The article should be expanded and have a cleanup instead to comply with the quality standards. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emmett Stone

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

Fails WP:GNG. The only independent source which addresses the film in a scholarly way is the Murray OUP source which frankly is not significant under the criteria at WP:NFSOURCES. There's no critical commentary, and it consists only of a credits list and a brief one sentence plot summary. It describes the film as a "Tele film" but gives no named network or broadcast date. I searched TROVE database of Australian newspapers, magazines, and journals at the National Library of Australia and found only primary documents covering production costs as it appears the film was made through a government grant for developing young film makers (the production company Australian Film Theatre appears to have been a short lived government sponsored company that made only three works in 1985 before disappearing). I can find no evidence that this film was ever actually aired on television. It's very possible that it was never seen as there are no reviews in media archives or in google news, google scholar, jstor, ebscoe, proquest, etc, and no sources naming when it aired or on what network. The only thing I can find is credit listings that the film was made and went through a post production period. Best.4meter4 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:06, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yaroslav Tulyakov

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Russia. Joeykai (talk) 04:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Filipp Sirik

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Russia. Joeykai (talk) 04:57, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mikhail Davletov

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Russia. Joeykai (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexei Berestnev

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Russia. Joeykai (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evgeni Nikiforov

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Russia. Joeykai (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoli Ryabov (hockey player)

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Russia. Joeykai (talk) 04:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Markus Haverinen

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Finland. Joeykai (talk) 04:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Juha Suomaa

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Finland. Joeykai (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Asklöf

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Sweden. Joeykai (talk) 04:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not sure where you searched, but seems to meet GNG. Coverage of breakthrough [28] [29], career in 2019 [30] [31]/[32], career-threatening surgery [33] [34] and comeback albeit on a lower level [35]. I only went through the first three pages of search hits. Geschichte (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugo Leufvenius

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Sweden. Joeykai (talk) 04:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Not as good SNG-wise, but seems to meet GNG with sustained coverage: [36] [37] [38] [] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] Geschichte (talk) 17:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Henrik Tönjum

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

fails WP:GNG; I did some searching and was not able to find significant coverage in any reliable source Joeykai (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, Norway, and Sweden. Joeykai (talk) 04:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable subject; I am unable to find any significant coverage, or anything other than mentions in listings or statistics. No references with significant coverage appear to exist for this subject. —Sparkle and Fade (talk • contributions) 10:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Spacesuits in fiction

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

This is unfortunately, but not unusually, another WP:ORish random list of works featuring spacesuits, with some ORish prose analysis to boot. Referencs are very poor - most examples are unreferenced; the few that are not just primary refs to fictional examples references are about a bigger concepts, like about history of spacesuits (not primarily about fiction); or about real spacewalks; the best source we have is a listicle about "18 space suits from science fiction" [46] (at least The Verge is generally RS, but I am afraid that's too little to save this). My BEFORE is not very helpful (there is a passing mention of the concept in MA here, but that's not SIGCOV and MAs have borderline reliability), although SFE has an entry for Spacesuit Films (but that's a related concept - not identical, however). FYI I also checked, without any hits for this topic, the following reference works: Encyclopedia Of Science Fiction by Don DAmmassa, Historical Dictionary of Science Fiction Literature, The Mammoth Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, Science fact and science fiction: an encyclopedia, and The Visual Encyclopedia of Science Fiction i The Greenwood Encyclopedia of Science Fiction and Fantasy. Pinging User:TompaDompa who has a great track rescuing such content - I'd love to be proven wrong, but so far, I am not seeing sources for that :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Spaceflight, and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:20, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an WP:OR essay. Wikipedia articles need to be based on what reliable independent sources have said about a topic, and not the observations of a few editors. I don't see WP:SIGCOV, but even if some is found, there would be nothing reliable to preserve from the original research here. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:48, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fancruft based on WP:OR. Shankargb (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Emilia Galotti

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

Delete per WP:No original research. While this is clearly a notable play, the current article lacks sourcing to contemporary/reliable materials which address the play directly and in detail. It is written like a personal essay and is rife with original analysis/synthesis. Only two sources are used, both of which are historical writings from the 18th century and are used in a way that engages with original analysis of those materials. While it's true that removing the OR and sourcing the article is feasible (it would pass WP:GNG), it would be best to Wikipedia:Delete the junk/WP:TNT in this case as it would require a complete rewrite to make it read with encyclopedic tone rather than an essay with original analysis. Sometimes it is best to start over. 4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't think this article is bad enough to merit TNT. Sure, it needs work, but I'm not convinced we are benefitted here by completely deleting the article and waiting for someone to re-write it. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:01, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think this is in WP:TNT territory. It does needs some work, so hopefully a German speaker takes interest in translating some of the content across from the corresponding article in German, but it's a long way from unsalvageable. MCE89 (talk) 10:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Just a note to those commenting, but the article has already been massively improved by Ssilvers (thank you!) who has worked to remove some of the worst material that was in the article at the time of nomination. This has certainly helped with addressing the tone/essay/OR problem.4meter4 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kristina Gurung

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

Role in just a single Notable film, the subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nepal. Taabii (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prem_Geet_3#Cast: and undo the redirect when the filmography includes more roles. -Mushy Yank. 22:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirect. And User:Mushy Yank, I don't understand what you are advising to do besides Redirection. You have to make things very simple and clear for closers.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. And later in time, if she has more roles, expand the page back into an article. -Mushy Yank. 10:41, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 03:43, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prem_Geet_3#Cast. I don't see evidence of other roles or coverage of her apart from this movie. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Not notable at present. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

National Social Norms Resource Center

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

A mere 3 google news hits. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Organizations, and United States of America. LibStar (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speaking of hits, Google Books has hits. Are we sure we can not get SIGCOV from here? I’m seeing atleast two in the first page. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 11:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the frequent citing by scholarly sources and the national scope of the organization it meets WP:NGO. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further thoughts on the linked potential sources?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 03:42, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Centum City

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

This article is very poorly written and has only one source. Most of the sections of the article are meaningless. There are no good sources on Centum City in English. Sgroey (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Korean counterpart of this article, ko:센텀시티, only has one source, too. This district may well be notable enough to warrant an article, but this is not the kind of article we're looking for. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and South Korea. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:00, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: need more significant coverages without this can't deserves standalone article. AgerJoy talk 09:14, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Really extensive coverage in the Korean language; google the Korean name and scroll around. This is a major development project in one of the most major districts of the second most important city in the country. Poorly written articles are not grounds for deletion. seefooddiet (talk) 11:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's that extensive, then cite three good sources. That should be easy for you to do, with this plenitude that you speak of. I got Instagram accounts, tripadvisor, restaurant opening hours, wikis, and advertisements. Uncle G (talk) 09:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Devlin

AfDs for this article:

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

I no longer believe that the disambiguation is necessary as only The Green Album (Skankin' Pickle album) mention Steve Devlin by name presently. BangJan1999 07:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. BangJan1999 07:03, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Steve Devlin of Skankin' Pickle is also named at Skafunkrastapunk and Skankin' Pickle Live. Steve Devlin is also the name of character in Stingers, played by John Brumpton, and a current defensive coordinator for the Ursinus Bears, named at List of current NCAA Division III football coaches. That said, none of these pages give detailed information about Steve Devlin, so I don't think they're overly helpful as DAB items. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, I think the crux of this AfD is how we interpret MOS:DABMENTION: If the topic does not have an article of its own, but is discussed within another article, then a link to that article may be included if it would provide value to the reader (emphasis mine). Thus, the question is whether the information provided at the articles mentioned is enough to provide value to the reader. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 09:09, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Wikipedia has very little to say about a subject, having a disambiguation page pointing to the relevant titles regarding that subject informs the reader that this is, in fact, everything that Wikipedia has to say about that subject. BD2412 T 22:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reading Railers

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

Defunct ABA team that fails WP:GNG, almost no sources are left besides some brief mentionings. Google only yields this Wikipedia page, and some brief articles by the Reading Eagle only about the team starting play or ceasing operations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ロドリゲス恭子 (talk • contribs) 21:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Basketball, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:33, 15 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 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - reliable sources already present in the article. The nom concedes other ghits from the Reading Eagle - a reliable source - which puts this over the GNG hump. schetm (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although The Reading Eagle is a reliable source, none of which are about the team itself, the article does not list any players or team records, it is just about the team's operation period. Not even Fandom or the stats websites have almost any of the Reading Railers players. ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant for satisfying the GNG. schetm (talk) 23:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could argue, the article could be revised, but it may remain a permastub since many of the sources have faded away. this article seems to be the only other article that goes in depth about the Railers

https://www.readingeagle.com/2008/03/06/enter-the-reading-railers/ ロドリゲス恭子 (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwaiiplayer (talk) 02:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proteans

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

This page about body language and flirting clearly fails to meet Wikipedia:Notability. It has had the notability hat note for 5 years, and in that time no one has disputed it in the talk page, nor substantially modified the page.

There are exactly two books on Google Books that mention it, one of them self-published in 2024 (and probably inspired by this article), and the other uses the term only 3 times. The word "proteans" is used in sociology books sometimes, often about racial identity, but I can't find any remotely legitimate source other than those 2 books to use it how this article does -- INCLUDING the article linked in its references, which does not include the string "proteans" at all, (and although that article uses the adjective "protean" in its discussion, it is far from the core point of the article. Regular internet users do not appear to use the word this way either, as a Google search for '"proteans" body language' returns almost no results. This article appears to effectively be disinformation, to be honest -- many websites appear to have copied this article to define the term.

There are only two books I can find that are relevant at all: Body Language by Glenn Wilson, 2016 (publisher: Icon Books). A self published book from 2024 (that might get the term from this article itself).

nhinchey (talk) 02:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Psychology and Sexuality and gender. nhinchey (talk) 02:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete: The second source cited in the article might be legit, and maybe the Wilson book (which I can't access...but if it only uses the term 3 times then maybe not). I think we need more than that to have an article. And if the 2024 book (self-published, possibly AI-written) is really based on the WP entry, then this is a textbook example of why we should not have thinly-sourced articles on every concept in existence; we are conjuring up reality, rather than summarizing it. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: GScholar brings up several mentions of the term, but nothing about what this article is about. Appears to be associated with proteins. Appears SYNTH Oaktree b (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kesse (musician)

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

I have Googled this artist thus confirming their existence. However, I couldn't find any reliable secondary sources that could be used to create a reasonably engaging encyclopaedia entry that doesn't contain hyperbolic language such as "he rose to fame"

The sources used in the page are all primary sources. Therefore, it would be impossible to cover this subject in an encyclopaedic tense without synthesis of the primary material.

Here's what I mean,

1. https://web.archive.org/web/20140903084109/http://omgghana.com/kesse-unleashes-the-ugly-truth-claiming-he-is-heading-to-the-bets-and-the-grammys/ - this is an interview and therefore primary. 2. https://www.modernghana.com/music/8861/3/.html - this is a report from a regional music competition and is therefore primary. 3. https://web.archive.org/web/20140823164509/http://www.myjoyonline.com/entertainment/2014/June-4th/i-am-getting-ready-to-marry-kesse.php - this is a press release and is therefore primary 4. https://archive.wikiwix.com/cache/index2.php?rev_t=20140527053606&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.vanguardngr.com%2Fphoto%2Fmtn-project-fame-season-three-2#federation=archive.wikiwix.com&tab=url this is a listings page and is therefore primary 5. https://www.modernghana.com/music/8861/3/.html this is a repeat source 6. This is a report from a time of an event and is therefore primary https://web.archive.org/web/20140904182407/http://www.modernghana.com/music/8861/3/.html 7. https://www.modernghana.com/music/17983/3/kesse-debuts-ugly-truth-album.html this is a routine press announcement about an upcoming album. Therefore, it is a primary source. 8. https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/135040-wizkid-wins-african-artiste-of-the-year-at-ghana-music-awards.html this is a primary source reporting on a competition that mentions the artist's name but it's not clear how it could translate into encyclopaedic content. 9. https://web.archive.org/web/20140314041448/http://www.ghanacelebrities.com/2012/04/15/full-list-of-winners-of-2012-vodafone-ghana-music-awards/ this is a list of award nominees that doesn't load. Again, this is a primary source and it's not clear how one could create engaging prose from it without significant synthesis. 10. https://web.archive.org/web/20140314041448/http://www.ghanacelebrities.com/2012/04/15/full-list-of-winners-of-2012-vodafone-ghana-music-awards/ this is a list of award winners which is great and all but how does one build an entire article completely from primary sources without significant synthesis.

Whether WP:MUSIC is present or not I just can't see how it's possible to create a suitably engaging article from these sources without synthesis of primary source material.

Can you see what I mean and do you understand why this is so important to me?

Can you see my point? 𝔓^420°𝔓^Holla 01:26, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, and Ghana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject passes criterion 8 and 9 of WP:MUSICBIO. He has won and been nominated for the Ghana Music Awards, which is a major award in Ghana. He has also participated in two notable music competitions: Project Fame West Africa and TV3 Mentor. The subject finished runner-up in the former and won the latter. I'm sure the nominator did not review the criterion outlined in WP:MUSICBIO before nominating the article for deletion. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 03:25, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Meets WP:GNG and slightly WP:MUSICBIO, I’m in support of what @User:Versace1608 noted about the nominator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gratefulking (talk • contribs) 06:35, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piyo Blocks

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

This article's subject seems to be non-notable. During my BEFORE search, I discovered that the majority of the sources I had found were about the second game, not the first. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TWOrantula^TM (enter the web) 00:46, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As stated, only the sequel appears notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:33, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taipa-Mangonui

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

This is a non-notable census tract. The actual places have their own article. BLAR was contested. One well sourced sentence is merged into Mangonui so the article would need to be redirected there for attribution if consensus is to not keep the article. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There were originally four separate settlements, but for the most part their history is shared. They have since become a near-continuous strip, which if it was a single settlement would be the fourth-largest town in the Far North District. I have merged information on marae to the individual settlements, and also the schools, although on reflection the schools actually might be more appropriate in this article as their enrollment comes from the wider area. I attempted to merge history after Traumnovelle's BLAR but that compromise was rejected.-Gadfium (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Gadfium. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I only see a couple sources which discuss these places as a group called Taipa-Mangonui, and they already have their own individual articles. The census tract is even named differently. Willing to be swayed if someone can show this micro-conurbation is discussed as a conurbation. SportingFlyer T·C 03:22, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:09, 23 February 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. There is a unanimous consent to delete here. No reason to prolong the discussion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battles of Ceraja and Sllatina

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

Nothing to state that this meets notability. Both references used aren't RS. ballikombetar.info is a website dedicated to the Balli Kombetar, a Nazi collaborationist movement during WWII and balkanacedmia.com seems to be a blog. Griboski (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Kosovo, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:54, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is most definitely not table. — Sadko (words are wind) 11:47, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like an AI-generated article created by a sock, also poorly sourced with two unreliable websites, and little notability Piccco (talk) 17:56, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete. non-notable. google search gives NO sources. brachy08 _{(chat here lol)} 01:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not Notable. Poorly sourced. Rubik's Cube 3x3 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The quality of article requires more high quality references. Additionally the body of the article lacks encyclopedic tone. If the author resubmits both the tone, quality of language and references will need to be improved. Additionally, could consider merging with another article to cover the topic--Trex32 (talk) 23:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The IC isn't a blocked sock, let alone that the page was created in violation of a block. However, it needs some additional work to revamp the whole article from scratch, as it's clearly generated by an LLM. Inarguably, TNT applies.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 00:04, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft