Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 28

< February 27	March 01 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Archduke Joseph Árpád of Austria

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

Subject does not meet GNG. 2 sources are genealogical entries and the other is an obituary. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, Austria, and Hungary. D1551D3N7 (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Classics

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

Similar to a recent AFD, I don't see any third-party, reliable sources showing that this program meets our general notability guideline. As such, recommend deleting. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Suicidal-Idol

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

Sources are almost entirely user-generated content, self-published, or non-independent. Few to no sources to establish independent notability of artist. Will include source analysis below. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Women. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source analysis:

User-generated content:

3: Fan-made video about Suicidal-Idol, also doesn't cite any sources

6, 8, 12, 25, 35: Genius links for someone named FabFantasy, two Suicidal-Idol songs, and tour dates

13: Songfacts page about her song "Ecstacy"

26: Setlist.fm page for user-uploaded concert setlists

Self-published:

21: YouTube vlog, seemingly posted by Suicidal-Idol about her own concert

9, 10, 40: Spotify links for Suicidal-Idol's songs

14: SoundCloud link for "Ecstacy" remix

16, 17, 18, 19, 24: Apple Music links for remixes of "Ecstacy" and her song "Tell Me That U Love Me"

Non-independent:

1, 4, 5, 7: Identical bios initially posted by her touring company and reproduced on several sites

22, 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34: Concert pages and flyers on venue/touring websites and on Instagram + no additional info on Suicidal-Idol

Primary source:

2: Bizapedia page about "Suicidal Idol LLC", formed in 2023

Passing mentions:

15: Daily Dot article about TikTok trend using "Ecstacy", only includes one sentence mentioning her (On July 17, 2023, SUICIDAL-IDOL shared their track, “ecstasy.” The lyrics include the now trendy phrase.)

20: College radio station's review of Snow Strippers concert where Suicidal-Idol also performed (SUICIDAL-IDOL, a project by dance/electronic musician Alupe Tolentino, started out strong with glitchy energy that seemed reminiscent of 100gecs. Their last song "ecstasy", an infamous TikTok audio, prompted Tolentino to hype up the formerly listless audience ("Time to get your phones out for this one!"). Even then, I could only see a third of the crowd following through.) benǝʇᴉɯ 20:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The other reliable sources I could find mentioning Suicidal-Idol are all mostly about her song "Ecstacy":

Billboard: SUICIDAL-IDOL's "Ecstasy" reaches a new peak, jumping into the top 10 for the first time at No. 3.

Switched on Pop: We don't really know who this person is. It's an artist who has used the name gore.x.shawty and Heartfelt and is currently going by Suicidal-Idol. They have a song called "Ecstacy" which was originally released in July of 2021 but just went viral on TikTok in 2023, especially with the slowed-down remix of the song.

Official Charts: Earning their first Top 40 entry today are Suicidal-Idol on their viral debut track Ecstasy (33) ...

Polygon: On Oct. 2, a humor account with the handle homestucklover398 shared a video where a young boyish voice sang a parody of the 2022 song "ecstacy" by Suicidal-Idol. The video and sound became an overnight hit on TikTok, where people reacted to the seemingly nonsensical lyrics of the song.

Looking at this now, it might make more sense to merge this into the page for "Ecstacy", but I'll wait to see what others think. benǝʇᴉɯ 20:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pyla Avinash

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

Non-notable cricket player, fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS on a WP:Before. DWF91 (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progress, Oregon

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

Completely uncited article. No sources could be found, and only one is cited (a weather website), thus no notability. Typically, neighborhoods are not notable on their own. Propose merging into other city pages. thetechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 19:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Oregon. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you want is McArthur & McArthur 1992, p. 692, Progress harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMcArthurMcArthur1992 (help), which traces post-office → crossroads → part of suburbia. Uncle G (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- McArthur, Lewis Ankeny; McArthur, Lewis L. (1992). McArthur, Lewis L. (ed.). Oregon Geographic Names (6th ed.). Oregon Historical Society Press. ISBN 9780875952369.

Boniface Benzinge

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

Subject does not meet GNG. Possibly WP:ONEEVENT, the event being his attempt to appoint a new "king" after the death of Kigeli V D1551D3N7 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Rwanda. D1551D3N7 (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gary R. McCarthy

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

WP:BLP of a mayor, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, mayors are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show evidence of passing WP:GNG on substantive coverage about them -- specific things they did, specific projects they spearheaded, specific effects their leadership had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But this basically just states that he exists, and is referenced almost entirely to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and purely run of the mill verification of his election results themselves, with no further substance or context provided beyond "mayor who exists".
As I'm not tremendously knowledgeable about Schenectady's local politics, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with more expertise in the subject can find enough sourcing to expand it -- but a mayor needs a lot more substance and sourcing than this to qualify for an article. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New York. Bearcat (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides the sourcing issues, there is a good case to be made for WP:TNT, and there may need to be clarification in the case that WP:SPA involved in its creation is connected to the subject. A cursory search for sources reveals little; if they are available, a draft might first be appropriate. GuardianH 19:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Their position occupied does not satisfy NPOL#1 and the sourcing does not meet NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find more than routine news coverage for this small town mayor who fails WP:POLITICIAN. Ultimately, it would be better to have a page such as "List of mayors of Schenectady" where such brief biographical details as exist could be collated for the benefit of readers, with individuals who do meet WP:POLITICIAN spun out into more detail articles. Valenciano (talk) 21:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Aliur Rahman

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

Page is promotional, subject does not meet WP:GNG. Uses SPS and dubious awards to try and establish notability. D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and England. D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chinook olives

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

The article relies on a single source which itself acknowledges that the existence of the practice is dubious. A preliminary Google search yields no sources, which leads me to believe that this isn't notable and may not even be real. Penguin314 (talk) 18:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and North America. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Merit of the Portuguese Royal House

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

Most of the sources are SPS, the "order" has little merit or notability D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Royalty and nobility, and Portugal. D1551D3N7 (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Qaseem Haider

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

Unreliable sources, WP:NEWSORGINDIA, and mentions. Anything that does seem promising is either non-bylined, a paid press piece, or unreliable source. CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Bands and musicians, and India. CNMall41 (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Literary work

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

This page is just a dictionary entry, and doesn't cover any ground not covered by Literature. It was created as a stub in 2005 and remained unexpanded for a year before being converted into a redirect. It stayed a redirect for almost 20 years before @Piotrus changed it back into a stub. Except for some category maintenance, it hasn't been expanded. It needs to go back to being a redirect. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka

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

The article fails WP:GNG and is full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH as none of the sources refers to any campaign name Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka which lasted for 1386–1621 in the sources, the title itself is fabricated. Also, Most part of the article is written using AI. see Mr.Hanes Talk 14:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Sri Lanka, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
the article was based on the all the expeditions sent by Vijayanagara Emperors to Enforce Tribute on Sri Lanka there isn't a single book covering all the campaigns of vijaynagara in Sri Lanka so I used multiple sources to cover all the expeditions in one single article. For example check out ummayud campaigns in India the sources didn't mention the campaign name also that doesn't mean the article was fabricated. Lion of Ariana (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there isn't a single book covering all the campaigns of vijaynagara in Sri Lanka so I used multiple sources to cover all the expeditions in one single article.– This is what we call WP:SYNTH, It is not allowed on wikipedia. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Using neural network language models on Wikipedia Check out this the notice board Lion of Ariana (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the topic is notable and well documented. See the New Cambridge History of India: Vijayanagara [1], also [2], [3], [4]. Herinalian (talk) 20:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All your sources mentions Vijayanagara Campaign against Bahmani Sultanate; while the article is about Vijayanagara Campaign against Sri Lanka. Consider withdrawing your keep vote. Mr.Hanes Talk 02:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Herinalian You should check the article and the sources you shared again. None of them are related to this article, All of the sources you shared mentions conflict between Vijaynagara and Bahmani sultanate. The article is about Vijaynagar campaigns in Sri Lanka. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:41, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete - The topic has significant coverage of Vijayanagara's campaigns in Sri Lanka and fulfills GNG, and this article should not be deleted because the sources do not mention the title. Different reliable sources describe various campaigns led by Vijayanagara—which does not violate WP:OR.Dam222 🌋 (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As per Koshuri Sultan, The article contains fictional timeline and no sources described about the event specifically Dam222 🌋 (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked all of the cited sources, None of them provides significant coverage to this campaign. None of the sources mentions that this campaign lasted for “1386–1621”, it's clearly a product of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. If you have any reliable source which mentions that this campaign lasted for 1386–1621 (as mentioned in the article) and provides significant coverage then share it here. Mr.Hanes Talk 17:23, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Clearly fails WP:GNG. I couldn't find enough WP:SIGCOV in any of the sources cited in the article to establish Notability (WP:N). Another problem with the article is that it is heavily based on original research and synthesis none of the sources mentions this event as Vijayanagara Campaigns in Sri Lanka with the fictitious timeline mentioned in the article. Hence I see no point in keeping this article. Koshuri ^(グ) 18:39, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.Hanes The timeline isn't fictional the first Expedition to Sri Lanka was launched by Emperor Hari Hara II under the command of Virupaksha Raya in 1386 AD and the last expedition sent to Sri Lanka in 1621 AD by Raghunatha Nayak he was subordinate to Emperor Rama Deva Raya Lion of Ariana (talk) 11:09, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Where does it mentions independently that the timeline of the campaign is "1386–1621". It is clearly WP:OR Mr.Hanes Talk 11:13, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.Hanes https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.119514/page/n138/mode/1up?view=theater check out this page numbers 117-122 Lion of Ariana (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Garuda ^Talk! 17:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as mentioned for the reasons above. Unless evidence exists to the contrary, the entire article is in effect a fabrication. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operational intelligence

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

18-year-old article that reads far more like an essay, is devoid of sources or further reading materials, has no substantial improvements over the years. Effectively unsalvageable even though the term itself is notable and important. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1902 American Medical football team

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

Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NSEASONS. This was created as part of a passion project by User:Murphanian777 to create season articles on every team that ever played a football game against Notre Dame. Unfortunately, in the earliest years of the program, Notre Dame scheduled games against non-notable patsies. Such was the case here as Notre Dame beat American Medical by a 92-0 score. Neither of the two sources in the article represent anything even remotely approaching SIGCOV about the American Medical team. Nor did my WP:BEFORE search find any. Cbl62 (talk) 17:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Someone should expand the redirect for the Chicago College of Medicine and Surgery. According to this, it looks like it was the medical school of Valparaiso University (actually preceding Valparaiso's football team) until it was purchased by Loyola University Chicago in 1917 and merged with Loyola's medical school (Stritch School of Medicine). There is a picture of the 1903 football team in the 1903 Spalding Football Guide ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kentico Xperience

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

Promotional for much of its history, this article has been stripped of its promotional content, but there's no evidence of its notability. Greenman (talk) 17:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Brown (multihull designer)

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

Non notable and no reliable sources, fails WP:ANYBIO ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 16:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 16:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deniz Kent

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

All coverage here is WP:ROUTINE besides one paper, where he isn't even the first or last author. Pretty clearly a WP:PUFF article. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science, Turkey, and United Kingdom. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources are a blend of press releases ([5]), trivial mentions ([6]), affiliated sources (this one from the venture fund that invested in his company, this one), the subject's own writing ([7]), primary source Q&A interviews ([8], [9]), and WP:TRADES coverage ([10], [11]). The Information (which I can't access) has the best shot of being WP:SIGCOV but we need multiple examples to pass WP:GNG and I don't see that. The only other potential criteria I could see is WP:NACADEMIC but Kent's h-index of 2 is extremely low; he does not seem to be an influential researcher. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Medicine, England, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Busisa Moyo

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

While the sources here look good on paper, almost all of this coverage seems to be of a WP:ROUTINE nature, and often coming from sources that do not take responsibility for the articles written. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Zimbabwe. Shellwood (talk) 15:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. Sources are either unreliable, fails WP:INDEPENDENT or WP:DOGBITESMAN. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Gitomer

AfDs for this article:

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

I am not sure if he is notable. Most of sources seem to be either primary or only tangentially related to him. I am unsure whether he meets WP:CREATIVE; points 3 and 4 are relevant. I am not sure if the attention he got was critical and whether his work has been covered in enough periodical articles. (I see [12], but not much more.) Even if The Little Red Book of Selling had made him notable, he would seem to be a bit too BLP1E-ish, as the rest of the coverage is more-or-less trivial or primary. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Business, United States of America, and Florida. Janhrach (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manjari (word)

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

WP:DICDEF § Misplaced dictionary entries, stub has been created at wikt:manjari. Paradoctor (talk) 15:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and India. Shellwood (talk) 15:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as it's "creator": I just wanted to find a place for some irrelevant content which had been added to the article which was later moved to Manjari (Norwegian singer). Should probably just have deleted it, as it was unsourced anyway. Happy to see it go. PamD 17:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Austėja (given name)

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

No evidence of notability. A Prod was removed because of the sources in the Lithuanian article, however these are about the bee goddess (listed in List of Lithuanian gods and mythological figures), not about the given name. Fram (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Lithuania. Fram (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The notability was in its status as one of the most popular names for girls in Lithuania. Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not fame nor importance. We decided that fame and importance were bad criteria back in 2004. Uncle G (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NNAME and WP:NOTDICT, no sources found outside of random baby name websites. Brief popularity doesn’t give notability if the only source to support it is a government listing. AllTheUsernamesAreInUse (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winter Bird (song)

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

NN song: I changed this to a redirect to the album from which it comes, but was reverted by article creator. Seeking a wider consensus. TheLongTone (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -

Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. - via WP:NMG.

The approach should be to improve documents by allowing other users to contribute and add more information on it, rather than simply removing it just because it does not adhere to regulations. Camilasdandelions (talk!) 14:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard O'Connor (footballer)

AfDs for this article:

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

I cannot find any WP:SIGCOV of this player in any sources, much less independent, reliable, secondary ones. The only sources (in this article, in the 11 other-language wiki articles, and in WP:BEFORE searches) are stats pages, which is not enough for an WP:NSPORT pass. If anyone finds anything else please ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Could possibly be in violation of WP:OR as well due to the lack of verifiability of the sources. I have attempted to research this player for a little while now and could not find anything of notability. Tytech038 (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anguilla national football team#Top goalscorers – Since his is the #1 goalscorer of the team. Svartner (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a redirect. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Svartner as ATD.Canary757 (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Night in Compton

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

Per WP: NFO, there are no full-length professional reviews of this film and no non-trivial articles about it have been published. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 13:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Hermetic Studies

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

Non-notable organization, no independent coverage. Skyerise (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Philosophy, Organizations, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Lamont (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No SIGCOV found during search. Canary757 (talk) 12:41, 28 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) 12:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect too List of Colchester United F.C. players (1–24 appearances) If that's all he did then redirect. Govvy (talk) 13:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect – Per Gowy. Svartner (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lexington SC - Louisville City Rivalry

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

Too much work done on this, doesn't qualify under WP:NRIVALRY, sources are routine coverage. We've deleted multiple types of these articles already. This is no different. Govvy (talk) 12:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the article is not notable and should be deleted. Hard to call something a "rivalry" if there's only ever been a single competitive match played. gingerlines (talk) 14:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

both teams refer to this as a rivalry, and you’ll likely never get more than routine coverage on these lower division rivalries. What’s the point of deleting this article just to have to remake it in 2-3 years? Snakshopp (talk) 14:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, every other of Louisville’s rivalries has a page— and the one with Lexington is the one they advertise the most. As a native of the area, both towns are flying the flags of the individual teams in the downtown area to hype up the game. Just because you aren’t familiar with the rivalry doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist Snakshopp (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For rivalries to be notable they must recieve significant coverage. This rivalry does not, so it should be deleted. Esolo5002 (talk) 16:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's certainly value in keeping this in the draftspace until there's more coverage and a few more matches have been played between the clubs, but as it currently stands it does not satisfy the general notability guidelines required for a rivalry article. The point of remaking it in 2/3 years (or less) is that it will fit within the WP guidelines at that time. I'm confident that as the teams play one another there will be more reliable coverage that can establish notability, just not yet.

And as a former Lexington resident I personally couldn't be more excited for what I'm sure will be a robust rivalry between the teams in the future! But one competitive match and not a single reliable third-party source specifically discussing the 'rivalry' means we'll have to wait a little bit before it is notable. gingerlines (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Kentucky. Skynxnex (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tompson Mensah

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

Declined prod. The 2 sources added today are primary sources. 1 the Togo Olympic committee, the other Olympics.com Still fails WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cycling, Olympics, and Africa. LibStar (talk) 12:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Alhassan (footballer, born 2000)

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

Non-notable footballer, basically without professional career. His U17 appearances are not enough to establish notability. At senior level, he played in only one match in a professional league, and then 28 matches in amateur tiers. He is 24 and has not played football since September 2021, so it can be assumed that his career ended before it actually began. FromCzech (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Ghana. FromCzech (talk) 12:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2017 U-17 Africa Cup of Nations squads#Ghana – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 16:56, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sabita Rana Magar

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

I don't see this passing WP:GNG at the moment, and google searches feel like databases and social media. Fram tagged the page written from a fans POV, which does push the WP:PROMOTIONAL also. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Football, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Amin Nezami

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

A medical doctor with some self-published books, but seemingly no peer-reviewed research. Doesn't reach WP:NACADEMIC or WP:NAUTHOR. I've been unable to find them on Scopus; references seems to be mostly from connected sources. Klbrain (talk) 12:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Medicine, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Klbrain,

I`m currently working to add more reference for the Mr. Mohammad Amin Nezami, there are not only self-published book, there are 40+ publication, that can be found on https://www.allcancercare.com/publications.html

additionally if you look over these reference below, then this articles is very useful for the presence of Mr. Mohammad Amin Nezami

https://ascopubs.org/doi/pdf/10.1200/PO.19.00141 - Search "Mohammad Nizami", you`ll see his presence.

https://ascopubs.org/doi/10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.12097 - Same

Research Publication: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/328453409_Clinical_implications_of_epidermal_growth_factor_receptor_EGFR_epigenetic_modification_in_lung_cancer_proof_of_concept_for_dual_multitargeted_epigenetic_therapy_MTET_in_combination_with_egfr_inhibitor

ProInvenstor Reference: https://www.proactiveinvestors.com/companies/news/311761/sahel-oncology-using-technology-to-battle-aggressive-cancers-like-lung-and-ovarian-11761.html

You request for deletion is not liable according to me, if I`m missing something then I`m open for the discussion, Thank you. Ambrosebasil57 (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OSL Consulting

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Article was previously nominated and deleted before. Current version still lacks independent in-depth sources and requirements are even more stringent now. Imcdc Contact 12:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 12:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Management, Engineering, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Walking falcon

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

This to me looks like a dab page in search of a subject. The term "walking falcon" is the literal translation of the generic name Phalcoboenus, but appears not to be used. Nor is the term attached to Caracara (subfamily) or the individual species striated caracara - or at least our articles do not mention it, and I can't find any sources that do. That leaves us with the "See also" of Buteogallus daggetti, which does appear to have the nickname "walking eagle", but we don't establish dab pages to accommodate See Alsos (and falcon should not be among those, in any case). Maybe this could be a redirect to Phalcoboenus, but even that would be an unusual move, as we generally don't make redirects for the literal translations of taxonomic names. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little niche, but it's used about 12 times in Jonathan Meiburg's A Most Remarkable Creature (2021) —Pengo 13:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Guérit

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

Made one appearance in the French Division 2 according to the article. A web search doesn't give anything resembling WP:SIGCOV. I couldn't even find a profile at the database website worldfootball.net which has most notable players (and more). Fails WP:GNG. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and France. Robby.is.on (talk) 09:27, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:SIGCOV as a non-notable professional football player. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a pointless page unfortunately. Geschichte (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Even if there was corresponding article on French Wikipedia, references might be worse. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Droom

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

Fails WP:NCORP Page creator is already blocked for undisclosed payments. I don't understand how this page is accepted in AFC. Company is just promoting themself. | News about Sandeep, nothing to do with company, 2nd link | No insights by a journalist, self spoken content, | PR Driven content, with no author, [13], [14], News about cancelled IPO, [15], | again routune coverage of finance & funding, | PR Driven future plans, which acutally never happened, [16], PR Announcement., | again annoucement , | Same news about the founder Lordofhunter (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. Lordofhunter (talk) 08:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the nomination: The article fails WP:NCORP and WP:COI. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Websites, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Thiruvananthapuram mass murder

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

Seems to be a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Unlikely to have a WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, India, and Kerala. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Crime Spworld2 (Talk?) 09:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the nomination. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:NOTNEWS. Akshaypatill (talk) 19:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. I concur with the WP:LASTING rationale. – Garuda ^Talk! 21:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Farouk Ahmed Sayed

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

Declined prod. The only 2 sources added after prodding are 2 databases. We need SIGCOV to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT. As shown in other AfDs, keep votes just saying WP:NEXIST with zero evidence of sources don't work in saving articles. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Yemen. LibStar (talk) 08:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources fail to demonstrate any form of notability and thus should be deleted. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No accomplishments whatsoever and no significant coverage. This would need several strong pieces of independent, significant coverage - and by the way, not the passing mentions that may soon be presented in this discussion - to be eligible for inclusion. Geschichte (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte For the record, I searched and was not even able to find a passing mention. --Habst (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on WP:NEXIST, with a possibility for procedural keep. Context for procedural keep: Over 80 articles all in the same narrow topic (Olympic-level track and field competitors from non-English-speaking countries) have been brought to AfD or PRODed this month, as compared to a typical one or two per week otherwise. It takes significant effort to do a complete source search for each of these, all of which aren't in English and most of which are from the pre-Internet era from countries that have not digitized their national newspaper archives yet. If a sweeping argument should be made, then make that as a mass nomination, but otherwise these need to be more spread out. Having this many individual AfDs open at once about these historical figures notoriously difficult to research sets up an insurmountable task.

NEXIST rationale: South Yemeni newspapers from the 1980s haven't been found yet, we would expect coverage because Sayed was the only long-distance runner in history to represent South Yemen at the Olympics – making his notability at least in part of a political nature and not just sporting achievements.

The simple fact is that Farouk Ahmed Sayed is no less notable than (for example) Chae Hong-nak or Adalberto García. The only difference is the online availability of newspaper coverage from the region at the time. Just because sources aren't on the Internet doesn't mean the article should be deleted, per WP:NEXIST. --Habst (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Death of Film

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

Ño evidence of notability for this self-published experiment. Fram (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and United States of America. Fram (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources fail to demonstrate any notability, with one source offering nothing more than a mere summary and the other source being a non-notable news segment. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's nothing out there and while it claims to be the first of its type, there's nothing to prove that this is the case. Anyone can claim to be the first - whether or not they are the first is up for debate - Where the Robots Grow made the same or similar claim, for example. This 2023 article details another film and even states that it's one of a "string of short films made using various generative AI tools that have been released in the last few months." This just isn't notable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also concerned that this was created after COI concerns were brought up about another editor who was editing on the Felinton. I've got an open case on COI/N and will mention this there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt. Not notable in the slightest. The claim of "first feature film to be produced entirely using generative AI" is not reliably sourced and also is completely ridiculous as there have been a wide range of AI films and entire AI film festivals over the years. Before making ridiculous claims like this to try to promote one's self-published student film from two weeks ago, one could try using google and one would find a zillion much older claims like for example [17] "Released on July 21, 2023, 'Window Seat' ... the first fully AI-generated feature film ..." etc. This was draftified earlier and has been now recreated to further waste our time, so please salt this so we don't have to continue dealing with this disruption. Asparagusstar (talk) 21:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pravaig

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

Fails WP:NCORP. The references are not from reliable resources, it Lacks of WP:SIRS. B-Factor (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Karnataka. B-Factor (talk) 10:45, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:08, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a WP:BEFORE shows enough coverage from independent reliable sources to assert WP:V. Herinalian (talk) 20:41, 21 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!} 08:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to be an article relating to a non-notable corporation, with the sources being unreliable. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hema Sharma

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

Actor who does not meet WP:NACTOR, as she has not had any significant roles. She has been a reality show participant, which does not make her notable in itself. There is no significant coverage, and all sources are primary/sponsored/non-independent posts, as well as a couple of trivial mentions of her name, so WP:BASIC isn't met either.

The article was moved from draftspace after it had been declined. bonadea contributions talk 08:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Uttar Pradesh. bonadea contributions talk 08:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No indication of notability. No significant coverage. 331dot (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As I can see, Internet is full of coverage about HEMA SHARMA, Also the roles in movies and about Reality show qualifies the notability guidelines, also we cant add each and every sources in this, so we have added only 4 to 5 big sources which is accepted by Wikipedia. BTW if everyone thinks that it is not eligible, the article has been moved out to the draft space till we receive the final decission on the same. Okiknowyouknow (talk) 12:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Okiknowyouknow: Who is "we"? --bonadea contributions talk 12:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails basic notability requirements. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of the sources are primary/sponsored/non-independent posts,Please check before commenting @Bonadea Okiknowyouknow (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't accuse your fellow editors, Okiknowyouknow. Here is a source evaluation for the article in its current state:

Source assessment table prepared by User:Bonadea
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.news18.com/movies/hema-sharma-aka-viral-bhabi-to-join-bigg-boss-18-heres-what-we-know-9074667.html	Churnalism, based on a press release		Trivial mention of her name	✘ No
https://www.indiatvnews.com/entertainment/tv/hema-sharma-aka-viral-bhabhi-eliminated-from-bigg-boss-18-amidst-speculation-2024-10-19-957964		Gossip piece, showing clear signs of being AI generated		✘ No
https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/television/bigg-boss-18s-evicted-contestant-hema-sharma-accepts-she-has-made-many-mistakes-i-married-twice-shouldnt-have-gotten-into-both-marriages-9631559/	Primary source, unclear if it is independent			✘ No
https://www.business-standard.com/entertainment/bigg-boss-season-18-check-complete-list-of-contestants-and-some-surprises-124100700314_1.html			trivial mention in list of contestants	✘ No
https://www.indiatoday.in/television/reality-tv/story/bigg-boss-18-day-13-viral-bhabhi-hema-sharma-evicted-from-salman-khan-show-2620343-2024-10-21	Press release		Trivial mention	✘ 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}}.

--bonadea contributions talk 12:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Okiknowyouknow:, please do not move the article to draftspace while the deletion discussion is ongoing. Thank you. --bonadea contributions talk 12:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Lack of significant coverage, not notable. Buddy Gripple (talk) 14:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Bonadea's source analysis is spot-on, though I wouldn't necessarily object to a simple redirect to Big Boss 18.

K48BL

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

Non-notable defunct LPTV; no sources; could merge to List of television stations in Oregon#LPTV stations. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Oregon. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of television stations in Oregon#LPTV stations, as per the nomination. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as proposed Cannot find any sourcing. The local paper isn't available, either. This station was a Class A at one point, so local coverage isn't unthinkable... But it's also unavailable. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 19:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Dunlap

AfDs for this article:

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

Basically unsourced since 2006. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Mentions found on the internet all look self-sourced. 'D.M. poet honored in national competition' article shows he came 17th in a contest. Went to AfD in 2014, sources found were not reliable. Blackballnz (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Poetry. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOET. I looked for sources and added the single RS that I could find, but it's not enough to meet notability guidelines. Jfire (talk) 06:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per the nomination: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOET. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not finding much so far. I have found a notice of his death in late 2024 (in The HyperTexts [18]], so we are no longer looking at a WP:BLP. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon male superhero actors

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

Fails WP:GNG and has no WP:RS. Article is cited to unreliable or primary sources. ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 06:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Television. ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 06:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to meet Wikipedia standards and is not notable enough to need it's own article. Retroity (talk) 07:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per the nomination and Retroity. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:55, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Hills Ski Area

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

Not notable enough for Wikipedia. There are limited sources. Mangoflies (talk) 05:20, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Covered extensively in Ski (magazine) and Skiing (magazine). [19] [20] [21]. Also covered in the Boston Globe: [22] Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Sports, and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:36, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Helpful Raccoon. The article's topic appears to be covered in other sources, demonstrating its notability. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 11:57, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taurus Musik

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

Non-notable music record label. I’m surprised this hasn’t been deleted since 2018, as it has zero reliable references. It is unclear how this label meets WP:NMUSIC, WP:MUSICBIO, WP:MOS RL, or WP:GNG. Afro 📢Talk! 05:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Companies. Afro 📢Talk! 05:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources fail to demonstrate any notability to justify keeping the article. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't see any evidence of passing WP:NMUSIC or WP:NCORP. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli support for Hamas

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

This is not a significat topic of study or coverage. Much of the article is synthetically composed of material from sources unrelated to the article topic—which is not itself a reason for deletion, rather for revision, but from my research it appears that this is a reflection of the lack of significant coverage of this topic. Any relevant material not already there can be merged into History of Hamas. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Terrorism, Israel, and Palestine. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-The article has abundant citations from ~~primary~~ reliable sources. Certainly not every article cited has this as its main subject, but enough do to indicate that this is a noteworthy topic. Display name 99 (talk) 00:42, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by primary sources? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "reliable" is more of what I was going for. Edited accordingly. Display name 99 (talk) 00:45, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm seeing that most of the articles with this as their primary topic are just characterizing Israel's earlier Hamas policy as favoring it against the PLO, and generally avoid using the language of "support". The fact that there's no academic source on the "Israeli support of Hamas" is telling. As an analogy, we wouldn't have an article for "Indian provocations of Pakistan", though there are many articles assessing Indian foreign policy as doing so—the information from those sources would belong on Wikipedia, but don't collectively suggest "Indian provocations of Pakistan" as a notable topic. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:46, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are enough citations from reliable sources over a long time span mentioning the topic (although not always using the exact word "support" - the article could be renamed something like "Role of the Israeli government in the rise to power to Hamas" or "Israeli enabling of Hamas," if it's necessary to avoid the word "support"). NHCLS (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is a controversial subject, could we see a source analysis? Thanks, in advance.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the article has numerous citations from reliable sources (as per Display name 99), though the article should be renamed to something such as "Israeli enabling of Hamas" as per NHCLS. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:04, 28 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 speedy keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Skynxnex (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James Gow (writer)

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

Tagged for notability and verification issues since 2016. Time to decide as a community whether this person is notable.4meter4 (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Theatre, Iowa, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets WP:CREATIVE as co-author of notable plays. The page needs cleanup. -Mushy Yank. 08:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article meets the guidelines of WP:CREATIVE, though page cleanup is needed. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing per WP:HEY. Thanks to GeorgiaHuman for expanding and sourcing the article, and to Mushy Yank for helping with reference formatting. We went from an article which didn't assert any encyclopedic importance to a nice little article! Good work. Just a suggestion, but this would be a good candidate for WP:DYK. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 28 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.

University of the Witwatersrand School of Architecture & Planning

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

I don't see why this school of a university needs its own article. All the sources from the university's website, so basically it's repeating information easily found on the web. It needs third party coverage which is lacking. Fails WP:ORG LibStar (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and South Africa. LibStar (talk) 04:10, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 10:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@LibStar, it sounds like you're judging the article on the basis of its current version, which goes against Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability. Did you consider Wikipedia:Merging it to the main university article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are there third party sources out there that meet WP:ORG? LibStar (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I searched [Witwatersrand "School of Architecture & Planning" -wikipedia] in google news and it didn't reveal much useful. Google books is full of 1 line mentions. LibStar (talk) 00:47, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for a Merge and what would be the target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Largely agree with nom. A cursory search for sources reveals nothing nearing making a separate article for this division of the university. Not too different from the architecture faculties of other similar universities in Australia. GuardianH 19:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mortar (organization)

AfDs for this article:

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

This article fails WP:GNG. It does not talk about why MORTAR is a significant or noteworthy organization. It also lacks high-quality sources. It has only been mentioned a couple of times in some relatively obscure articles from CNN, Politico, and other news. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mast303 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:21, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:48, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Park, Indiana

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

Here we come upon an impressive cock-up at USGS, because if you look at old enough topos to have any details, you will not see this label, but you will see an area just to the north labelled "Board Park". And if you look at the 2013 map, you'll see both "Board Park" and "Broad Park". So obviously the GNIS entry for the latter came from somewhere else besides the topos, and indeed it did: from an 1876 atlas. One has to wonder why nobody noticed that the two places are actually the same (and the "Board park" entry is still there in GNIS, though it is gone from the map), but it's clearly the case. And judging from our handy county history, the old atlas was right and the older topos were wrong, though it appears that the topo location is more accurate. After all that, though, it's still a nothingburger place: there's little there, and the history merely mentions it in passing to locate other places. It's likely just another turn of the century 4th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 03:35, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found Edward V. Ragland, but I cannot definitely state that the village was other than surveyed. Uncle G (talk) 14:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I should point out that the GNIS saying that it sourced a place, that wasn't even invented until 1893, to an 1876 atlas is an egregious GNIS error; made worse still by the fact that we can see the claimed atlas at Illustrated Historical Atlas of the State of Indiana at the Internet Archive and there's no Broad Park in Jefferson Township, or any other part of Putnam County, on that map. However, that just means that the GNIS is a bad source full to the brim with errors, which we knew. John V. Hadley has not proven to be unreliable, in contrast. Uncle G (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh dear. Thanks to 1 sentence in Hadley and 1 sentence in Baker that connect things, the books turn out to provide a fairly cohesive and extensive narrative, even if we cannot know much more specific than that this was somewhere in the east of Putnam (probably, my inference, Mill Creek Township). Uncle G (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trust the nominator and his research into whether this was a real place or not. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adding onto Uncle G's fine work, i found some more sources to add (diff [23]).--Milowent • ^hasspoken 20:28, 24 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!} 04:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ptenothrix Species 3

AfDs for this article:

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

No published scientific name, and therefore fails WP:NSPECIES. This as well as Ptenothrix species 4 are ecomorphs that have been identified by the springtail hobbyist community but are as of yet unpublished in a scientific journal. Brendansoloughlin (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Brendansoloughlin (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Ptenothrix - see also Ptenothrix species 4 deletion discussion. To my knowledge, these purported species have received no media or academic coverage, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSPECIES. They have been identified as distinct, but there is simply no published work on them with which to establish notability nor build a Wikipedia article. Seems that researchers are working on formal descriptions for these, hopefully to be published soon, but until we get a published description or WP:SIGCOV this ought to redirect to the genus article. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 02:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:30, 21 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!} 04:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Play! Pokémon

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

A division of the Pokémon Company that doesn't seem to be separately notable. I've been researching competitive Pokémon extensively and have searched this subject several times and found very little discussing them, even in passing mention. Nearly everything they do is already covered extensively at Pokémon World Championships as they act primarily as that event's organizers, and their organization of local events isn't covered at all from what I can find, bar one Inverse source discussing the role of "Pokémon Professors", which doesn't even mention Play! Pokémon at all. What little that is sourced in the article either hails from PRIMARY sources or unreliable ones, bar three sources, which are either ROUTINE coverage or TRIVIALMENTIONS, and what little mentions I could find on this topic do not seem to be enough to establish anything other than that the company exists and nothing more. Due to a lack of SIGCOV and the existence of only ROUTINE coverage or TRIVIALMENTIONS, it fails WP:NCOMPANY. I would argue for a Redirect to the World Championships, seeing as that article covers the bulk of what is in this one already while also acting as an associated topic. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games and Japan. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 01:59, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:31, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Pokémon World Championships appears fine. IgelRM (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Is there any more support for a Merge or a Redirect?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Bruce Highway explosion

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

All the provided sources are from August 2024. 6 months after appears to have no coverage or lasting WP:EFFECT. WP:NOTNEWS also applies. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 04:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom all sources are from shortly after the incident Nothing Sustained Theking49393 (talk) 04:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not all things that go bang need Wikipedia articles. No analytical coverage. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 06:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TEXEL

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

Largely promotional/COI article. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Sweden. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Environment, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:40, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Adding a findsources below for the earlier article title (on which there was a no-consensus move discussion, but it has been moved anyway). AllyD (talk) 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A lot of content has been deleted since the AFD nomination. When considering whether there is any notability, it is probably better to utilise this version. AllyD (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, we still need some arguments here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wheere

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

I am nominating this article for deletion because it was created by the company’s founder in violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. The article appears promotional and lacks significant independent coverage to establish WP:NPOV. No reliable secondary sources provide substantial coverage of the company beyond routine funding announcements and press releases. NenChemist (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. NenChemist (talk) 04:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"it was created by the company’s founder in violation of WP:COI and WP:NPOV. " Do you have any evidence for this? Apart from that, what makes you believe that e.g. the first article, from renowned newspaper Le Figaro [24], is not "substantial coverage"? Fram (talk) 08:29, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NenChemist, a COI is not grounds for deletion. A true WP:COI (with evidence) should be marked as such and then checked. Similarly it is not an automatic violation of WP:NPOV. Please reread both policies more carefully.

Also, as stated above, the coverage used is definitely from reputable sources. In a quick Google search I see more hits, so I suspect that a proper WP:BEFORE was not performed. This nomination appears deeply flawed to me.

N.B., I will leave to others to voice an opinion on whether WP:NCORP is met, which is the appropriate question. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I find this deletion nomination highly inconsistent and misleading. Initially, the article was draftified with the argument that it was "not ready for mainspace and needed improvements." Now, instead of suggesting those improvements, the same user has shifted to a completely different argument, claiming I am the founder of Wheere and that the article should be deleted, and then switching to coverage argument. This sudden change of reasoning raises serious questions about whether the goal is truly to ensure Wikipedia's quality or just to push for deletion of pages at all costs.

The COI accusation itself is completely baseless. The only supposed "evidence" is that my name is "Jean-Pierre" while the founder’s name is "Pierre-Arnaud." This is an absurd and laughable argument with no real substance.

Beyond that, I am not sure this user has an understanding of the media landscape in France. The article is sourced with reputable and independent publications such as Le Figaro, Les Échos, and JDE, which are among the most respected newspapers in the country. Claiming that these do not constitute significant coverage only demonstrates a lack of familiarity with French media.--Jean-PierreCL (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Thunderstorm

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

Unreferenced film article. Tagged for sourcing issues since 2019. Not clear that this film meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. 4meter4 (talk) 03:54, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: 1) the article was not unreferenced; it lacked footnotes 2) AfDs should imv not be used in order to improve pages (there are talk pages and projects to achieve that goal with more time and less stressfully) 3) a released film by a notable director and starring Bruce Lee is very likely notable 4) I improved the page and think the subject is indeed notable enough. -Mushy Yank. 08:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prince of Erebor:hello, if you have time to have a look, your input will be appreciated. [Pinging a competent contributor].-Mushy Yank. 14:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not have sources. It had four external links to movies databases; most of which anyone can edit and which have been listed as unreliable at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. But let's not quibble over this because you have done great work adding materials. I appreciate you. If you are finding it stressful to participate here, you might consider taking a Wikipedia:Wikibreak from AFD. Just a reminder that AFD work is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and there are other solid editors active at AFD. If a topic is truly notable, it's likely that people other than yourself will step in and comment. Don't feel like you are working here alone, or that it all rests on you. Hang in there. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mushy Yank: I am curious what you intended by "[Pinging a competent contributor]". Did you just mean that as a compliment to Prince of Erebor, or were you implying incompetence by comparison on the part of nominator? BD2412 T 18:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

???!!! Of course, I meant that as a compliment to Prince of Erebor. Absolutely not related to 4meter4 (nor to WCQuidditch, nor to myself; the only contributors to this page before your comment).... What a strange question. I use this kind of pings with that very comment (to explain why I ping a given user) every time I know a very competent user can help. -Mushy Yank. 19:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You might have closed this discussion as Speedy Keep while you were here. If you read this, I am inviting you to please do it. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 19:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the fact that I used that comment in other AfDs and on various TP: see [25] , [26], [27] etc. -Mushy Yank. 19:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Thanks for the ping, Mushy Yank! I have added 20 sources from newspapers and books (Special:Diff/1278134900), including reviews from Wah Kiu Yat Po and Va Kio Daily, which should be adequate for a GNG/NFP pass. Aside from SIGCOV, this film meets several NFO and NFIC criteria as well, including NFO#2 for being screened at the Hong Kong International Film Festival in 2004 and having a commercial re-release in 2023, NFO#4 for being preserved at the Hong Kong Film Archive [28][29], and NFIC#2 for featuring Bruce Lee's first adult role and one of his most notable Cantonese-language film roles. Given the available sources and the multiple NFILM criteria fulfilled, I believe this is a strong keep. —👑PRINCE of EREBOR📜 17:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, Prince of Erebor. -Mushy Yank. 19:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing per WP:HEY. Great work Prince of Erebor and Mushy Yank! Considering the vast expansion and the quality of the new article, I strongly encourage you to take the time to nominate the article at WP:DYK. Best wishes.4meter4 (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. (Also please see my reply above regarding my ping; I hope the comment I made on my own ping was clear. (I use it to avoid being accused of canvassing, and I don't know what (not by you, evidently) but next time I might as well not use it). -Mushy Yank. 19:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ethics policy

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

This topic is already covered at Business ethics and this namespace is too generic to be useful for a redirect. JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Social science. JFHJr (㊟) 03:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge – Instead of removing this article, we could merge it with the business ethics topic. It has some information that doesn't fully overlap with the other article Mangoflies (talk) 04:12, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing worth merging. All the sources cited that actually relate to the topic (meaning, not a commentary on Aristotle) are frankly garbage. Remsense ‥ 论 04:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Remsense ‥ 论 04:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Self-evident. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It covers business ethics issues so this stub article should be merged with the larger article of business ethics. Knox490 (talk) 11:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge General consensus is saying merge. 3 of 4 people support a merger

Mangoflies (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mala Kladuša offensive

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

This article is essentially a duplicate of the Capture of Vrnograč article which has recently been improved to include all the fighting that led up to the capture of that town, including this town. There is insufficient material in reliable sources to justify two articles in any case. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:49, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kingsmasher678 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Australian sentiment

AfDs for this article:

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

May not be notable, as the topic itself has no coverage in RS. This article only lists incidents that it claims to be example of the phenomenon, even though the grouping seems to only exist in this article. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Australia. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 03:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom Theking49393 (talk) 04:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This does appear to be notable. Searches of Google Books and Google Scholar show discussion of Anti-Australian sentiment in Timor Leste, Indonesia (Indonesia - anti-Australian sentiment is an index entry in Australia's Foreign Economic Policy and ASEAN (2010) [30]), China, Papua New Guinea (eg "Refugee rift piques PNG's anti Australian sentiment" in Eureka Street in 2017 [31]), in Asia generally [32] and [33]. There are articles about Anti-British sentiment, Anti-Americanism, Anti-French sentiment, etc, so why wouldn't there be one on ant-Australian sentiment? Australia may not have (or have had) as much influence in the world as those countries, but particularly in its relations with near neighbours (and its former territory, Papua New Guinea), its influence is not always felt as positive. The referencing currently in the article is not good, but the need for improvement is not a reason to delete. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Polar Tempest

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

Like "Operation Purple Haze," the article cites no legitimate sources and a Google search gives no evidence for its existence. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As with Operation Purple Haze, subject appears to be made up. A Google search of the subject yielded nothing. Madeleine (talk) 03:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a hoax, just a copy of this military press release. The domain mnf-iraq.com was usurped by a spam site. Clearly not notable though. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:46, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snake in the Garden

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

Per WP:NEPISODE. There is nothing beyond a summary. And googling the topic reveals one independent review and some review aggregators, which is not enough for notability. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find some additional independent recaps of the episode [34][35] as well as an interview w/ some cast sort of rooted-ish in the episode's reveals [36]. I also found it mentioned briefly in a few books [37][38], but despite this I think we still fall short of WP:NEPISODE here per "The scope of reviews should extend beyond recaps" and given that the scholarly sources are just mentions. The AV club source in the article is the most substantial coverage I can find, and I think we would need at least one more WP:RS w/ significant analysis (beyond a recap) to justify a standalone article. Zzz plant (talk) 05:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Professor of Classics (Edinburgh)

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

Fails WP:N, article created potentially for the purposes of WP:RESUME. Not a named Professorship/Chair and concerned the precedence this article may set with every professorship at every university warranting an article. I do not believe that the article is warranted just because the position has existed since the 1700s given that many Professor positions may have existed at many of the other ancient universities. Most importantly, I am struggling to find any notable coverage of this Professorship outside of internal sources from the University of Edinburgh.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. EmyRussell (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC) EmyRussell (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly non-notable, and its worthy to note that the article subject isn't like the endowed professorships like the ones at Oxford. The position is quite literally just the title for the chair of the faculty, i.e., the faculty admin. No doubt its a high position, but it only concerns Edinburgh and the position of being admin chair of the faculty does not reach the widespread secondary independent coverage needed to warrant a separate article. GuardianH 19:44, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Purple Haze

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

The article cites no sources (except a spam site in Armenian). Searching up the topic reveals nothing, so the topic's existence, let alone notability, can not be verified. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and Iraq. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject appears to be made up. A Google search of the subject yielded nothing. Madeleine (talk) 02:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I went through all the usual suspects (google news/books/scholar, bing, newspapers.com). I found two separate incidents known by that name [39][40] and um, well, it's safe to say neither of them have any passing similarity to the topic being discussed in this page. I also tried searching for any cache discoveries on the date in question during the Iraq War - I think possible the article is referencing this incident [41] but some of the details seem different and there is also no reference to haze of any color. Looks like a possible hoax. Zzz plant (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a hoax. The body is just a copy of a military press release, no indication of notability: [42]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also the source that is cited, mnf-iraq.com, was the legitimate site of MNF-Iraq but it was usurped by the spam site. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Military, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omens Studios

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

Recently drafted through AFC and declined a month ago for not meeting notability requirements - published anyway without AFC approval. Loads of WP:PUFFERY. Evidently fails WP:NOTADVERT. LR.127 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Companies, and United Kingdom. LR.127 (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Madeleine (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom --Theking49393 (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:42, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Niknam

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

Procedural nomination: article recently was blanked and redirected to Bunq (a company founded by Niknam) with the edit summary "not notable"; subsequently there has been a revert war with no further substantive discussion. I was alerted to the dispute by a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Ali Niknam page constantly reverted to redirect to one of his companies and am starting this discussion to settle whether or not Niknam is in fact notable or should redirect to the notable company he founded.

I have no strong opinion either way, but pinging Spokeoino (who wants to retain the article), NenChemist (who BLARed initially and presumably advocates for redirection) and Melody Concerto who reverted to the redirected version to give their own arguments. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Netherlands. Shellwood (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for following up! Good thing to point out is that Ali Niknam isn't only known for bunq but he's also had a big impact through other companies he started, like TransIP and a data center company. This being said I don't think it's representative to be linked to one company.

There’s plenty of media coverage about Ali Niknam, which is showing that his work and achievements have been noticed and reported by various independent sources. There are plenty of sources in the article Ali Niknam Spokeoino (talk) 16:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, copyvio of ffnews.com/people/ali-nikam/. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Administrator note This page was deleted and then restored, the site in question was a reverse copyvio. Primefac (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete - seems to be possible CoI when I reviewed their userpage. by nature of their stated editing foci. there also seems to be some concern of there being lack of notability. Similarly, WP:NOTPROMO applies if article keep rationale is vanity. ♥ Melody ♥ 20:51, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article in dutch that shares more about the person: https://fd.nl/bedrijfsleven/1540349/bunq-oprichter-ali-niknam-de-kritiek-op-ons-heeft-te-maken-met-wensdenken

It was originally shared on the talk page to improve the article. I do agree that the article needs improvement as it was stated already, there are also other sources where we can get information about Ali Niknam, here is another article sharing more details and announcing his winning Businessmen of the Year 2023 by Masters Expo Spokeoino (talk) 13:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep As I mentioned earlier my stance is to keep the article and work on improving, here are some sources the article could benefit from:

- Niknam’s Bunq banks on Irish expansion at the expense of incumbents

- The Right Moment: Why Bunq Waited Before Taking On Equity Finance

- Bunq-oprichter Ali Niknam: ‘De kritiek op ons heeft te maken met wensdenken’

- Businessmen of the Year 2023 by Masters Expo

- Ali Niknam receives ‘Businessman of the Year’ award

- Here’s how you can help support victims of the war in Ukraine Spokeoino (talk) 15:44, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete This article fails to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:GNG) as most of the sources cited focus on Bunq rather than Ali. Additionally, the majority of references in the article are primarily interviews, press releases, or marketing pieces, which lack the independent, in-depth reporting necessary to establish notability. There are also conflict of interest (WP:COI) concerns, which compromise neutrality. NenChemist (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep I'm still getting familiar with most of Wikipedia's guidelines, so I appreciate everyone's guidance. I just wanted to chime in again on the discussion, because it makes sense that a lot of the media coverage is focused on Bunq since that's one of his major achievements, but there are other sources that mention more than just the Bunq bank. Here are sources about his involvement in team.blue, Capitalflow companies and the book he's written "Ondernemers hebben nooit geluk (Entrepreneurs are never lucky)"

Canadian capital injection into fast-growing Team.Blue

Quote 500 member Ali Niknam Businessman of the Year 2023

Capitalflow acquired by Dutch fintech for undisclosed fee

"Ondernemers hebben nooit geluk (Entrepreneurs are never lucky)" Amazon

"Ondernemers hebben nooit geluk (Entrepreneurs are never lucky)" Goodreads Spokeoino (talk) 13:56, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Voting "Keep" twice does not determine the outcome. AfD is not a simple vote count. As you acknowledged, much of the media coverage is focused on Bunq, which is why I redirected the page in the first place. Having minor coverage with only brief mentions is not sufficient to establish notability. Sources like Amazon, Quotenet.nl, and others you mentioned are not reliable. You should first understand Wikipedia:GNG before presenting sources as evidence of notability. NenChemist (talk) 02:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NenChemist Thank you for pointing this out, my mistake, i did not mean to "vote" twice, just wanted to present further proof, note taken!

Here is another source stating that in 2011 he wrote the book "Ondernemers hebben nooit geluk"[16] Spokeoino (talk) 10:16, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Easy keep per WP BEFORE. The person has received reliable, independent, significant, and in-depth coverage in the Netherlands' largest national newspapers, including recent media coverage not yet included in the page: Het Financieele Dagblad [43], Quotene.nl [44], MTsprout [45], De Tijd [46], NRC (newspaper) [47]. This particular piece likely provides the deepest and most recent coverage of the subject.

Here is the Google Translate version:
Ali Niknam (41) is the most successful Dutch entrepreneur of his generation. Before turning forty, he had already founded three billion-dollar companies. Bunq (founded in 2012, 465 employees) is his largest project to date. It is one of the few Dutch tech companies to achieve European success with a consumer product, serving customers in over thirty European countries. The company does not disclose the exact number of customers. Niknam is the founder, CEO, spokesperson, and primary owner of Bunq, holding 90% of the shares. He is also its financier, with shareholders (Niknam and British investor Pollen Street Capital) contributing tens of millions last year to cover past losses, despite a profitable last quarter. The company is still growing and preparing for the next step, having recently applied for a U.S. banking license. Niknam is known for his deep involvement in every aspect of the company. Employees describe him as meticulous, with every decision, from long-term strategy to the layout of Bunq’s app and even the keyboard design of Apple laptops, requiring his approval. While some call him a micromanager, he sees himself as detail-oriented. He is described as charming, eloquent, and highly intelligent. Money “doesn’t interest him one bit,” he claims, dressing casually in jeans and a V-neck T-shirt. Colleagues say he thrives on challenges and sets extremely high standards for himself and his staff. Bunq employees face ambitious targets and often work unpaid overtime. Performance is continuously evaluated through “real-time feedback” from managers. Those who excel are promoted, while those who fail to meet goals must leave. Niknam views this as necessary for survival in the “cutthroat” banking industry, though he acknowledges that younger employees today are less accustomed to such a work culture. Many leave within a year, particularly those for whom Bunq is their first job. He sees this as natural—only those who can keep up should stay. NRC interviewed fifteen former and current Bunq employees and Niknam himself during a 90-minute interview at Bunq’s Amsterdam office. Former employees, who spoke anonymously due to confidentiality agreements, reported experiencing physical and emotional stress from the work environment. Niknam was born in Canada and raised in Iran until age seven, during the Iran-Iraq war. His childhood, marked by fleeing conflict and family struggles, shaped his ability to “switch off” emotions when making tough business decisions.

Additionally, Adformatie has covered him [48], as has De Tijd [49]. Here are some parts from the De Tijd source to be sure that the source is not an interview or press-release:

Ali Niknam usually has a tough one-liner to his name. But these days, the 42-year-old Dutch tech billionaire can't seem to find a witty answer to the storm raging over his hip smartphone bank Bunq. Bunq has been inundated with criticism since research by public broadcaster NOS and newspaper NRC showed that a striking number of customers fell victim to phishing. Just like in Belgium, thousands of consumers in the Netherlands are also ripped off by phishing every year, where criminals can steal sensitive banking details via misleading emails or text messages. According to the NOS/NRC researchers, Bunq's approximately 11 million users in Europe are at greater risk of being fleeced by phishers because the bank takes fewer security measures than traditional competitors. Unlike other banks, Bunq does not set daily limits for the amounts that can be transferred, and customers have great difficulty contacting employees in the event of problems. 'Security is not a topic that really drives Ali', says a former Bunq employee in the report. 'He just wants to offer customers the best possible product.' Something Niknam strongly denied this week. Security has been a top priority at Bunq from day one and the bank is busy adapting its systems even further, it said in a statement on LinkedIn . Niknam is not exactly used to playing defensively. The entrepreneur, who moved from Tehran to Gouda at the age of seven as the son of Iranian parents, founded Bunq eleven years ago precisely to put the traditional banks under pressure. The traditional banks in the sector were too slow, not transparent enough and did not respond to the needs of the customer, was the reasoning. Bunq, which only works via an app, would change that as the self-proclaimed 'Bank of the Free'. Starting a bank from scratch is a crazy task, but Niknam was not new to entrepreneurship. As a self-made man, he had already set up an online computer business at the age of sixteen, and a few years later he launched TransIP, the internet company that would grow into a billion-dollar company after the merger with the Belgian Combell of entrepreneur Jonas Dhaenens. In passing, Niknam also supported The Datacenter Group, another IT company that is valued at billions. It earned him the nickname 'unicorn whisperer': unicorns are unlisted companies that are considered to be worth more than 1 billion dollars or euros. Bunq has also been known as a 'unicorn' for some time , although that does not mean that the bank is a cash machine for Niknam. The smartphone bank, which is also active in our country, only announced its first annual profit ever shortly after New Year . With that first profit in its pocket, Bunq is increasing its ambitions: the company applied for a definitive banking license in the UK at the beginning of this year and is also dreaming out loud of doing business in the US.

Interesting, some of Niknam’s interviews have been widely discussed in the Netherlands, including one where the interviewer won a Tegel, the country’s most prestigious journalism award. This was covered in de Volkskrant [50]. Another relevant source is [51]. Loewstisch (talk) 14:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Requested to reopen this. Given that it was closed once already, I think more eyes would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the websites you highlighted focus on Bunq rather than Ali, which is why I initially supported the redirect. The sources you cited for Niknam’s interviews and information are self-promotional and published as blog posts or in the PR sections of websites. These do not appear to be verifiable sources. I will align with my delete vote. NenChemist (talk) NenChemist (talk) 02:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, obviously. The Ernst & Young Dutch entrepreneur of the year 2024[52]? Businessman of the Year 2022 in the Netherlands[53]? His own biography page on Quote[54], because he is estimated to be a billionaire and the 12th richest Dutch entrepreneur? A profile in Ondernemersmagazine[55]? Central figure in a College Tour episode[56]? A complete profile in print publication Quote500[57], which makes it clear that he is more than just his most famous company (so not a good redirect target)? Plus all the sources already given above? Ridiculously strong keep I would say. Fram (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vimazoluleka

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

Article about a film, not properly sourced as passing WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party coverage about them in media -- film reviews, evidence of noteworthy film awards, production coverage, that sort of thing.
But the only footnotes here are an article about the director's death which briefly namechecks this film without being about the film in any non-trivial sense (and doesn't even support the statement about the film's postproduction that it's footnoting), a press release from the film's own production studio, and a short blurb that isn't substantive enough to get the film over GNG all by itself.
Further, even though the film was released in 2017 according to IMDB and the dating of the footnotes agrees with that, the creator wrote about this as if it were an "upcoming" film slated for release in 2024 -- and although I've corrected that nonsense already, there are other statements here (some completely unsourced, and the postproduction claim that isn't supported by the director's obituary) that may also be in question if they can't be properly verified. (I've also had to remove two other footnotes that had nothing to do with this film at all, and were present solely to falsely assert, because of the misrepresented release date, that it would be a "posthumous" work for cast and crew who died after 2017.)
As most coverage would likely be in Spanish, and the film actually came out long enough ago that the very low number of GNG-worthy Google hits might not be the whole story, I'm willing to withdraw this if somebody with good access to databases of Venezuelan media coverage from the 2010s can find enough solid sourcing to salvage it -- but especially given that the article contained significant falsehoods that just IMDb alone was able to smoke out, it really needs much better sourcing than it's got right now. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Venezuela. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 05:14, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Added sources about the play, widely described by significant coverage in reliable sources as one if not the most successful vanguard play of its time in Vnz. The article needs cleanup. I didn't even check the film. Much more exists about the play in Sp./En. -Mushy Yank. 05:16, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 05:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article says it is about a play (or a musical? This is not clear), but the infobox is a film infobox showing the date of the film's release, and full of incorrect info, if this is an article about a stage work. The article is a mishmash of useless and conflicting information, if it is about a stage work, and it contains a bloated table showing the entire film cast, but little information about the stage work's production. It would be better to delete this article and write an article about the play (or musical?) instead that makes some sense. I tried to do some rewriting on the article to reorganize it and try to make sense of it, but all my edits were reverted without, apparently, considering any of this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Afds are not for cleanup and I am the one who reverted your single edit to it because it was imv detrimental to what I thought was an improvement of the page; I thought that especially during this Afd your edit was making less clear what the page is about and how it is notable. The musical play is notable, and I have, since nomination, made it the primary subject of the page, which your edit made unclear; the film being its adaptation, the fact that it's covered in a section with an infobox does not seem to be a problem that deserves deletion. Thank you. -Mushy Yank. 21:17, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I think you can argue whether the sources pass sigcov thresholds, but to me it seems like the play meets GNG. The movie might not, but I don't think that's relevant to whether the adaptation is covered or not here in relation. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 14:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
keep I see bunch of online articles in Spanish which are not included within the article and I assume it at least fulfills WP:NBASIC. Here are few examples 1 2 3 4 Instant History (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow discussion of recently added sources, and to address the question of whether factual inaccuracies are serious enough to warrant deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The recently added sources from @Mushy Yank and @Instant History appear to have enough significant coverage to meet notability. Madeleine (talk) 02:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jolyon Jenkins

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

WP:DRAFTOBJECT prevents me from returning this to draft unilaterally. I am unsure that would be my preferred action now it is in mainspace. Jenkins is presented as a good but WP:ROTM journalist doing his job. Many, most, of the references are his work, but they are not reviews of him nor his work, thus they provide no verification of any putative notability. WP:V is a key tenet of Wikipedia and is not satisfied. As presented and referenced I cannot see a pass of WP:BIO. A WP:HEY outcome would be acceptable. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, News media, Radio, Television, and United Kingdom. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 17:21, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The creating (and main) editor moved this back to draft. I have moved it back to mainspace since it is mid process, and suggested to them that they offer an opinion here to draftily. Should they do so, and assuming that no-one has suggested deletion in the interim, I will withdraw the nomination in favour of moving to draft. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 12:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, should that happen with no intervening counter opinion, I am content that this signifies my withdrawal, and any editor in good standing may note that and close the discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 13:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have move protected the article to discourage another attempt on their end. If someone feels consensus is reached sooner than 7 days, any admin may lift if I'm not online to do so. Star Mississippi 14:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been substantially rewritten to clearly demonstrate the subject's notability through multiple independent sources. It now includes national press reviews from The Guardian, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and Radio Times, industry-recognized awards such as the One World Broadcast Trust Award and the Sony Radio Award, and evidence of significant contributions to public debate, including testimony before the House of Lords Select Committee on data protection. Given these factors, the subject meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria for journalists and media figures Frobisher2021 (talk) 13:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see this as an opinion that this be kept, and not draftified.

I am slightly saddened about this. Of the references that I can access, two only point to an award, which might confer notability. The others are simple evidence of Jenkins doing his job, which cannot verify notability. One is a programme listing, which shows that he has a programme, and another does not mention him. I have not changed my view, nor my willingness to accept a request to return this to draft as an outcome of this discussion. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 18:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations are intended to verify that Jenkins produced or presented the programmes mentioned. In such cases, a programme listing is a valid source, as it confirms authorship and broadcast history. If there is a specific citation where Jenkins is not mentioned, I would appreciate clarification so it can be corrected.

Regarding notability, multiple citations go beyond listings and are national press reviews from The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, and Radio Times. The consistent critical acclaim over decades from respected critics (e.g., Gillian Reynolds provides strong evidence of notability, as it is not just passing praise, but exemplary recognition, going beyond “run of the mill”. If more evidence of this is required, it can be provided.

Additionally, Jenkins was Deputy Editor of the New Statesman, a major political magazine. His work has been frequently cited in peer-reviewed academic research and journalism studies, including publications like the British Journalism Review, Index on Censorship, and the scholarly book Investigating Corporate Corruption (Taylor & Francis). These citations further demonstrate his impact on journalism and public discourse. A section on this could be added.

Regarding awards, while only two currently have citations, further research is likely to provide more. The fact that industry-recognized awards cannot so far be backed up by citation in itself is not a reason for deletion, especially given the additional press and academic recognition.

Finally, if the objection is based on access to citations, Wikipedia's verifiability policy explicitly allows print sources, even if they are not personally accessible to all editors. Many of these sources are accessible through newspaper archives (e.g., Newspapers.com, The British Library), and all are fully formatted with author, title, and date, allowing verification through standard research methods. Frobisher2021 (talk) 20:30, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I feel this article, with some work, could be suitable for the mainspace. At this time, it is not ready. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktkvtsh (talk • contribs) 15:21, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I left this for this long in case the creator would agree to draftify, but that is not going to happen. In fact there is little point draftifying what is currently, and likely to remain, a non notable journalist. The problem with the sourcing has been explained by the nom., but to be clear: sources must not just be from reliable sources, they must have significant subject of the page subject (such that the page can be written) and, importantly, they must be independent. Interviews are not independent. Their own work and listsings of their work are not independent. There needs to be independent sources that speak about this journalist, demonstrating notability. We don't have that. So sourcing is lacking. We also have no indication of notability from any of the WP:NJOURNALIST criteria. The discussion of awards would be a criterion under WP:ANYBIO which states, under criterion 1, likely notability if The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. "Well-known" and "significant" are where this falls down, and that is even supposing those awards are for the journalist (some are) and not for the programme team (as, for instance, here [58] ). So there is no pass of ANYBIO on criterion 1. Even if there were, ANYBIO is only a refutable indication of notability, and the lack of sources that talk about Jenkins is the real reason that we should not be covering this. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well I would agree to draftify but I don't know how. Please take this as my assent. I am puzzled by your comments, which is not to say that I disagree with them but I simply do not understand.

I don't think any of the sources are interviews, so I don't see how that objection applies.

When you say "their own work or listings of their work are not independent" - but surely a listing of a work on a BBC website is sufficient to demonstrate that the work exists and that the subject was producer and/or presenter of it? (Because the listings say so and the BBC is authoritative on this point)

When you say that "There needs to be independent sources that speak about this journalist, demonstrating notability" surely multiple reviews from independent reviewers in the national press, which refer to Jenkins by name, in terms that make it clear that they consider his work to be notable, demonstrate exactly that? Again I am trying to understand, not argue.

On the awards, there are citations for all but two. The Radio Academy (Sony) awards are as significant as they come, and the others are (or were) major industry awards. It is true that broadcast journalism awards are given to programmes and not individuals, but in the case of the one you link to, Jenkins is both presenter and producer, i.e. the entire team. This is true of many of the other ones too. In the case of File on 4, each episode had two journalists (producer and reporter) as the BBC listings show. So the credit would be equally shared. Frobisher2021 (talk) 18:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of Why This Article Meets Wikipedia’s Notability Criteria

Although I would accept draftify as a compromise, I believe that the article does in fact meet the notability criteria

Press Coverage: Multiple reviews in The Guardian, The Times, The Independent, Daily Telegraph Radio Times over decades.
Major Industry Award: One programme awarded Sony Radio Academy Award—described as “the Oscars of British radio”; two others nominated.
Parliamentary Impact: His work was cited in a House of Lords Select Committee report.
Academic Recognition: Cited in Investigating Corporate Corruption (Taylor & Francis) and British Journalism Review and many other academic papers.
Senior Editorial Role: Former Deputy Editor of the New Statesman, a leading UK political magazine.

Specialist Awards: Recognized in One World Media Awards, * British Environment & Media Awards, Medical Journalism of the Year awards (twice) which have honoured major BBC and other journalists and which are widely recognised as prestigious. Frobisher2021 (talk) 10:42, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The two Medical Journalist of the Year awards, the Sony, the praise cited from reviews of his work ("The Glasgow Herald described him as 'the go-to guy for quirky subjects which require intelligence and chutzpah in equal measure', while the Radio Times has noted that 'Jenkins makes some of the most original documentaries on Radio 4' and in the same publication, David Gillard noted 'Whatever subject Jolyon Jenkins is dealing with I will listen ... I regard him one of our finest broadcasters'"), and "The Liquidators. This documentary is extensively discussed, including Jenkins's role, in the book Investigative Journalism" clearly indicate notability; as does the subject's role presenting programmes on a national radio station. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and Delete Here are the problems that I see: 1) we have no sources ABOUT him other than to name him in some brief reviews in newspapers, which are not enough for GNG 2) most of the facts here are not from independent sources - his name on a BBC show listing isn't an independent source, and is very thin for sourcing 3) I have no idea if the Medical Journalist Awards are important enough to reach GNG, but that is all we have to go on. To Frobisher2021 I would recommend a review of the WP:Reliable_sources and WP:Notability since these seem to not met in the article. I removed some WP:PROMO and exaggerations in the language; I also removed the Google Doc spreadsheet citations (not a reliable source), and other non-reliable sources (linking to a Swedish TV listing of a documentary was particularly odd). My recommendation is draftify and for the editor to take this through WP:AFC where they might be given help with the problems. Lamona (talk) 06:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. The mentions from the reviews are indeed brief, but the reviews themselves are not. For example, if you follow the to the Guardian review for the "Brixmis Story", which was shortlisted for a Sony award, you will find that the reviewer goes on to say " It's an amazing story, for the full substance of which I really urge you, listen again, listen again". This is not untypical, but to quote the reviews in full would turn the article into a hagiography, which is not my intention - they are included only to demonstrate notability. The Medical Journalist of the Year awards are definitely prestigious - other winners include Michael Mosley and Marjorie Wallace. I am uncertain how to demonstrate authorship of particular programmes other than through BBC online listings. I imagine print listings in national newspapers would qualify, but would the Radio Times? Frobisher2021 (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I looked up the Guardian article and although there is the praise you quote, there is only a scant paragraph, and that is not what we call "substantial." You need to source as much as possible to articles ABOUT the person, and I mean ARTICLES - longish pieces (pages, not sentences) about the person. If various programs are notable (as WP defines WP:NOTABILITY) you need third-party, independent sources for the programs - more than a quick review in a piece that is essentially: this is what was on this week. Mere listings, whether on BBC or in a newspaper, are not sufficient to establish notability and are not independent. As for the awards, who has won them is not what makes them prestigious - again, we need sources that are independent that explain the importance of the awards. I looked for those and didn't find any. If you have some you should add them to the article. Lamona (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Frobisher2021, I'm glad you've dropped the AI - as you've perhaps noticed, ChatGPT (or whatever LLM you're using) is really quite terrible at understanding Wikipedia. I strongly suggest avoiding it for both writing articles and conversing with other editors. -- asilvering (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: plenty of sourced evidence of awards and recognition for his work. Yes minimal biographic info, but that is not uncommon among people who are known for their work and not for their private life. From this I could have added that his mother was a teacher for 45 years and (I think we can logically infer without OR) that he studied journalism at City University, but he appears to have chosen not to share his life on LinkedIn etc, and is no less notable for that. PamD 23:54, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you saw what you consider "plenty of sourced evidence" for the awards? I looked at all of the "awards" and other than the medical journalism award (which I'm still trying to find information about, beyond its own web page) I can't access the Ariel sources, and the book that is cited has only a mention of Jenkins, nothing that supports the award. Note, also, that the Sony awards for both years are nominations, not wins, and the number of nominees is quite large. Lamona (talk) 04:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To me this looks like a "no consensus" at this time: opinions are reasonably divided on borderline sources and other evidence. Relisting in the hope of more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

I would like to address some of the points that have been made, and separate out the two issues - sources and notabiity. Sorry this is a bit long. Re sources. Many of the sources are BBC programme listings. These are primary sources but WP:PRIMARY allows such sources “to support straighforward descriptive claims”, and WP:V clarifies: “If a reliable source states that a person authored a programme, that is sufficient.” So these sources are not thin for the purpose they serve. Re the fact that some sources are not easy to verify: This is true, because they are print listings. However WP:V says “Editors may use materials that have been published in reliable sources, even if they are not easily accessible”. The print sources I have used can all be verified using standard research methods such as newpapers.com or other newspaper databases and the British Library.

Notability: “There is very little about Jenkins” - possibly not, but Jenkins’s notability is in the body of his work rather than him as a person, and that is what the sources demonstrate. I think that the subject would be notable even without the awards, and could point to many other BBC journalists with pages who have few if any awards and little if any recognition in national newspapers. The fact of being a regular presenter and producer on national radio is (in their case) enough, and Jenkins has been a regular presence on BBC national radio for three decades.. However, turning to the questions about the awards:

Are the awards significant? If significance is not to be found in a list of previous winners (which I’d dispute) how about the body that awards them? In the case of Medical Journalist of the Year, this is awarded by the Medical Journalists Association, and newspapers whose journalists receive them always describe them as prestigious. The same goes for the British Environment and Media Awards, which are awarded by the WWF. Indeed the Independent saw fit to celebrate the fact that its distinguished environment correspondent Geoffrey Lean was simply a runner up.
Is being runner up twice in the Sony’s significant? (In addition to the bronze). Each category has five nominees, of which three get gold/silver/bronze. Yes in total there are many nominations, but almost all are for categories such as news, breakfast shows, drivetime shows etc. Documentaries are barely in there, so to be nominated twice from the hundreds made each year is, I would say, a notable achievement
If a programme (rather than a named journalist) wins an award, does this confer notability on the journalist? Radio documentaries are essentially one-person endeavours - producer, and sometimes reporter/presenter. In many cases, Jenkins both produced and presented, so the credit must go to him alone.
The mentions in the reviews are “brief”. This is because the reviews are of the programme not the person, and so Jenkins is mentioned to establish authorship and then the reviews - at a standard length - go on to talk about the programme. Even so, the mentions, particularly by GIllian Reynolds in the Telegraph, single out Jenkins for his exceptional qualities, often referring to his body of work in general as well as the programme under review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frobisher2021 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this has been noted, but you, User:Frobisher2021, are the original creator of this article. You obviously are a legitimate participant in this discussion but your two "walls of text" are to some extent explained by the effort you have put into this article. As I said above, I think you would benefit by taking this article through wp:AFC where you can get advice about sourcing without the immediate threat of deletion. Lamona (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Fonseca (footballer, born 1993)

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

~~Unable to locate significant coverage of this individual. Searching turns up stats farms and namesakes, without any detailed information from independent sources.~~ C 679 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Brazil. C 679 08:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 08:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per WP:HEY. I added sources that demonstrate WP:SIGCOV, the player has relevant spells with several intermediate Brazilian football clubs such as Joinville EC, SER Caxias and Ypiranga FC. Svartner (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Despite recent expansion by Svartner, in my view, most of the additional sources are transfer reports and contract renewal. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added more recent transfer sources, but most of them provide a summary of the player's career in addition to all the relevant information to establish WP:GNG. I don't see any gaps missing. Svartner (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Svartner and AGF for notability. Giant Snowman 20:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am withdrawing this nomination per the good sources found and added by User:Svartner. @Clariniie: Could you take a further look due to the different state of the article now? 08:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)C 679[reply]
Regardless of whether those describe the person's career or not, transfer sources are considered routine coverage. Social media ones are user-generated and should never be used on Wikipedia. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They are not user-generated. There is a very limited number of people who have access to a club's Instagram profile. However, they are primary sources and do not contribute to notability. Furthermore, some "transfer sources" are in-depth and some (many) are not, no blanket statement can be made about transfer news - e.g. some sources use the transfer news opportunity to go into detail about the player's career, abilities, personality etc. At this point, anyway, the AFD can be closed in 20 hours after the normal elapsed time. Geschichte (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I kinda agree if secondary routine announcements go in-depth about the person's career! This is such a thing that comes to my mind. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 10:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per above. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. 1. Soccerway: stats N. 2. GloboEsport 1: passing mention N. 3. Futebol Interior: routine transfer announcement nearly identical to the club's press release N. 4. GE 2: routine transfer announcement also derived from PR N. 5. Press release from 3, N. 6. Marcou no esporte: reprint of press release, N. 7. GZH: routine interview, little secondary coverage N. 8. GZH: transfer announcement, slightly more material than usual but all of it is shallow stats, not secondary analysis N. JoelleJay (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 8. source provides in-depth coverage of the player's entire career. The others complement practically all other remaining information. Excluding information that goes beyond the player's sporting career, there is nothing missing. Svartner (talk) 03:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – More complementary sources [59], [60], [61], [62]. Svartner (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources provide any coverage of him beyond listing which teams he played for and other trivial info from press releases (and the last one is a football club). That is all info we could get from looking at his stats page, thus routine and primary. JoelleJay (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Svartner's current sourcing for notability. SuperSkaterDude45 (discusión) 04:02, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As JoelleJay stated, none of the sources indicate significant coverage required for GNG. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As several other users stated, some of the sources indicate significant coverage for GNG. One user stating an opinion does not invalidate other users stating their opinion. Frank Anchor 15:06, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I really understand the criticism that there won't be an article dissecting the entire life of a second-tier Brazilian football player, but all the information pertinent to his sporting career is covered by the sources. I think it's a matter of WP:COMMONSENSE. Svartner (talk) 13:06, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just because content is verifiable doesn't mean it warrants its own separate page. Basically nothing here goes beyond what you can find in a stats database. JoelleJay (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per references provided by Svatner and others. I reject JoelleJay’s characterization of ref 8 as shallow stats, not secondary analysis as it provides coverage of the subject’s career to that point, beyond simple stats. Some of the remaining sources can be pieced together to get this past the GNG finish line. Per WP:NBIO, if the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. Frank Anchor 15:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 8 says Fernando was signed by Caxias in November last year . Before that, he played for Figueirense, Grêmio Barueri, Criciúma, Moto Club, Luverdense, Deportivo Tepic, from Mexico, Itumbiara, Boa Esporte, Joinville, Brasil de Pelotas and Cascavel. This year, he played in 29 matches, 28 of which as a starter.
In the Gaucho runner-up position , he played in 12 matches. In the Série D, he played in 17 matches. In fact, the defender was the team captain at various times this season.
Literally nothing in there has any depth of coverage; it's all stats one could glean from his transfermarkt profile. Nothing whatsoever useful for a biography. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Anchor is somehow correct. As long as the routine story provides more details about a specific than announcement, it can be used, but multiple sources containing significant coverage are required. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 12:24, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see several sentences with more-than-routine details of Fonseca's career. In addition, the requirement of multiple GNG-required sources can be circumvented by pieceing together information presented in other sources, as specifically allowed by WP:NBIO (see my comment above including relevant excerpt from that guideline). Frank Anchor 14:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

? Where is that in the guidelines? Merely having additional details does not make something automatically SIGCOV, especially if it's simple prosifying of stats. This also really isn't "more details" than you get in routine coverage of announcements (which is explicitly listed in NOTNEWS). JoelleJay (talk) 18:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You left out the rest of the sentence you quoted from NBIO: trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability. None of the other independent sources offer more than passing mentions. JoelleJay (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I left that out because it is not relevant here. The info surrounding transfer announcements (which are NOT primary in most cases as they are derived from and are not exact copies of the press release), along with some coverage provided by Svartner add a few sentences here-and-there of non-trivial coverage which compliments Ref 8 which was called out above. Frank Anchor 17:20, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is most certainly relevant here... WP:N says It is common for multiple newspapers or journals to publish the same story, sometimes with minor alterations or different headlines, but one story does not constitute multiple works. Several journals simultaneously publishing different articles does not always constitute multiple works, especially when the authors are relying on the same sources, and merely restating the same information. The info in the transfer announcements, in addition to being routine (For example, routine news coverage of announcements, events, sports, or celebrities, while sometimes useful, is not by itself a sufficient basis for inclusion of the subject of that coverage and Moreover, not all coverage in reliable sources constitutes evidence of notability for the purposes of article creation; for example [...] announcements columns [...] are all examples of coverage that may not actually support notability when examined, despite their existence as reliable sources), is coming directly from the press releases. What little there is about him that isn't in PR is trivial. JoelleJay (talk) 18:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:N, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:HEY. Z. Patterson (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I get the sense that JoelleJay's critical source analysis was not adequately refuted. Relisting in the hope of getting another experienced editor to analyze those sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:51, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per JoelleJay. I can't find any SIGCOV in these sources. Passing mentions and stats table aren't SIGCOV. !Keep arguments aren't convincing at all. — Benison (Beni · talk) 15:14, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As there is no WP:SIGCOV if there are more than 15 sources dealing with the athlete's sporting career, several of which are from large Brazilian sports portals such as GloboEsporte ([63], [64]) and GauchaZH (Rio Grande do Sul) [65]. What else is needed here, finding out what the player's favorite dish? Svartner (talk) 17:03, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, passes GNG with sifniciant coverage.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:52, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it is not enough to simply say this meets GNG with SIGCOV when the source analysis shows otherwise. As JoelleJay has shown, all the coverage is routine, being listings, routine announcements, etc, which are not significant coverage, becuase they provide nothing that demonstrates the player is notable beyon simply being a player. Press releases and anything from the club are not independent, and all the announcements are primary sources. GNG is met when we have significant coverage in reliable independent secondary sources. We don't have those. This does not pass GNG or ANYBIO. There should not be a page until it does. I'd consider a suitable redirect should anyone wish to propose one, but failing that, this is a clear delete. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep - It appears that Fernando has more than the average profile for a Brazilian footballer competing at the top level of secondary state competitions (Gaúcho, Mineiro, Catarinense). He was a squad regular as Boa Esporte reached the 2019 Campeonato Mineiro semi-finals and Caxias reached the 2023 Campeonato Gaúcho final. Those are fairly significant club achievements, but he didn't appear to do much of note during the matches (e.g., [66] and [67]). I've searched for Portuguese-language coverage, and I couldn't find anything better than reference #7 (which as JoelleJay noted above doesn't have a lot of secondary coverage). That said, he goes by the name Fernando (sometimes Fernando Fonseca), so I'm not at all confident my searches captured everything that is out there. Based on his above-average achievements and the usefulness of reference #7, I think we have some reason to believe SIGCOV exists. Jogurney (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final relist to see if we can settle this clearly in one direction or the other. Anyone able to fill in Jogurney's search?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. JoelleJay's brief analysis of the Soccerway source is pretty clear (an example) that many of the article's sources do not factor into his notability. Source dumping also doesn't contribute to the notability discussion if those sources are simply passing mentions of the subject. The widespread, independent secondary coverage requires multiple, in-depth sources on the subject. As one editor previously pointed out, there seems to be one of such sources — and only one so far (=/= widespread coverage). GuardianH 19:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gregory M. Auer

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

Shot some legendary films, yes, but has no viable third-party coverage. Article has had next to no content and poor sourcing since 2007 creation. Redirect to Carrie preferred if deletion not an option. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Film. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:CREATIVE Various sources discuss his work for very notable films, especially Phantom of Paradise and Carrie, indeed. They include Mitchell, N. (2014). Carrie Liverpool University Press, p. 39; De Palma, B. (2003). Brian De Palma : interview University Press of Mississippi. p 41; The New Yorker. (1976) Volume 52/6 - Page 183; Bouzereau, L. (1988). The DePalma cut: the films of America's most controversial director New York: Dembner Books, p. 44 -Mushy Yank. 08:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you share what those sources say as viable third party coverage? I found the first and second but I was unable to read them. In a review of the first book which I could read, De Palma is mentioned often but Auer wasn't mentioned at all which strikes me as the reviewer not finding mentions of Auer enough to be notable. I am all for keeping more pages on Wikipedia, given enough content and notability. Moritoriko (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The first evokes the films he has worked on; the second is BdP saying why and how he worked with him and how much he appreciates his work, the third indicates the importance of his work in Carrie, the fourth indicates how he worked on the supernatural forces in Carrie. MANY other sources in various languages (EN, FR, IT, etc) indicate his work for Carrie was important in making the film what it is. -Mushy Yank. 10:05, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, after further digging I was able to find the 3 books (no dice on The New Yorker) and I strongly disagree that any of those 3 offer enough to meet the criteria. In Interviews he talks about his production secretary, Wendy Bartel, as much as he talked about Auer. I'm very impressed with how you were able to find those references to his name but I am sticking with Delete. Moritoriko (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first book only mentions Auer once in passing, The DePalma Cut two paragraphs (see archive.org). Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Third book only has this to say:

> He's very good. He's a nuts and bolts kind of guy...very soft spoken. He used to work for Disney.

Moritoriko (talk) 11:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try to find more sourcing to back up your argument. Offhand I'll say this - I've actually heard of the guy and he's been dead since the 90s. He's somewhat known in the horror/exploitation flick crowd, since he did the effects on some pretty major movies in the genre (Carrie, Dirty Marry Crazy Larry, Phantom of the Paradise).

Offhand I did find this review from the New Yorker that mentions his work in Carrie. I think we should count reviews like this towards notability because well, individual special effects people typically don't get mentioned in sources unless they've made a name for themselves. They don't get the big attention unless they manage to make it super big ala Tom Savini (or dip their toes into other fields more likely to get sourcing - also ala Tom Savini). My point is that special effects people are part of a group that's kind of like educators - we need to take the smaller mentions into consideration.

Other than that, I do think the obituary could be usable. It's not written by the family or the funeral home - it mentions services, but it looks like it was written by an unrelated journalist. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:12, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In this book it's specifically mentioned that Auer's work in Carrie was imitated by other, subsequent horror films - implying that he's made an impact on his field. I'll see if I can find other things beyond Carrie, of course. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:21, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At bare minimum I think we should at least redirect with history to the film article for Carrie - that seems to be what is bringing up the most promising results. I could swear there's more out there and that I've seen mention of him in various RS, it's just not coming up for me. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on trying to craft a paragraph in Carrie (1976 film)#Filming about his work so that we can redirect there. Moritoriko (talk) 00:07, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This one is really frustrating since the guy is known in the horror communities - I remember Joe Bob Briggs featuring one of his movies (I think Hills have Eyes) and mentioning him. I don't think it's impossible to establish notability, just that this might end up taking longer than the AfD would run, given that he died in 1993 and his last major film was in the 1970s. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 00:51, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -Mushy Yank. 08:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Considering the only page that links here is Carrie (1976 film) and almost all the sources mention him in context of that movie I think it is fine to have his name redirect to the Filming subheading on that page. Moritoriko (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC) Edit: Moving this above the other one so it doesn't interfere with the context of the comments to my first message[reply]
Delete After trying to search around with various terms in addition to his name all I was able to find was a 1 sentence mention of his involvement in the special effects in Carrie in the Independent, which certainly doesn't qualify for GNG Moritoriko (talk) 08:28, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, that mention alone is not enough for GNG but is a strong indication other sources should confirm he meets WP:CREATIVE. Which I think he does. -Mushy Yank. 10:06, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, I don't know how to change my original comment but I'd be satisfied with a redirect to Carrie, I attempted to add a paragraph there showing his influence on the film. Moritoriko (talk) 00:22, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(To change your !vote, you would simply need to ~~strike though~~ your original !vote.Thanks.) -Mushy Yank. 05:40, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for teaching me how to do that, I totally forgot you can edit this page like every other page on Wikipedia. You can change your vote to redirect as well so we can get consensus and close this then :) Moritoriko (talk) 06:39, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found a local obit, not much more Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:26, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that obituary mentioned above is significant coverage in a reliable source and together with the additional sources added to the article since nomination there is a narrow pass of WP:GNG with the strong likelihood of offline sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it significant coverage? It's short with standard coverage of his career and a cutesie quote. Plus, hometown bias: a Chino paper covering a well-known Chino resident. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 05:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It looks like delete is off the table but that we haven't managed any really strong keeps yet - do we redirect to Carrie (1976 film)#Filming as suggested?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 01:28, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article Subject seems notable enough Per Atlantic I believe the article Barley passes GNG Theking49393 (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Geschichte (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inktel

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Lacks independent in-depth sources. This was nominated last time here for NC but that was a long time ago. Company notability is more stringent now per WP:ORGCRITE. Imcdc Contact 01:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, and Florida. Imcdc Contact 01:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Lacks sources demonstrating significant coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 01:32, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Largely agree with nom here. Very little sources on the subject, and lacking widespread independent secondary coverage. It's worth noting that WP:SPA that created the 2010 article may have had a connection to the subject, which has since slipped through the cracks in the years since creation. GuardianH 19:52, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Middle School Public Debate Program

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

This is the subject of coverage by WP:PRIMARY sources (to include institutions that have tried it), however in-depth WP:SIGCOV by multiple unrelated third-party WP:RS is lacking. JFHJr (㊟) 01:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, United States of America, and California. JFHJr (㊟) 01:18, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the independent sources demonstrate significant coverage and/or are not reliable. Madeleine (talk) 01:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is a book that has been cited, and several others that haven't made it onto the article yet. If you would like, you can assist in adding more sources. Mangoflies (talk) 02:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable elective Middle School short course. No mentions in the press or other media apart from course related primary sources. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not nescessarily. There are plenty of other sources that haven't been cited yet. It is quite notable. There are also hundreds of thousands of students enrolled. Mangoflies (talk) 02:03, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteNot notable enough for wikipedia. Limited sourcing avaaliabl.e Mangoflies (talk) 02:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC) Mangoflies (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(Replying to original !vote) Please feel free to add them. I did my WP:BEFORE and I WP:AGF others voting and commenting here did as well. Any additions would be most helpful for the closing admin. We have a whole week! JFHJr (㊟) 02:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. ^Wiinter_U 08:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability guidelines. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pilar Del Rey

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

This actor meets neither general notability (WP:GNG) nor alternative criteria at WP:NACTOR. JFHJr (㊟) 00:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, United States of America, and Texas. JFHJr (㊟) 00:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Could not find any information about the actor from reliable sources that demonstrate significant coverage. Fails WP:NACTOR. Madeleine (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look at the page now please. A lot more exists. -Mushy Yank. 09:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete page is a stub with no reliable sources --Theking49393 (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2025 (UTC)WP:SOCKSTRIKE Star Mississippi 18:21, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The page is not a stub anymore and it's full of very reliable sources with significant coverage... I've just added one..... -Mushy Yank. 09:07, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: (strong) A notable character actress. Coverage on the page has her meet the general requirements for notability imv. She might also meet WP:NACTOR as a prolific actress (see filmo in the corresponding French article for a start). -Mushy Yank. 09:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 09:09, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources certainly sufficient for notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: French wiki (though unsourced) shows a lot of activity, but more significantly this ref ("La actriz Pilar del Rey sera nombrada coronela honoraria") seems to show that she was one of 11 stars honoured at a Hollywood event and given the title "Honorary Colonel" (??? My Spanish and Google can't come up with anything better: was it some sort of Westerns award?) The ref is only currently used to support one film she made, but should be used to expand the article and describe this honour, by someone who reads Spanish. PamD 09:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as expanded. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toni Morgan

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

Per WP:BLP1E. While there are few reliable sources covering her crowdfunding efforts for education, other sources are either self-published or not independent such as[68], [69], [70] etc. Herinalian (talk) 20:22, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Canada. Bobby Cohn (talk) 20:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I removed the 3 self-published sources and the promotional lines they pointed to. I equally toned down the page to suit WP:NPOV and removed the tone tag. I also did a further deep search in Googlenews and found extra 5 WP:RS and added them. I believe the subject now meets WP:SIGCOV, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. Furthermore, I carried out a source assessment to further check each of the 15 sources.Maltuguom (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the table as given below:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/04/23/toronto-woman-goes-from-homeless-harvard-with-help-crowdfunding-site/28Q3rfjitQtf1YjmnEsWqM/story.html	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/homeless-to-harvard-toronto-dropout-accepted-to-ivy-league-school/article_d06525a5-4f31-51ef-8a8f-0a97f678700e.html	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/tonika-morgan-once-homeless-now-harvard-bound-seeks-funding-for-tuition-1.3035908	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://thestarphoenix.com/entertainment/from-homelessness-to-harvard-university	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://toronto.citynews.ca/2016/04/15/former-homeless-woman-invite-teens-from-jane-and-finch-to-harvard/	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://globalnews.ca/news/1945257/once-homeless-toronto-woman-crowdfunds-more-than-60k-for-harvard-tuition/	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://www.ethics.harvard.edu/files/%5Bvsite%3Asite-purl%5D/files/2016_17ar_live_cg_v4.pdf?m=1526319187	~ Harvard Ethics PDF doc	~ Harvard Ethics PDF doc	~ minor mention	~ Partial
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2015/05/13/homeless-to-harvard-crowdfunding-education.html	Online news media	Online news media	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/communityrising/people/toni-morgan	~ Harvard Project link	~ Harvard Project link	~ minor mention	~ Partial
https://www.torontomu.ca/news-events/news/2016/02/a-brave-new-harvard-chapter/	~ Online news media	~ Online news media	~ minor mention	~ Partial
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/harvard-student-s-invitation-proves-the-power-of-a-role-model/article_58c60c51-3180-5653-b4eb-85c69fbca687.html	Newspaper tabloid	Newspaper tabloid	focused on the subject	✔ Yes
https://goodblacknews.org/2015/05/26/toronto-native-tonika-morgan-goes-from-homeless-to-harvard-graduate-school-thanks-to-crowdfunding/	~ Online news media	~ Online news media	focused on the subject	~ Partial
https://www.tbnewswatch.com/local-news/reach-out-and-change-the-story-869816	~ Online news media	~ Online news media	~ minor mention	~ Partial
https://www.nsb.com/speakers/toni-morgan/	~ Online news media	~ Online news media	~ minor mention	~ Partial
https://accessinpractice.ca/speaker/	~ web platform	web platform	focused on the subject	? Unknown
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}}.

Note - The source assessment table above clearly reveals that the subject passes the notable test. Also the discussion nominator partially agreed that there are reliable sources cited Maltuguom (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I removed some more language that I felt was blatantly promotional. Also, since this is listed under educators, I want to point out that she does not meet the WP:NPROF criteria - the awards are insufficient. No opinion on WP:GNG. Qflib (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It is still the case that the only sources in the article that contribute towards GNG (reliable, independent, and with in-depth coverage of her) are about a single thing (the crowdsourcing campaign for going to Harvard). The 2018 tbnewswatch source is not in-depth, and the remaining sources are self-written profiles on speaker's bureaus promoting her work as a speaker and a source from Harvard itself; they do not count as independent and reliable. I am not convinced that this article passes WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:33, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, per David Eppstein. We are missing WP:SIGCOV in non-primary reliable sources after the initial blitz of media in 2015. I searched all the usual places, found one follow up in 2016[71] and a mention/quote in 2020[72]. Subject is now working in AI field as a standard corporate professional. Setting aside the coverage from the one event, is there any argument to be made for notability? I don't see one, which makes me doubt this passes WP:BIO1E. Zzz plant (talk) 01:49, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein. Fails to pass WP:BIO1E with the sources in the article and what I could find online. GeorgiaHuman (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maltuguom and everyone, I found extra source to back her service at ByteDance, TikTok's parent company as well as her role as managing director at Northeastern University's Center for Law, Innovation, and Creativity. Here's the source I found https://www.businessinsider.com/creator-economy-hires-promotions-investments-dba-tiktok-and-cameo-2021-4 and I have also added this to the page. Truly, she passes the notability test if I am to add a voice!TBalanx (talk) 18:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adelaide Dental School

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL and also seems to be WP:PROMO. Since we already have an article for the University of Adelaide, I don't see the need for making an article for a wing of the school, not to mention the entire article sounds more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ロドリゲス恭子 (talk • contribs) 22:25, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Medicine, and Australia. Zeibgeist (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#Article content does not determine notability, so "the entire article sounds more like an advertisement than a Wikipedia article" is irrelevant.
It's pretty normal to have separate articles for medical schools and similar programs, so this isn't unreasonable. However, Wikipedia:Merging is something you could propose without resorting to AFD.
It didn't take long to find sources,[73][74][75][76] including about some unique research [77][78][79][80]

WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:31, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taku Morinaga

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

Hasn't played since 2019, fails GNG RossEvans19 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. RossEvans19 (talk) 16:04, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:01, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Other than the The Straits Times article (which is already in the article), here's what I found,
- Gekisaka,
- Yahoo News,
- Yahoo Sports (though I doubt this has WP:SIGCOV but seems like it)
- Yahoo News
- Gekisaka
- Gekisaka

It's hard looking for the guy as Takuro Morinaga has the same character as him. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 06:45, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1st Gulf cup for Veteran Players

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

Not sure if we need a season article for an exhibition competition between retired players. Fails WP:GNG in my book, and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. What is there to say about this competition? This page is just stats and whatnot. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Kuwait. Paul Vaurie (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how exactly to format the reply, but I think it is notable due to extensive media coverage in the middle east, and a season article was created due to plans that this will be a biannual tournament to accompany the senior men's tournament. Exhibition matches and tournments have wikipedia articles if they are notable, such as Soccer Aid, Sidemen Charity Match, and 2025 NBA All-Star Game amongst many others Alitheboss55 (talk) 20:34, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:37, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 20:02, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 20:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Added a number of new sources. Naturally the tournament has not started yet so more sources will be added as events occur, but I think there is notable coverage from around the region about this event. Alitheboss55 (talk) 21:29, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP has WP:SIGCOV Alitheboss55 (talk) 22:03, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 28 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. ✗plicit 01:24, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fairlawn Centre

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

Fails WP:GNG, strip malls typically do not get their own articles. This mall only has one source, and nothing notable has happened besides the renovation. Not to mention this article's notability has been questioned since 2011. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ロドリゲス恭子 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. Zeibgeist (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:36, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; also run of the mill strip mall. All coverage is routine closings of a small store and opening of another. Bearian (talk) 09:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources. Coverage seems to be routine and not in depth. One wouldn't really expect a strip mall to have the sort of WP:SIGCOV needed for a Wikipedia article, nothing here suggests this one does. --Here2rewrite (talk) 00:35, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of sources. Madeleine (talk) 01:15, 28 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.

Keilyn DiStefano

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable member of the U.S. military. News coverage on her looks to be sparse. The cited profile of her published by the Virginia National Guard is a good start, but it's obviously not an independent source. The rank of major definitely distinguishes her from others serving in the Virginia militia (and this is documented in the Guard's profile of her), but the lack of any other significant coverage of her by independent outlets makes me doubt notability. Bridget (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Military, and Georgia (U.S. state). Bridget (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Agreed with the nominator. She is certainly more notable than your average military member, though with the lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent sources, possibly a WP:TOOSOON. Madeleine (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Her service is appreciated and honored, but there isn't enough here to establish Wikipeida notability. Note that the rank of Major is entirely WP:RUNOFTHEMILL - even back in the days when WP:SOLDIER was referred to only flag officer rank (for NG, that'd be the ranks of brigadier general and up) was worthy of note, and it's only tighter now. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:45, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad but true, only one indepth source. I could not find others. If someone can find one source matching the VNG article, pling me and I will gladly change my vote to keep. --GRuban (talk) 19:58, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft