Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 20

< January 19	January 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Thiago França

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

Footballer who played 11 minutes of professional football in 2011. Other sources list this individual as Brazilian. Not notable and no significant coverage. C 679 10:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. C 679 10:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 10:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Bhatt

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

References are mostly of brief primary account (interviews), and the rest do not center around her. WP:NEWSORGINDIA might apply to some sources. Overall, the sources do not establish the grounds for a standalone article on this individual yet. X (talk) 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal 3

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

Cited with only two sources, the one is more like an open sourced blogspot [1] in which the sources attached are full of dead links. The other [2] seems dubious to me. In any case there's not much of independent significant coverage to warrant this standalone article. Garuda ^Talk! 10:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Engineering, Middle East, and Yemen. Garuda ^Talk! 10:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of wars involving North Yemen

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

An obvious WP:REDUNDANTFORK of List of wars involving Yemen with no source whatsoever. Merging and redirecting are also unwarranted considering there is nothing to merge in its parent article and the list doesn't link to many articles to even consider a redirect. Garuda ^Talk! 09:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Islam, Egypt, Middle East, Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Yemen. Garuda ^Talk! 09:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are an easy fix that I can do right now and I think that the lists for North and South Yemen shoud be removed from List of wars involving Yemen 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the citation issue 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 10:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why should there be a WP:SPLIT of the List of wars involving Yemen? That's not how it works. PS: You need to go through the Migration strategy Garuda ^Talk! 10:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North and South Yemen were two states that existed at the same time; Placing one over another might cause confusion for the time period esp for editors who know nothing about that stuff and are here for the modern Yemen part. Plus we dont have a "List of wars involving Korea" (We do have "List of wars involving Korea until 1948" tho) because those are different states 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 11:10, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OCON. Garuda ^Talk! 11:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled The Exorcist Film

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

Trivial coverage found. Seems to be WP:TOOSOON Heart ^(talk) 09:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Heart ^(talk) 09:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It might be a little early but that doesn't mean we should just completely not make a page about it right? Tooommyharris (talk) 11:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Añjana

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

Lack of reliable sources. Doug Weller talk 09:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only source, the website https://mandalas.life, is definitely not reliable for this. Bishonen | tålk 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Hari Naoomal

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

I can find no independent WP:SIGCOV of this cricketer to meet WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. The independent coverage mentions him in the context of his father, who was a notable cricketer but from whom notability cannot be WP:INHERITED. Nor does he appear to meet the standard of WP:NCRICKET of playing at the international level. Obviously he played in an era without digital coverage, so if you find qualifying sources not accessible in a BEFORE search, please ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Machine Works

AfDs for this article:

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Tamil Nadu. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:28, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:36, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One source and that is poor with no significant coverage on the organization. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:ORGCRIT and WP:ORGDEPTH. This article does not have any beneficial contribution and does not warrant significant notability. RangersRus (talk) 13:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Brunero

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Journalism, Radio, and Television. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Big Brother Australia 2005. LibStar (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Just a note that Big Brother Australia 2005 is not an appropriate target page as it is a Redirect, not an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade X season 1

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

WP:REDUNFORK of List of Beyblade X episodes

Also nominating the second season for the same reason:

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions.

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 07:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Miminity! Just came to my notice today that both the articles were put on deletion. I have made few changes to the two articles. I also did some changes to this article, fearing it may fall under WP:REDUNFORK. Let me know your thoughts on it. Thank you and have a great day! VizDsouz (talk) 03:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per MOS:TVEPISODELIST (For very lengthy series, generally 80+ episodes, it may be necessary to break the episode list into individual season or story arc lists. and If this is done, the main list of episodes should still contain the entire episode list, appropriately sectioned, without the episode summaries.) Beyblade X currently has 64 episodes and will eventually have 80 episodes. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner, Indiana

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

I'm having trouble with the maps on this one, because in spite of what GNIS says, I can't find any trace of the label before the 2013 edition. Possibly there is some coordinate error, but in any case there is just nothing much at the location, suggesting that it was never anything beyond a 4th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 04:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siam-Patani War (1638)

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

(1) The topic is already covered at Patani Kingdom#Blue and Purple Queens. There isn't nearly enough information in scholarly sources to sustain a stand-alone article. (2) Siam's campaign took place in 1634, so the erroneous title wouldn't be useful as a redirect. (3) The little existing content here is wildly inaccurate, so it wouldn't be worth keeping. Yamada died in 1630 and couldn't have had a part in the Siamese invasion. Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Malaysia, and Thailand. Paul_012 (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:30, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Draft of this article was declined four times at Draft:Patani-Siam War (1638). See also Draft:Siam-Patani War (1634), Draft:Siamese-Pattani War (1634), and linked SPI. Wikishovel (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Article creator has now been blocked, but not as a confirmed sock of another account, so G5 doesn't apply. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In addition to the concern about Yamada, "1638" does not appear in the accessible book source (and the web source doesn't seem to be anything). There is a 1634 war, as in Patani Kingdom#Blue and Purple Queens, and the final sentence about 1641 does seem to be real, but related to the 1634 war. It is also already covered in Patani Kingdom#BYellow Queen and decline. So I agree with Paul_012 on his point (2) about the misleading title, and (3) in that the content is either inaccurate or already covered, whether or not their point (1) on the overall lack of sources is true. CMD (talk) 09:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arpad Furka

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

BLP with unclear notability that is inappropriately sourced, creator has not rectified issues and has unusual history. Version 1 was draftified by Significa liberdade as having no sources. Version 2 was submitted to AfC, then accepted by a now blocked sock puppet. NPP tagged, nothing done. I can't draftify again, which might be the right action; it should not stay like this, we need some quality control. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Science. Ldm1954 (talk) 03:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Hungary and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in case I was not clear enough, my suggestion is a vote for Draftify, reverting the sock puppet move to main from a draft. Ldm1954 (talk)

Draftify per nominator. His "General method for rapid synthesis of multicomponent peptide mixtures" has heavy citations, so there might be a case for WP:PROF, but the current article is not adequately sourced for mainspace, and the sockpuppet AfC acceptance should be reversed. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Draftification seems like a reasonable approach given the history here. The article is in a poor state and should not have been accepted at AfC. I've found one biographical source which I've used to clean up parts of the article; there's also a 10-page interview in Hargittai, Istvan; Hargittai, Magdolna (2003-03-21). Candid Science III: More Conversations With Famous Chemists. World Scientific. ISBN 978-1-78326-111-6. (also by the Hargittais) which looks like it might be useful, but the book isn't available from archive.org, and Google Books only has snippet view. I was able to find a source for his 2002 Széchenyi Prize, which may help meet WP:NPROF, but I'll leave that to other editors to decide. Preimage (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wilbert Fernandez

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

The single source provided is a passing mention. Unable to locate any sources which discuss this subject in detail. Lacks sufficient notability. C 679 07:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Venezuela. C 679 07:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Swan River Seaplanes Cessna 208 crash

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. No sign of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, no reason to expect WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Australia. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasons stated by nominator. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and no expectation of lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Antioquia Cessna 402C crash

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. No sign of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE beyond the initial news cycle, no reason to expect WP:LASTING effects. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Colombia. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. No sign of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and no lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Feldman

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP notability. Subject is a former local congregational rabbi (12 years) with no major organisational titles other than a term as president in a local rabbi group. Per existing sources, subject only appear notable due to his fumbled testimony in a royal Commission, this incident led to his synagogue firing him. (Possibly this is notable due to his lawsuit against media coverage?). Other sources relate to family squabbles or local gossip about donors withdrawing support. Overall, there's not enough here. I also note that a 2007 prod result was to delete the page. דברי.הימים (talk) 06:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Acid green

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

Non-notable colour, fails WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. A1Cafel (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Chartreuse (color)? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MaxPlay Classic Games Volume 1

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

Unreferenced article which was formerly BLAR'd into a page where this game compilation was not mentioned. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG from my searches for sources. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 05:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are references on the talk page which should be sufficient to mention it at Datel, but aren't enough from WP:GNG. That feels like a more useful redirect target even if it's not currently mentioned (note that CodeJunkies redirects to Action Replay currently). --Pokechu22 (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page

Nintendo Official Magazine had a review of MaxPlay.^[1] (Unsurprisingly, it's fairly negative.)

There's also a mention in PSX Extreme which seems more about the disc being hard to dump than the game itself.^[2] It's probably not useful to establish notability, but it is interesting to see a reference to Datel discs being weird in a print magazine (I personally know this affects other Datel discs but it doesn't seem to be mentioned there).

All other results I could find were in advertisements. There probably is at least one more magazine review in something that hasn't been digitized (e.g. CUBE) but currently there definitely isn't enough for an article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokechu22 (talk • contribs) 01:48, October 12, 2020 (UTC)

References

^ Scott, Dean (July 2004). "Review: Max Play 01". Nintendo Official Magazine. No. 142. p. 97. ISSN 0965-4240.
^ Yohko; Teruo (April 2005). "szara strefa". Hardkor. PSX Extreme [pl] (in Polish). No. 92. p. 77. ISSN 1429-172X.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Harris (U.S. Marine)

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG as he lacks SIGCOV. The Silver Star does not meet WP:ANYBIO # 1. Soldier who did his duty, but has no lasting notability. Mztourist (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Afghanistan, United States of America, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Baseball Classic Rules

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

Even after removing copyright violations from this page, this page fails the WP:GNG test of WP:NOT as WP:NOTHOW and WP:NOTWEBHOST. The page paraphrases the rules, duplicating them unnecessarily. The page relies entirely on primary sources; there do not appear to be reliable, independent, secondary sources discussing the WBC rules as a subject warranting encyclopedic coverage. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baseball rules as an WP:ATD. The rules here are really not that different from the MLB or Nippon Baseball League. Conyo14 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What would we merge? This is basically a close paraphrase of the rules; Baseball rules is an encyclopedic treatment of the rules. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Redirect and selective merge to World Baseball Classic#Rules and restore the "rules" section that was previously in that article. This article was created as a spinoff of the WBC article, though I do not consider that to be necessary due to relatively the small size of the article (as compared to other major sporting competitions). Frank Anchor 16:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That merge proposal makes more sense, provided the editor(s) performing it avoid the close paraphrasing of the MLB website that characterizes this article. (Outright copyvios have been revdel'ed.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Basically a simple summary of the differences between WBC rules and standard baseball rules is sufficient, assuming it is properly sourced and not the close paraphrasing of the MLB website that characterizes this article. Changing my !vote to a redirect/selective merge. Frank Anchor 14:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm in favor of whatever merge makes the most sense. Conyo14 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge and redirect proposed by Frank Anchor. Please feel free to ping me to perform this if it is closed that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Won Jang

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, not in depth coverage or over a sustained amount of time. The only news since it happened was some people getting charged. ATD redirect to List of hazing deaths in the United States#2020s, where it is included (and, note, most of those deaths seem covered to the same degree as this and do not have articles) PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Connecticut. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect: is fine, not every death is notable. This was sadly just another hazing that went wrong, not the first or the last such event. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has ample sources that provide significant coverage. The most recent article is in The New York Times, providing significant coverage on a national level. This event was also covered in USA Today and The Guardian and People, again providing significant coverage in the US and internationally. Furthermore, this death just happened last year. It is premature to say that there is no ongoing coverage, as there has been a steady number of articles and coverage throughout 2024. I searched Newspapers.com and found 58 hits in 2024, in newspapers across the country. These articles were published in July, August, September, and November. That is coverage in four of the six months since the event happened. That seems like ongoing coverage to me. Rublamb (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such early coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. For a notable case, the coverage might drop off in the interim, but there would be something, or a piece that analyzed it in relation to a broader topic. This does not have that. All the later coverage is press releases/basic announcements which do not count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another recent article in the Washington Post. I don't think you can call this a press release article. This is another article in People, from July 2024, meaning it was covered in this national magazine two times, both reporting and following up on the death. WP:EVENTCRIT says that "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources". This event had widespread national and international coverage. Rublamb (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first is a routine legal announcement that does not contribute to event notability. The second is from the day or so after it happened, also not very helpful. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A byline article in a newspaper with a wide circulation does indeed count toward notability; this article is signficantly different from the short announcement in, for example, USA Today. People covered the death twice, showing ongoing coverage at a national level. Rublamb (talk) 23:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it doesn’t always, depending on the type of coverage and how they are covering it. Legal updates are almost never helpful for notability and coverage form the day after something happened cannot demonstrate sustained. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 15:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Like @Rublamb said, the event has been heavily covered in news and magazines since July, and the case continues to have new information reported in the midst of the ongoing police investigation. Some sources have covered this event more than once. The article is already sourced with a significant amount, which should meet the notability requirements. Cheera L (talk) 00:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cheera L This does not pass notability though, since all sources are WP:PRIMARYNEWS. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PARAKANYAA: WP:PRIMARYNEWS says ""Primary" is not, and should not be, a bit of jargon used by Wikipedians to mean "bad" or "unreliable" or "unusable". While some primary sources are not fully independent, they can be authoritative, high-quality, accurate, fact-checked, expert-approved, subject to editorial control, and published by a reputable publisher. Primary sources can be reliable, and they can be used. Sometimes, a primary source is even the best possible source..." It continues, "AFDs (articles for deletion) require showing that topics meet the general notability guideline's requirement that secondary sources exist. It is difficult, if not impossible, to find secondary sources for...breaking news. Once a couple of years have passed, if no true secondary sources can be found, the article is usually deleted." This clearly states that primary sources are appropriate for articles such as this initially. If no secondary sources are found after two years (late 2026), it would then be appropriate for AfD. However, this nomination is premature, especially if your objection is going to be based on WP:PRIMARY. Rublamb (talk) 01:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rublamb Yes, I do not dispute that more primary news sources are often very useful but primary sources do not help for notability per WP:GNG (which is what WP:NEVENT compensates for). This does not pass NEVENT either, and shows little indication of future coverage. That part of it does not mean we have to keep every breaking news event onwiki for two years after it happens. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a not a random breaking news event, but an incident that was broadly covered in major and national publications. WP:NEVENT allows for the inclusion of these types of events. (Consider that Olympics and election outcomes are allowed in Wikipedia prior to the publication of journals and books). If you continue reading WP:PRIMARYNEWS, you will see that newspaper coverage can be a secondary source; for example, if it is interpreting primary sources such as police reports and court records. This is clearly the case here. WP:GNG says allowable secondary sources include "newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and academic journals." For this article, the identified potential sources provide significant coverage in the allowable formats of newspapers and magazines. Rublamb (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was covered for a few days and then coverage dropped off except for undetailed legal reporting that is basically "person got charged". Yes - and can you genuinely argue that any of the coverage above is analytic or retrospective and not "person got charged"? Because it isn't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, this topic was covered in July, August, September, and November (four of the six months since it happened). That is very different from your description of a few days of coverage and, then, coverage again when sentenced in November. Unless you have reviewed all 58 articles in Newspapers.com and completely read the articles in the NYT, the Washington Post, USA Today, People, and all of the current sources, it is pretty presumptuous to say that all of these sources are "undetailed". As part of the AfD process, we look to see if an article can reasonably be improved. Given the number and range of sources, that seems more likely than not. Rublamb (talk) 04:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It was covered in July and with press release tier material when they were charged. Having reviewed the newspapers.com sources, literally all of it is reprinting the exact same material about the political charge, or his initial death, except for two articles: one a brief mention in a September piece from a local outlet that says in effect "this was sad for the college" and one in a piece in August that says the same. This is not WP:INDEPTH sourcing which evidences event notability.

What is there to say about this? It happened, it did not result in anything or get retrospected upon, this reads like a news article. It is a hazing death, of many hazing deaths, and is not more notable than any other hazing death on that list. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you didn't read all of the articles because this was not a hazing case. No evidence of hazing was found. This was an alcohol related death. As this article in a national magazine notes, the real story is selective in enforcement of underage drinking laws at Dartmouth. This source should also meet your desire for an analytic or retrospective article. Rublamb (talk) 05:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No that's just an extra sign this isn't notable. A guy drowned because he drank too much. It got talked about because people thought it was hazing and then that might not even be true. PARAKANYAA (talk) 05:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great theory but it doesn't fit the factual timeline. Jang died in July and there was some news coverage. A second round of news stories mentioned that the Greek letter organizations were suspended and that there was an anonymous tip suggesting hazing and alcohol. After a police investigation, the cause of death was announced in September, with a finding of no hazing; this was covered by some news outlets. Individuals were charged in connection with his death in November. The majority of national and major publication coverage was in November, related to the criminal charges. This indicates that the main story was students being charged in connection with another student's death, as well as underaged drinking at Dartmouth's GLOs. As the Reason article demonstrates, one issue is Dartmouth's alleged blind eye to student partying. This is a long-running narrative since the film Animal House was based on an actual Dartmouth fraternity. Numerous news articles mention, in the prior year Dartmouth had allowed both of the involved GLOs to continue operating for offenses that would have resulted in expulsion at other colleges. As this article reveals, another issue was the deaths of students in the river; this was the second in a short period. (This is also a second source that explores responses to death, rather than being about the death). Based on the prior coverage of this event, it is reasonable to expect additional news coverage when the students go to court, etc. Rublamb (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These are all local college news and do not help for notability. WP:EVENTCRIT is not passed. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Local collage news? Reason is a national magazine. The extensive article in The Washington Post is a secondary source because it interprets official records. There is also coverage by Newsweek, People, The New York Times, NPR, CNN, and The Boston Globe. WP:EVENTCRIT says "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." Thus, this article meets WP:EVENTCRIT because 1) it has widespread national coverage in diverse sources and 2) it was analyzed afterwards. Rublamb (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Every article that wasn't breaking news of one variety (of them being charged, or the event) is local. This is not being re-analyzed afterwards. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Reason is not a local publication, but a national magazine. Its article is not a news report but an analysis of the criminal charges, criticizing the outcome and handling of the incident. Rublamb (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did not say it was. It is a brief recount less than six months after the event occurred (not long enough to pass WP:SUSTAINED) and says very little. That single piece is not enough to base an article on. At most this is worth a sentence on a related article. How on earth can we have an article that is - a guy drowned. People thought it was foul play but actually nothing happened. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Enough. You all made your points.BabbaQ (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Stop belaboring points already made. This needs to have new voices weigh in.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Institute for Educational Advancement

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

Non-notable organization that sponsors scholarships. None of the sources in the article supports WP:NCORP, nor does anything in my WP:BEFORE search except for possibly this expert blog post. Everything else is press releases, trivial mentions, affiliated sources but nothing else that passes the NCORP threshold. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator; modestly notable scholarship is what the org is known for. Perhaps only needs to be one article about both; I merged the article on the scholarship into the one for the institute (though I could see it going the other direction). – SJ + 16:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you share which sources meet GNG for the scholarship? Every source you've added in the merged text is affiliated with the Institute or is a primary source. I still don't see WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. 3/4 of the page is promoting the foundation, without significant coverage in three or more independent, secondary sources, and using words that are subjective and impart no verifiable information. When I taught at a junior college, every student in their second or third semester was required to take a class on critical thinking, which included a module on distinguishing between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Students in my paralegal program also had to take a second course on how that applies to legal research. The other 1/4 of the page veers off into a discussion about a different foundation with a similar mission, but one entity's notability doesn't confer the same on a different entity. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living Textbook of Hand Surgery

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

I cannot find any indication that this specific work passes GNG or NBOOK. However, the "Living Textbooks" as a platform (which this was the launch of) might. If there are sources for that this could be turned into an article on that, but I am not sure there even are. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Science. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can't find anything that would substantiate the wiki-notability of this book itself. It might be possible to describe the "living textbooks" platform/series at German National Library of Medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could be one choice because ZB MEB is host of Living Textbook of Hand Surgery, but dosn't contribute to the content of this peer reviewed "platform". Woller (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see literally zero secondary coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1. Keep and modify if necessary Woller (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a book as usuual - Living Textbook of Hand Surgery is work in progress as a peer reviewed platform teaching hand surgery using text and videos for surgical techniques. Maybee category "book" is misleading. Woller (talk) 12:06, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't pass the GNG either. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:39, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: including a potential merger target, please
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roanoke-Chowan Pork-Fest

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

A mere 2 google news hits. Fails GNG and WP:EVENT. LibStar (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, and North Carolina. LibStar (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Lazy nom - Nominator should have searched beyond google news. With a few minutes worth of looking, I added 4 WP:RS to put GNG to bed. WP:BEFORE seriously applies. Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from WP:ADHOM comments. I think an event needs non-primary and non-local sources as per WP:GEOSCOPE, otherwise every local barbeque would get an article.

Out of the added sources "Taylor, Holly (23 August 2023). "Pork Fest Revived". Roanoke-Chowan News Herald." is a local source, "Whole Hog Barbeque Series. North Carolina Pork Council" hardly looks independent. this one is an event listing from a non-independent source and very amateur site which looks almost like a blog. this one is a line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
as per WP:EVENT, there is no evidence of WP:LASTING effect or more broad national significance as per WP:GEOSCOPE. This is just a locally run barbeque event. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG is demonstrated: Significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is well established by the coverage in four independent publications:

The article doesn't have to pass both WP:EVENT and WP:GNG. A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.

Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's move on from what the nominator could or should have done and focus on policies please.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 14:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of manipulated economic data in the Islamic Republic of Iran

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

Cut and paste move from Draft:Allegations of manipulated economic data in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It might have been moved back, but in this form it would not have been accepted as a draft. A valid outcome is a consensus to draftify. In its current form I see WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and see this as an essay. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Iran. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably draftify. I think this is almost certainly a notable topic, but agree that in its current form it is unacceptably full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There's enough there that I think it's worth draftifying rather than deleting, but would not be opposed to deletion per WP:TNT. MCE89 (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom and User:MCE89. Notable topic, should not have been moved from draftspace in its current form. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) Due to lack of experience in working with drafts I first worked with a draft and than submitted the article for publication. If not for the lack of experience I would have worked on the draft using WORD and then publish it, as I did in previous articles. Sorry. 2) This is not an original research. I added three citations [1][2][3]) that claim fabrication of data. 3) I was strict in not adding numbers. I only cited references that show a deviation from official data. I thank the members of community for their helpful comments.^[1]^[2]^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razgura (talk • contribs) 13:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added another claim on fabrication of data [3]https://irannewsupdate.com/economy-2/iran-s-false-economic-statistics/

I added new citations that claim problem with inflation data Razgura (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added citations that claim problems with inflation data (https://djavadsalehi.com/2023/04/11/delay-and-discrepancy-in-irans-inflation-data/) (https://www.cato.org/blog/irans-lying-inflation-statistics) Razgura (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://iranfocus.com/economy/52975-unprecedented-inflation-and-rising-prices-in-irans-food-market/ also claims fabrication of inflation data Razgura (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable, nobody disputes this. The page should be improved, but it is sufficiently informative and sourced already. The title probably should be changed by removing word "allegations". My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Amiri, Hoshang (2024-04-18). "Fabricated Statistics in Iran's Economy". Iran Focus. Retrieved 2025-01-12.
^ Khatinoglu, Dalga (2024-02-07). "How Iran Manipulates Foreign Investment Statistics". iranintl.com. Retrieved 2025-01-12.
^ Farhadi, Noah; Lahooti, Hooshang (2023). "In Data We Trust: Proving Market Manipulation on the Tehran Stock Exchange". International Journal of Business and Management. 17 (4): 1. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v17n4p1.

Comment: I see this and see synthesis. I'm not sure if this can be fixed by ordinary editing. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Elianne Andam

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, in that the coverage is largely routine and not in depth, or sustained. My prod was rejected because it was "potentially controversial" (as much as any prod ever is). There isn't anything to say besides it happened - no in depth background on why this happened, or what it means, and all coverage is very local. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The trial has only started recently. Also, there has been significant coverage already. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and so this presents BLPCRIME issues. Just because something goes to trial or makes the news does not make it notable, since those kinds of news sources are WP:PRIMARY and do not count for notability (unlike reflective or analytical ones). It may be significant, but is not secondary. Please read WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been sustained and in-depth coverage on the BBC News website,[4] among other, more local news outlets. So I find your above statements not entirely fitting. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a recounting of a trial - neither sustained nor in depth. Of course it will get covered when it goes to trial, as every publicized crime does. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. The stabbing has received wide coverage by the BBC (and other national news outlets) since 2023. How about we wait for other opinions? --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If true (it is not “wide coverage” by any means) that is not sufficient for event notability - the relevant guideline here is WP:NEVENT, which this does not pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of 20 people getting stabbed isn't notable... Could be named in a list about the crime spree, if that's deemed to be notable. We don't need an article for every person that is the victim of a crime, everywhere on the planet. This is not more notable than the other 19 victims, nor any of the other hundreds of such events that happen daily on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to let everyone know there's now been a murder conviction in this case. I don't know if that changes anything as I haven't been following the case so don't know the circumstances. This is Paul (talk) 23:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It makes it less of a BLP violation but does not help notability. PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think that deletions of pages about controversial topics (child murders, racism, religion , conflicts, etc.) should normally go through the WP:AfD process, unless it's a blatant hoax, defamatory, or clearly spam. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian So you don't think PROD should be used at all? All the latter cases you mentioned are speedy deletion reasons. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Prod" is useful for getting rid of articles that aren't exactly speedy-delete-able but, if deleted without a discussion, would not be controversial. Examples include: a geographical location with no or little evidence to prove its existence, a defeated candidate for village board who has no other claim to notability, an up and coming band that hasn't toured outside of their small hometown, or a page about an engineering firm that isn't blatant spam but no reasonable editor would fight to keep as a notable business. I second nominations at prod every week, sometimes every day; I typically propose deletion a few times a month. Prod shouldn't be used when deleting the article would make Wikipedia look heartless, biased, or otherwise dishonest; if it could make people think of the children, send it to AfD. This allows open debate and discussion. Bearian (talk) 04:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We look heartless and biased every day, in my opinion. And I think the opposite - subjecting these kinds of articles to the bullying process that is AfD seems far more cruel and makes us look worse. So I prefer to prod them if I can. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Sort of WP:NOTNEWS at present, though it could become notable if referred to in discussions involving autism as a defence to a murder charge. Too soon to know. It needs secondary sourcing rather than just the WP:PRIMARY reporting cited in the article, so should it be left for a while longer or deleted on what is known at present? Rupples (talk) 06:10, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kiaya Campbell

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. Coverage is entirely "thing occurred", with no analysis of how/why/what this means. The sourcing is very local and generally very poor, and not over a long period of time. After the perp was sentenced, pretty much nothing. YouTube videos from non RS do not help. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This page should be gone. Horrible sources. 160.69.1.132 (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Im voting keep. A lot of mainstream/non-local sources have reported about this murder: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6][7] SolxrgashiUnited (talk) 21:08, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SolxrgashiUnited All of those sources are either local or unreliable. And, for context, you made the page, not that it cancels out your vote. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete – Sadly, and meaning no disrespect, none of the sources establish that this murder has its own notability beyond being a tragic event. It would be different if it led to significant social or legal change, but I'm not currently seeing that here unfortunately. (Regarding local sources mentioned a couple of times above, however, I've had a look at Wikipedia:Notability and it doesn't say that reliable sources need to have wide geographic coverage.) --Northernhenge (talk) 11:46, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ivan Kinčík

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

Non-notable figure skater; PROD removed. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Slovakia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 11:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject does not appear to have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though not very successful his appearances in the Junior European and European championships are credible. Per WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BabbaQ, what sources are you using to claim GNG is met? JoelleJay (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PQ only had one hit for him, his name in a list. No evidence of significant coverage as required by our guidelines. JoelleJay (talk) 18:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Leo

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

Fails WP:NOTPROMO. Article is written like a promotional resume and for that reason alone should be blown up per WP:TNT. The sourcing does not pass WP:GNG. It's possible she might pass WP:NAUTHOR if some book reviews can be located but I wouldn't support keeping this unless it were stubified or rewritten to remove promotional language. 4meter4 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Women. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have done a bit of editing on this one. The best article in terms of WP:SIGCOV is this one in the New York Times [5]. I have also found reviews of two of her books (see the article), and multiple (more minor) mentions of her work over the years. DaffodilOcean (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as easily meets WP:BASIC and WP:JOURNALIST. Former editor-in-chief of Readers' Digest and Consumer Reports. Founder of Child magazine, subsequently acquired by The New York Times Company (so a bit of a conflict of interest there with the New York Times article above), and then appointed editor-in-chief of Family Circle. This 2002 article in Brandweek affirms that by the time she was hired to lead editorial at Readers' Digest, she was already a widely respected media industry veteran; this article in Mediaweek discusses some of the changes introduced by Leo once she was there. DaffodilOcean has made a good start of fixing this article to read less like a promotional CV. Additional improvements would be very welcome, but this is not grounds for deletion. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robinhood (2025 film)

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

Robinhood (2025 film)

This is a non-notable future film that may be in post-production limbo, and does not satisfy film notability. This article was correctly draftified by User:CNMall41 as not ready for mainspace. It was then moved back to article space by the originator. It was then draftified again by User: Ktkvtsh, but was then moved back to article space by User:Fathoms Below, correctly, because an article should only be draftified once, and if the draftification is contested, the next stop is AFD. So here were are.

The guideline on future films says:

Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines.

Nothing in the article is about production, except to state that there was production. The article does not have reception information, because there has been no reception because it is an unreleased film, but reception information is the usual basis of film notability. The article consists of pre-release publicity, and Wikipedia is not for promotion or pre-release publicity. A review of the references shows that they are all only pre-release publicity. They are mostly press releases, and are not significant coverage of production. Many of them are not significant coverage at all.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary	Counts toward GNG about production itself.
1	www.gulte.com/movienews	A teaser saying that the leading man will lead in the film.	Probably not. Reads like a press release.	No. Less than 100 words.	Yes	No	No
2	www.latestly.com	A teaser about the cast.	Probably not. Reads like a press release.	No. Less than 100 words.	Yes	No	No
3	www.thehindu.com	An announcement of the cast.	Yes	Not about production. Only about cast.	Yes	No	No
4	timesofindia.indiatimes.com	A puff piece about the leading lady.	Probably not. Reads like a press release.	Not about production. Only about cast.	No	No	No
5	www.timesnownews.com	Another puff piece about the leading lady.	Probably not. Reads like a press release.	Not about production. Only about cast.	Yes	No	No
6	telugucinema.com	A teaser about the item number and the item girl.	Probably not. Reads like a press release.	Not about production. Only about the item number.	Yes	No	No
7	www.cinemaexpress.com	Another teaser about a song.	Probably not. Reads like a press release.	Not about production. Only about the song.	Yes	No	No
8	Twitter (now called X)	Announcement of delay in release of film.	Yes	Yes, in its own way.	No. Twitter.	No	No

This article can be moved to draft space by the community to be available to be updated when (if) the film is released.

Delete or Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Note that this was moved back to draft on a different occasion as well, after it was created under a name variation to avoid scrutiny. I've reviewed the references then and unless something magical has happened in the last few hours, this fails notability. One thing not mentioned by nom is even if these references are seen as significant, many are unreliable under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify per source assessment. If the production isn't notable, there's no reason for this article to be outside of draft space right now. jellyfish ✉ 05:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Rostand

AfDs for this article:

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

BLP that doesn't seem to meet WP:NBIO. The coverage is largely interview-based and WP:ROUTINE profile pieces. BilletsMauves^€500 15:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the sources are from Energy sector and the positions etc. sounds notable in the energy sector. The page exists in 3 more languages and on French Google there's a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Statements in WP:NBIO aligns with the content and sources.NatalieTT (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to any WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources? Cause I haven't really seen it in my WP:BEFORE search. BilletsMauves^€500 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kayrros. He does not appear to be independently notable. In particular there is a dearth of independent, reliable sources about him as opposed to written by him, quoting him, or mentioning him. The best I found were [6], [7], and [8] which isn't enough for a BLP even when you add a couple more interviews and plenty of business networking profiles. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William Parente

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO1E and WP:EVENTCRIT and WP:NOTNEWS. Article is sourced entirely to news sources in April 2009. No evidence of lasting significance in WP:SUSTAINED coverage or WP:DIVERSE sourcing. The last AFD was in 2009. Distance should give us better perspective that the event wasn't significant. 4meter4 (talk) 15:24, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Is profiled for a large portion of the Prometheus Books book "Killer Dads" by journalist Mary Papenfus, which has a lot of detail and analysis to pass WP:NEVENT and by extension WP:NCRIMINAL. On the strength of that source alone, I would vote keep. I can retitle it and shuffle stuff around to "eventify" it as "Parente family murders" or something, though with familicides we don't always do that because of how they're covered, and also in this one there's the thing about the Ponzi scheme.... There's also later news coverage and commentary due to the bizarre involvement of the Ponzi scheme in this whole affair. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with PARAKANYAA that the book coverage demonstrates sustained coverage and in combination with news coverage at the time is enough to meet WP:GNG. The book is available on IA by the way. Not opposed to eventifying the article but the topic should be kept. Jfire (talk) 17:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @ PARAKANYAA is there one more source from outside of the 2009 window of coverage? Papenfus' book is certainly a great find, but I would think we would need at least one more source of this quality to satisfy WP:EVENTCRIT. If you are able to find one more of this calibre I will gladly withdraw the nomination. I do think we should retitle the article as an event.4meter4 (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Law, Maryland, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:43, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Torsvik

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

Cannot find any independent WP:SIGCOV for this Norwegian footballer, just trivial mentions in routine game coverage and brief transfer coverage. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Norway. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I draftified it earlier. Not much was done with the page before it was reintroduced. There is a time and place for everything, and ultra-quick stubs about footballers are probably not the best idea for Wikipedia going forward. Here is coverage from one of Bergen's newspapers: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] They are paywalled, but it should be clear that the coverage is about him and not match reports. From those alone, it should be possible to write something decent-sized. (Greater Bergen) also has other press outlets.) I believe deletion is out of the question; the options would be another draftification or taking a stab at the Heymann standard. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson (operating system)

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

Only sources in the article are primary and non-independent. With a WP:BEFORE, I did find this, which appears to be a self-published blog, of which I'm not sure about the reliability. Otherwise, everything else I found was about vacuum cleaners. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non-notable niche software project, only other source I found was another blog (this one in Russian) and a few forum posts. MCE89 (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this was useful only as preserving history of OpenSolaris offspring or side-projects.

Any few-lines mention of it in a general article about these offsprings would be preferable, but there wasn't any such article by the time I wrote this. Jwarnier (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP: GNG. Could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starchess

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

No independent sources in the article. Only independent mention I could find is:

McC. Haworth, Guy; Rusz, Á. (2012). "Position Criticality in Chess Endgames". In Jaap van den Herik, H.; Plat, Aske (eds.). Advances in Computer Science. pp. 252–255.

It only discusses a specific chess algorithm that uses Starchess as a test case, most of the four pages are just a list of lines discovered by the algorithm. Likely not SIGCOV, and certainly not enough for it to meet WP:GNG Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Appears to be called Polgar Superstar Chess at List of chess variants. Absent any established notability, merger there seems indicated. Jclemens (talk) 08:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sport City station

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

Redirect to Gold Line (Doha Metro) until better sourcing is found. I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV from independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Qatar. JTtheOG (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oqba Ibn Nafie station

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

Redirect to Red Line (Doha Metro) until better sourcing is found. All that I came up with were a handful of sentences of coverage here, which seems to be a re-hashing of a press release anyways. JTtheOG (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Qatar. JTtheOG (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Umm Ghuwailina station

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

Redirect to Red Line (Doha Metro) as I am struggling to find any independent coverage of this metro station. JTtheOG (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Qatar. JTtheOG (talk) 01:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Karaki

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

Doesn't reach notability for MMA criteria nor in general notability. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, Middle East, and Lebanon. HeinzMaster (talk) 01:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fight results, databases, and interviews do not constitute significant independent coverage. Won minor titles, but never beat a fighter ranked in the top 300. Found no evidence he meets WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:NMMA, or any other WP notability criteria. Papaursa (talk) 04:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sepulveda Rose

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

A fairly WP:ROTM mid-century Los Angeles apartment building. The only WP:GNG-qualifying source is the LA Conservancy page on the complex. The LA Historic Resources Inventory (a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE) indicates that the building may be eligible for a historic designation but it's not designated now. I don't see a pass of WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: almost, but not quite notable. Some historical interest noted, but nothing we can use to build an article. If it gets some sort of listing, either local or in the NRHP, we can look at revisiting the article. Delete for now Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Some insight as the author - I saw it on the Conservancies' website and am definitely more of an inclusionist. It has a few mentions on various city and are historical society pages, and the architect had his own article which pushed me over the edge. I thought it was on the line but decided to write it and hash it out later if people disagreed. Blervis (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: See my reasoning above. I've seen buildings that feel less notable to me, I guess it just depends how much stock you put in the LA Conservancies opinion of what constitutes a historic building. Blervis (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCREATIVE works generally only one direction; being the creator of a notable/significant work can qualify for notability, but it's not really possible for a work to have WP:INHERITED notability from its creator. (The exception is articulated under WP:NBOOK for works by creators of such fame that every work they produce is considered notable (say, Shakespeare), but this architect is not at that level and buildings aren't covered by NBOOK.) So until we have more independent SIGCOV besides the LA Conservancy, there's not a GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to imply it was notable solely because of the article, just that a building on a recognized historic listing by an architect of note is more notable than one that isn't. As I said above, I agree that this is on the line, I feel that the conservancy and city sources elevate it to notability. With respect to the WP:ROTM comment, it clearly isn't since the Conservancy has designated it as of particular interest. Whether you think that particular organization is too free with designations is another question.

If people feel that both city and Conservancy recognition doesn't amount to notability then I won't fight it - that's all there is at this time. I'm of the opinion that those two are enough to constitute notability - not every building is going to have books dedicated to it. It seems consensus is against me on this one. If it does get recognized by the city or other entity someday we can revisit this. Blervis (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm very pro NRHP buildings having a listing here, but the sourcing just doesn't seem to be there. I've been creating articles on and off on this subject, and it's a high bar to meet for inclusion, but it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for further discussion. BD2412 T 01:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

Silex Microsystems

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

It looks like most of the sources are press releases or routine coverage in industry publications, and I didn't find much SIGCOV on a WP:BEFORE. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Technology. BuySomeApples (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Hills (politician)

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

Fails GNG and WP:POLITICIAN - see previous discussion of Auckland Councillors Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Watson (New Zealand politician) TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Walker (politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Sayers (2nd nomination) TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated related councillor articles:

Chris Darby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Shane Henderson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ken Turner (New Zealand politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kerrin Leoni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Julie Fairey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Josephine Bartley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) TheLoyalOrder (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Auckland Councillors each represent wards that are often larger than most New Zealand electorates, earn a full-time wage of over $100k, and control a budget and asset base in the billions. As the majority don't represent any mainstream political party it's difficult for citizens of New Zealand's largest city to access basic, objective information about their public representatives. It's really concerning to see these pages being deleted. All should be kept and maintained. Otakoulane (talk) 22:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep Simply being an Auckland councillor in its own right doesn't meet WP:NPOL, and city councillors across the world need to have a heightened level of coverage in order to be kept. That being said, this isn't the worst article in the world, and while I'd still vote to delete for failing GNG, it feels potentially salvageable if other sources exist. I'm not looking through the other six since they all need to be reviewed on their own merits, so these need individual AfD discussions, hence the procedural keep. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Richard Hill: only SIGCOV I found is this: [18]
Delete Chris Darby: did not find any SIGCOV
Delete Shane Henderson: only SIGCOV I found is this: [19]
Delete Ken Turner: only SIGCOV I found is this: [20]
Delete Kerrin Leoni: only SIGCO I found is this: [21] [22]
Redirect Julie Fairey to Michael Wood (politician) (her husband) as an ATD. The coverage of her relates to Michael Wood and the airport shares issues.
Keep Josephine Bartley: there is SIGCOV that isn't just related to the election: [23] [24] [25] Traumnovelle (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) (indented these "votes" to show that they are all arguments by Traumnovelle)[reply]

Keep Julie Fairey - not accurate to redirect to her spouse's article as there is no joint coverage or joint projects etc. They have separate careers. MurielMary (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Josephine Bartley: there are sources that are beyond her election and councillor work. MurielMary (talk) 10:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, for a bundled nomination, we need to hear from more editors and there may not be enough opinions here to form a consensus. Also, Michael Wood (politician) is not an appropriate target page as it is a redirect, not an article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I meant Michael Wood (New Zealand politician) as the ATD redirect. Traumnovelle (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Richard Hills (politician) - plenty of additional sources available (e.g. [26][27][28][29]), many others have extensive additional coverage as well (e.g. Chris Darby [30][31] [32][33]). I'll integrate any additional sources I can for the pages shortly, hopefully to the point where the pages will meet GNG (and/or I'll update my comment if I don't feel that there is enough published about these figures). --Prosperosity (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I do not think local councillors meet NPOL and should by-and-large not have articles. So my views are:

Weak keep Josephine Bartley because the abuse by anti-vaxxers gives a bit of depth to her notability, but it is weak.
Weak delete Julie Fairey because it feels borderline offensive to sideline her as a footnote on her husband's page, but the sources depict a fairly unremarkable career on council.
Weak keep Kerrin Leoni because her most remarkable feature is that she is the first wāhine Māori councillor (really? seriously?? do better NZ). Normally I would say that being the first such person to be elected is not necessarily notable enough for NPOL, and she therefore does not qualify, but recent media reports indicate she is planning to run for mayor. If so, we should keep her article and expand it with information about her campaign.
Delete Ken Turner as I can't turn up anything notable here.
Delete Shane Henderson as there is nothing notable there either.
Delete Chris Darby as there is nothing particularly noteworthy there, other than his long tenure.
And finally, Weak delete Richard Hills, as I don't find much notable there other than being the first gay councillor, but as I said above, I don't think being the first such politician elected is enough to exceed NPOL. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 08:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was a consensus agreed among the NZ politics editors many years ago that Auckland councillors have inherent notability, but unfortunately I can't remember where it is as it articulated very well why they should be seen as notable. Regardless, my own view is that as Auckland councillors represent areas with more people than parliamentary electorates this gives them GNG. As does the status of Auckland being a "super" city which is closer in scale and scope to a provincial government than a local government polity (example being Auckland has more than five times as many voters as the Australian Capital Territory whose assembly members are considered notable). Kiwichris (talk) 10:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus among kiwi editors should not override GNG and NPOL. If we want to define the supercity as being at the equivalent level of a provincial government that would make some sense to me. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 10:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Scott, Dean (July 2004). "Review: Max Play 01". Nintendo Official Magazine. No. 142. p. 97. ISSN 0965-4240.

[2] Yohko; Teruo (April 2005). "szara strefa". Hardkor. PSX Extreme [pl] (in Polish). No. 92. p. 77. ISSN 1429-172X.

[3] Amiri, Hoshang (2024-04-18). "Fabricated Statistics in Iran's Economy". Iran Focus. Retrieved 2025-01-12.

[4] Khatinoglu, Dalga (2024-02-07). "How Iran Manipulates Foreign Investment Statistics". iranintl.com. Retrieved 2025-01-12.

[5] Farhadi, Noah; Lahooti, Hooshang (2023). "In Data We Trust: Proving Market Manipulation on the Tehran Stock Exchange". International Journal of Business and Management. 17 (4): 1. doi:10.5539/ijbm.v17n4p1.

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Fahrer / Team für die Suche eingeben:

Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft