Purge server cache

Jeffrey Martin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG. The only sources that talk about him are WP:ROUTINE announcements related to the Sempra company, of which he became the CEO in 2018. This article was created by a self-described "employee of Sempra Energy". Badbluebus (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. This is a cut and dry case of WP:BROCHURE in my opinion. The passage Martin is known for focusing on "people, priorities and culture," tells you just about all you need to know about the contents of this article. No coverage to speak of other than the odd bit of WP:ROUTINE announcements as described by the nominator. I tried my best to find a reason to call it a stubify, but there's nothing there. I would also note that not only was the article created by a self-disclosed employee of Sempra Energy, but the most recent maintainer of the article appears to be a single-purpose account which only edits this article and the article for Sempra, so that is likely an undisclosed WP:COI as well. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Edit & Keep. Agree some of the content was blatant WP:BROCHURE. Could keep the page if that bias info is removed. Lightson2019 (talk) 18:32, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think they tried to have a concept of a plan of COI disclosed. This was turned down twice at Articles for Creation, but they still went ahead and dumped it here as if we are their webhost to curry favor with the big boss. Then it sat out in the inter webs for 6 years. Ugh. Bearian (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, California, Florida, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. The subject’s biography is primarily associated with one company that he did not even help found, and there is no indication of significant involvement in the creation of other companies. Merely holding a senior executive position does not automatically qualify the subject for a standalone Wikipedia page.50.39.138.50 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. He is chairman and CEO of a Fortune 500 company in the energy industry. There's other CEOs who haven't founded companies and they still have Wikipedia pages here. Spidey1128 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC) — Spidey1128 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• Delete: Profile and business news are the available sources I can find. Nothing that can contribute to the GNG. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. There are a lot of CEOs with Wikipedia pages. List of chief executive officers - Wikipedia What's the threshold where one warrants a page? Is it Fortune 500 companies? Publicly traded companies? Once the COI content has been removed, I think this one could stay up considering the company's size. Lightson2019 (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: Lightson2019 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]

Hi Lightson2019, I hope I'm not bothering you but it looks like you have a duplicate vote which doesn't necessarily make the subject more notable. 50.39.138.50 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Kylemahar902. That there are other CEOs on Wikipedia is irrelevant per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chanan Gordon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Contested draftification (and declined G11) on highly promotional bio of non-notable individual. Appears to be WP:ADMASQ. Sources demonstrate failure on WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. They are limited to:

• WP:PRIMARYSOURCEs: Official bios and the subject's own podcasts etc. ([11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]), database sources ([20], [21]), the subject's own writing ([22], [23], [24], [25]).
• Non-independent sources: [26],
• Primary source Q&A interview: [27],
• WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs: [28], [29], [30].
• One source that doesn't mention him: [31]

Nothing else qualifying was found in a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and South Africa. Dclemens1971 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there are zero reliable sources about him. Bearian (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: All of the references are WP:PRIMARY and I don't see how this could be saved with the lack of any independent sources. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 23:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hossein Rahmati (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails notability, it was deleted once, but recreated again. he was invited to the national camp but never played for the NT in major events. never achieved anything important to make him notable. just playing in a league is not enough to become notable. Sports2021 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Iran. Sports2021 (talk) 22:38, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fail Wp:GNG, not really participated in major events to make the person notable — Cactus🌵 ^{spiky ouch} 00:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hadron epoch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This topic is not notable. Modern cosmology textbooks do not use it. Google ngram view says no ngrams. One primary source says "hadronic epoch". One primary reference with few citations mention term, that is not enough for an article. Already tried PROD. Please see Talk:Hadron epoch for additional information. Johnjbarton (talk) 22:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: a term that is notable for this event is the "quark-hadron phase transition", but there's no page for that on Wikipedia. (There is a page for: cosmological phase transition.) Praemonitus (talk) 23:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and I suppose we could rename Hardon epoch -> quark-hadron phase transition, but I think filling out cosmological phase transition first makes more sense. Johnjbarton (talk) 23:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, that makes sense. However, this behavior is also theorized to occur within neutron stars, so a separate article may be appropriate at some point. Praemonitus (talk) 05:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note that there is also a QCD matter page. Aseyhe (talk) 08:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I am a cosmologist and have not encountered this term outside Wikipedia (aside from non-expert sources who likely learnt it from Wikipedia). Even just looking at the physics, there is not a meaningful hadron epoch. Pions briefly contribute to the primordial plasma at temperatures between the QCD phase transition at 170 MeV and the pion mass of ~135 MeV, but even during that time period they only contribute a small fraction of the total energy density. This is even brief enough that there's no clear beginning or end -- the effective number of degrees of freedom drops continuously and rapidly throughout this period (see e.g. figure 2 of arXiv:1204.3622 [32]). Aseyhe (talk) 03:18, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on scope @Johnjbarton: @Aseyhe: If this term actually does not exist, can we delete it across the other language Wikipedia's too? Being made in 2006, the article is I think in 17 different languages now. If this article simply isn't notable enough, however, that's different, and it should just be deleted here. Johnson524 16:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I can't answer your question. I am asserting that the term is not notable and we should delete this article. The term "exists" in that the article exists and there are blogs with the term. That's all I know. Johnjbarton (talk) 16:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There are tonnes of physics sources that talk about the QCD phase transition, and really we don't do it justice, especially as we don't mention the figure 10^-5 seconds anywhere, which is a rather basic number to mention. However, there are also quite a number of books on cosmology that talk about the hadron era (not "hadron epoch") and the lepton era (not "lepton epoch") and the radiation era and the reality is that by blindly searching for the article title and counting Google hits, rather than actually knowing what to look for, you are looking for the wrong thing.

  For just three examples: Josip Kleczek's The Universe (ISBN 9789401014854) has a "Chronology of the universe" section in chapter 5 that goes "Hadron Era" → "Lepton Era" → "Radiation Era". A book from last century, Goldberg' and Scadron' Physics of Stellar Evolution and Cosmology (ISBN 9780677217406) in chapter 7 has the same "Hadron Era" → "Lepton Era" → "Radiation Era" progression. Coming back to the 21st century the Springer Fundamental Astronomy book (ISBN 9783540001799, too many editors to list) has its history of the universe section in chapter 19 and once again proceeds "Hadron Era" → "Lepton Era" → "Radiation Era" → "Matter Era".

  Once you actually know a bit about the subject, and know the right things to look for, sources come out of your ears. Three books is barely scraping the surface of the available sources on these eras. Moreover, the way to fix the article, using all of these sources and the ordinary editing and page move tools, is obvious.

  Uncle G (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no significant coverage, and the term has practically no usage in scientific publications. Also I believe Aseyhe is right in their assessment. Artem.G (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge. Notability does not seem to be a concern. The term "Hadron era" registers in Ngrams. One can see that its use peaked in the 70s, so perhaps it is not a central concept in modern research, but one can nevertheless find it in some recent textbooks and reference works.[33][34][35][36][37] See the Internet Archive Search for "hadron era" for more. A stand-alone page is not necessary, it can be merged to Quark-hadron phase transition (does not exist yet) or some other related article like cosmological phase transition. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 07:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for the ngram link. I suppose this is an argument to rename the page to "Hadron era", but sadly the "correct" usage for 'epoch' as an event and 'era' as a time span has evidently given way to these as being synonymous. Johnjbarton (talk) 15:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Move (I am the nominator) It clear this delete proposal will fail because two editors found references to "Hadron era" which undermine my main claim on notability. Based on this, the article should move to that title.

Death of Mihir Ahammed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper. While this recent incident has received local media attention, the subject doesn't meet any criteria of WP:EVENT. It's a tragedy, but unfortunately a common occurrence. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Schools, and Kerala. BusterD (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. I'd be inclined to lean delete, however the widespread coverage of the event and the statement from the Indian Congress means this could be notable soon. I think this would fail WP:EVENTCRIT at this time, but if there were changes in legislation or other changes made to Indian schools in the coming weeks, this would thus become notable under the same criteria. For example, the Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons is a similarly tragic event which became notable because of the ensuing inquiry and creation of new cyber bullying legislation. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This wouldn't pass the 10YR test, this is a rather simple death of a non-notable individual. I can't see this as being more than a shocking news story that no one will remember is 6mths. Oaktree b (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This recent incident has received national media attention [38][39][40],[41] and the police have confirmed that it was a Suicide

death due to Ragging, and there is a reference to the evidence, and the topic meets the criteria for WP:EVENT. This is not a common occurrence. An incident that is likely to be a model or catalyst for something else of lasting importance is likely to be noteworthy WP:LASTING. School ragging laws are likely to change because of this, as the police have taken up the case and the case is being heard in court[42]. Spworld2 (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely TOOSOON then. Oaktree b (talk) 15:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep To be honest, this strikes me as no different than the dozens of North American articles that we have about high-profile youth suicides/deaths that come after intense bullying. See e.g. Suicide of Rodney Hulin, Suicide of Nicola Ann Raphael, Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, Suicide of Amanda Todd, Death of Conrad Roy, Death of Nex Benedict. Each of those articles have enduring notability because of (a) the socially shocking or surprising type of bullying that preceded the death [sexual violence in juvenile detention, anti-goth bullying, anti-gay bullying, grooming & cyberbullying, female to male domestic partner abuse, and transphobic bullying respectively], and (b) widespread social and political response as a result. The backlash and social pressure campaign around "ragging" is generating an equal, if not more notable, social response than any of the above-mentioned suicides. If we selectively delete this article, we'd be maintaining a dramatically higher threshold of notability for South Asian youth suicides than for North America. Flip^andFlopped ツ 16:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Please provide a valid reason this should be kept. BusterD (talk) 19:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do think the user has provided the reason. There was also this essay I don't remember name of, which tells not to cite all policies and guidelines here and and there. 𝓔xclusive𝓔ditor _{Ping Me🔔} 07:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The user has made a speech giving their opinion about what we should do in this general circumstance. They haven't presented one refutation of how this page fails NEVENT. BusterD (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Merely listing policies and guidelines is discouraged on XfDs, I'll agree. Quoting and applying relevant guidelines and policies (as I have done) is expected. The Hindu reports over 10,000 suicides in Kerala in each of the last three years. Roughly 27 every day. More than one every hour. Unfortunately, suicide is a common occurrence in Kerala (and worldwide), and suicide after bullying is one of the major categories. I assert there's no sources presented or applied which make this case more than just a run of the mill tragedy. Wikipedia is not a daily newspaper. We have no evidence presented this case will lead to any broader change in local attitudes or laws. The burden of proof (on notability and verifiability) is on the contributors who wish to keep this article. BusterD (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I see contributors here have recently merged a summary of this event over to the list of Indian incidents at Ragging, so this unfortunate loss may yet help provide a case for others. I will watch that page and help defend the insertion, if possible. Thank you. BusterD (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge more into ragging, then redirect. That's an appropriate context. This incident is all too common, akin to school shootings in the United States. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As nominator, I'm never adverse to alternatives to deletion. I see another sub-section Ragging#Major_incidents about Sri Lanka which lists incidents with inline citation. Perhaps merging this material the parallel subsection may be a way to utilize (and better organize) coverage to improve the Ragging page. BusterD (talk) 16:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Suicide is common in the world, and in India too, But this Suicide was preceded by a socially shocking or surprising type of brutal Hazing and ragging, Racism, resulting in a widespread social and political response. (Important political response: Leaders of the Opposition(India), Leader of the in Lok Sabha and Indian National Congress) The backlash and social pressure campaign surrounding "ragging" creates a social response that is equal to, and more significant than, any other social response. Even before this, the interactions caused by Hazing and ragging have been maintained, for example : Rohith Vemula, Suicide of Fathima Latheefand Suicide of Payal Tadvi etc..~~ Spworld2 (talk) 07:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  As the page creator, you are certainly welcome to all your opinions. Do you have anything to add to this discussion which is based in policy or sources? BusterD (talk) 00:28, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:EVENT To pass There are significant and reliable sources (References),

  sources:- TOI-Ref [43][44][45][46]

  Deccan Herald-Ref:-[47] [48]

  NDTV--Ref:-[49][50][51]

  India Today--Ref:- [52]

  The Economic Times--Ref:- [53]

  The New Indian Express--Ref:- [54][55][56]

  Mathrubhumi:-[57][58][59][60][61]

  Republic TV :- [62]

  Other:-[63][64][65][66]

  Sorry for re-reading any references Spworld2 (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A list of sources is not an argument. BusterD (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rafe Custance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not sure if this article meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. TheSwamphen (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and New Zealand. TheSwamphen (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete along with his sister, per WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. JTZegers (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe this would fall under WP:ENTERTAINER. No coverage has been given to the subject's role in the two shows listed on this article as far as I can see, and they are the only two listings on the subject's IMDb page. Therefore, he has not "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". nor has he "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." Kylemahar902 (talk) 22:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Kylemahar902. As the only listed reference is IMDB and the article contains info not found there, there must be a potential COI from one or more contributors. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 01:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - up and coming for 20 years. Bearian (talk) 23:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP without any reliable sources. Traumnovelle (talk) 09:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECCW Hardcore Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No notable regional title promoted by an independent promotion. No in deep coverage from third party sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Canada. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Stay – Added a Cagematch in the external links so hopefully the page should stay. The page really just needs an additional citations for verification add on, in then it's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B (talk) 14:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Stay# – If the page doesn't have any references People and editors should add them bit by bit and piece by piece until it's a non-deleted page like 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B said when it came to the ECCW Vancouver Island Championship non-deletion page argument which whom I agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.232.174 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Cagematch isn't enough. Cagematch it's a database that includes every championship in the world. Cagematch doesn't prove notability. Third party sources focusing on the title are needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Possiblity - The page probably needs an additional citations for verification add on to it and then the page is perfectly fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B2AB:CC1:5F45:1A6C:9750:65A (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:59, 30 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!} 19:49, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ECCW Vancouver Island Championship (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No notable regional title promoted by an independent promotion. No in deep coverage from third party sources. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Wrestling and Canada. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Stay – If the page doesn't have any references People and editors should add them bit by bit and piece by piece. The same with the ECCW Hardcore Championship until their non-deleted pages. The page really just needs an additional citations for verification add on, in then it's fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B (talk) 14:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Stay# – I agree with 2600:1004:B29C:B26C:CD0F:F438:B3A9:1A1B with a lot of things and when it comes to this page. Plus I agree with him when it comes to the ECCW Hardcore Championship page as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.189.232.174 (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Cagematch isn't enough. Cagematch it's a database that includes every championship in the world. Cagematch doesn't prove notability. Third party sources focusing on the title are needed. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Possiblity - The page probably needs an additional citations for verification add on to it and then the page is perfectly fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B2AB:CC1:5F45:1A6C:9750:65A (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:59, 30 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!} 19:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joppa, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

OK, so here we have a weird one. The actual spot consists of a couple of 20th century houses and a garage across the road from one of them. Whether you would call this a town is a matter of opinion. Searching, however, lights up like a Christmas tree, because this spot was the subject of an urban legend which c;ained that there were Spooky Things happening there. The rumors centered around a church which isn't in fact here; it's somewhere in the Clayton-Belleville area. I haven't found its exact location but you can read the story in this local news report, and this one reorting that the building had been burned down for the second time. Of course Google ranks the rumors higher than the debunking but what you gonna do. Anyway, this is a spot on a map, not a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 13:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The Baker Hoosier place names book has this as a "village" on page 181. Despite the claimed dates, there's no such Joppa in the 1895 Lippincott's, however, nor in several other gazetteers. Nor does the 1885 History of Hendricks County, Indiana have anything. The Arcadia Publishing book for Plainfield tantalizingly mentions a Joppa Road, but has nothing specific. An 1899 USPS directory lists a Joppa post office in Hendricks; and everything else that I've found only confirms that post office and provides essentially zero information about it, because it's largely contemporary sources giving a postal address. I'm unable to confirm what Baker claims, including the claim to a second Joppa in Hancock County, Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 14:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've not found calling places "villages" to be particularly reliable. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In late 20th and 21st century sources, yes. Baker is from 1995. But 19th century sources pre-date the mid-20th-century shift in the U.S.A. to calling most things cities. Lippincott's is reasonably self-consistent and systematic in its use of "hamlet", "village", and "town" and in its "post-" variants of those. The reason to suspect Baker is not that it is from 1995, though. It is that in most other cases so far there has been supporting evidence from elsewhere to be found. In this case, I can only find supporting evidence for the post office; not for the "village" that Baker claims, nor for the other Joppa that Baker has in the same entry. Uncle G (talk) 10:40, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:59, 30 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!} 19:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GEOLAND. This article is a stub at best, and one of the sources is literally the census information. JTZegers (talk) 01:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing the census website is being used for is as a source of the FIPS ID, which is obsolete anyway. There's no guarantee implied that this is a real place, and they do not provide populations for these places unless they are represented by CDPs. Mangoe (talk)

MENT Recording (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No one source that points to notability. Does not match WP:GNG and WP:ORG Pollia (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Japan. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems quite likely that this is a notable topic. Here is an article from Oricon noting the creation of the company, and an album they put out went to #1 in Japan (with the equivalent of 1.4 million units) just last week. "snowman_mentrecording_s" has 1.7 million followers on TikTok, which I assume is a lot. The company's lineup has three groups, two of which have gone to #1 with them and one which went to #3 after coming back from a 25-year recording hiatus. I don't have more time at the moment to look for other significant coverage. Dekimasuよ! 01:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Article added throughout. Since Snow Man is currently Starto Entertainment's largest selling group, I believe it is hoped that an article on this label will exist. However, not much time has passed since the company was founded, and being a privately held company, there is a lack of information, which limits my ability to add to it. I leave it to others to decide whether to delete it or not. Yut3117 (talk) 15:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Hassani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Article does not cite any sources, and I am unable to find any independent third-party sources about this person. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Language. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 17:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD was in 2006, and none of the arguments addressed coverage by third party independent sources, instead focusing on his CV. ―Howard • 🌽³³ 18:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Leaning delete. Note that the article was clearly created by its subject and that its last deletion discussion occurred at a time when notability guidelines were not nearly as strict or consistently followed as they are today. — Anonymous 01:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Runnings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No one source that points to notability. Does not match WP:GNG and WP:ORG Pollia (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Minnesota. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. From what I see on Googling, they seem to get a lot of news coverage about burglary and shoplifting in their stores. Is this odd or a coincidence? Bearian (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have seen multiple news articles in which they show Runnings opening where former retailers such as Home of Economy were. I have also seen articles on the break-in. They have acquired R. P. Home & Harvest, which has a Wikipedia article as well. Billybob2002 (talk) 22:50, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Waves (OTT) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:PROMO, Recently launched OTT, Promotional motive to create this Wikipedia page. It is an advertisement more than a Wikipedia article. Or it is good to be redirected on Prasar Bharati. Moreover unable to satisfy WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable secondary sources. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, Companies, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep, as the creator of the article, this is an important article because it's about India's National streamer Doordarshan. I tried my maximum to make it. If it have issues, I am requesting to help it to make more suitable for Wikipedia Guidelines. Thank you United Blasters (talk) 00:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please provide at-least THREE significant references from reliable resources which are independent of the subject?

• Keep Definitely needs sources, but removing an article about a streaming service from India's state broadcaster when we have many more unsourced articles about generic commercial screaming head news channels and filler movie channels in the country feels WP:POINTy and this is more an expansion candidate for sure. There's certainly less PROMO here than your average Network 18/Zee article, which is mainly about the service's debut rather than any future promises. Nate • (chatter) 14:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Any article on Wikipedia requires significant coverage from numerous credible published works to substantiate its notability. India's state broadcaster does not imply significance. There is no comparison with other WIKI articles. Bakhtar40 (talk) 11:40, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this, but self-reverted based on wikipedia:Teahouse#AFD_closure as I deemed it reasonable. I hope the users from that thread would come here to give their take.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Gnews shows about six articles from last November when it launched, then nothing. I don't see notability at this time. Somewhat PROMO, but not as bad as others we've seen here. Oaktree b (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Waves OTT is becoming popular and notable and getting more subscribers. If there is promotional content, experienced editors shall clean-up the article to maintain Wiki standards.
  Anish Viswa 04:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  AfD arguments are P&G based. Subscriber count has nothing to do with notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:26, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The only coverage we have for this subject is from the last week of November 2024, when it was announced. A press release was issued that same week and republished by various news media outlets. If we consider Waves (OTT) a product of Prasar Bharati, then it is too soon to expect sustained coverage in independent sources, as required by WP:NPRODUCT. The sources wouldn't pass the WP:SIRS check either, so it fails GNG as a whole. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 05:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as the creator of the article, this is an important article because it's about India's National streamer Doordarshan. I tried my maximum to make it. If it have issues, I am requesting to help it to make more suitable for Wikipedia Guidelines. Thank you United Blasters (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have already voted once, so please strike this vote. An editor asked you to share the three best sources above, which you have conveniently ignored, yet you are here expressing an opinion that is not backed by any policy or guideline. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I already added directly on mentioned article. United Blasters (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the keep !votes are unconvincing. While I don't find it particularly promotional, that's effectively because there's so little to actually say of any substance that is supported by RS. Clear failure of NCORP. Blogs and zines are not sources, nor are advertorials, even when they're in national dailies. The remaining "coverage" is either WP:INHERITED from the founder or WP:PASSINGMENTIONs.Serial (speculates here) 14:44, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While not being promotional as such, I sense at least an advertising intent. Clearly fails WP:NCORP for the moment. Lectonar (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Hi Vanderwaalforces, Thank You for relisting this closed afd and considering my request on Teahouse. Although, I am neutral and i don't have any intention to delete this article but as per Wikipedia policies this is not ready for main space. Bakhtar40 (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Meslin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of an activist and writer, not properly sourced as passing inclusion criteria. As always, neither activists nor writers are automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass WP:GNG on third-party analytical coverage about them and their work -- but the attempted notability claim here is that he exists and wrote a book, and the sole footnote is a magazine article where he was the bylined author rather than the subject. But as usual, you don't make a writer notable by sourcing his work to itself as verification that it exists, you make a writer notable by sourcing his work to third-party coverage about it (book reviews, notable literary award nominations and/or wins, etc.) as evidence that its significance has been externally validated by somebody other than its own publisher.
Meanwhile, on a ProQuest search, I'm not finding much in the way of coverage about him: there are a couple of reviews of his book (mostly a single wire service article being reprinted in multiple newspapers), but not really enough reviews of the book to get him over GNG just on those alone, and otherwise I'm really only finding glancing namechecks of his existence as a provider of soundbite in coverage of other things rather than coverage which actually has him as its subject.
He's certainly locally known in his own city, but nothing here is adding up to enough nationalized or internationalized prominence to exempt him from having to have a lot more and better referencing than just one piece of his own writing. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Meslin's advocacy against corporate billboards in public places is well known around Toronto, but a documentary about him has attracted international attention, e.g. Al Jazeera, and a detailed article from the CBC about the documentary, among other coverage. Besides that work, I found this 1,400-word detailed write-up in Macleans about his work on democratic reform, and another from Macleans ([67]) which is a borderline passing mention, but there are plenty more articles in smaller publications about this work, e.g. [68], [69], [70], [71] (some of these are third-party reviews of one of his books, maybe the same wire service review Bearcat mentioned, but being picked up by multiple outlets suggests notability). There are also plenty of links around to his TED talks and speaking engagements, which suggest notability but aren't really useful as references. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Dave Meslin is known in Toronto for his activism against corporate billboards, with international attention from a documentary covered by Al Jazeera and CBC. His work on democratic reform has some media coverage, including Macleans articles and TED talks. However, he lacks sufficient third-party analysis to meet Wikipedia’s notability standards, with limited independent coverage beyond local recognition and a few book reviews. YoYoSuryaPatra → talk 14:479, 08 February 2025 (UTC)

Athmeeya Yathra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

It's like too promotional. And not have enough sources. References given there, which is affiliated with Athmeeya Yathra and not independent. WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. I strongly believe that, the creator of this article is associated with Athmeeya Yathra. And created it for its Promotional purposes through Wikipedia, which is against Wikipedia Policy.[72] United Blasters (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Christianity, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: with WP:NPASR. "Too promotional" and "not enough sources" (when there are several sources in the article) are not reasons to delete; see in particular WP:DINC. The nominator has offered no evidence of a WP:BEFORE and I'm certainly not going to do that work to support an improperly formed and groundless nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give atleast 3 reliable sources for it? United Blasters (talk) 00:17, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you give a valid deletion rationale? You haven’t and until then there is no reason to contest the nomination. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand the 'speedy keep' rationale, but I maintain that this article should be deleted, not just cleaned up, due to concerns about notability and promotional content. There is no Reliable Sources and it is not written in a neutral point of view. Also, the channel is already shutdown. WP:GNG,

  WP:NPOV United Blasters (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Give me reliable source United Blasters (talk) 02:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:BEFORE :

  I confirm that I conducted a WP:BEFORE search and was unable to find significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish notability. United Blasters (talk) 04:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: If there are promotional contents, clean-up the article as per Wiki policies. No reason to delete the article.
  Anish Viswa 04:24, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree with that but still, there is a lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to establish the notability of Athmeeya Yathra WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Check the references in Athmeeya Yathra, which is affiliated with Athmeeya Yathra and not independent. I searched for reliable sources, but couldn't find, so I moved to here. United Blasters (talk) 04:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to K. P. Yohannan: The article only cites the channel's own "about" pages. Fails GNG and WP:V due to the lack of independent, reliable sources. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Withdrawing my SK !vote since it has been mooted by Jeraxmoira. Regarding the nominator's since-expanded rationale, I am not sure how compelling just typing "GNG and NPOV" is as a basis for deletion and I have no opinion on the notability of the subject. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply. If all can understand, it's needed. UNITED BLASTERS (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of North American ski resorts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Almost all of the data is cribbed from self-published sources, i.e. the websites of the various ski areas. They are notorious for inflating their statistics. I pointed this out almost four years ago and placed a "self-published" tag on the page, but nothing has improved in the intervening time. Finding good, solid, independent, reliable sources for these numbers is difficult if not impossible. Moreover, the ticket price has not been updated in five years and is off by almost a factor of two in some cases - it's an impossible maintenance task to keep that column up to date. The rest of it mostly reiterates marketing fluff.

See my comment on the talk page from Mar 2020: Talk:Comparison_of_North_American_ski_resorts#Self-published_tag Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn by nominator as per WP:WDAFD for the following reasons:

• It's abundantly clear that there is no consensus at this time to delete it

• Several editors have suggested possible avenues for addressing the concerns. I'm skeptical, but willing to work with others to bring the article into compliance with wiki policies.

Mr. Swordfish (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism, Lists, and North America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory. There's already a tree of categories for ski resorts, don't need more than that. And as OP said the data reliability is a big question mark. Wizmut (talk) 13:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SYNTH. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not following how the article is WP:SYNTH. Care to elaborate? Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Statististics can easily be updated with new information in terms of the ticket price. As for categories such as "skiable acreage" and "vertical drop", I agree that the article should have original research, but there really isn't a practical way, although not impossible, to find that information other than from the resort themselves (which is dubious but the most accurate information we have). However, the amount of trails, ski lifts, and annual snowfall is easily verifiable information that is publicly accessible. I also do not believe this article acts as a WP:DIRECTORY, and provides encyclopedic value, thus need not be deleted. I could also see this article getting merged with List of ski areas and resorts in the United States. Googoogootoo (talk) 12:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to disagree that "...the article should have original research" That goes against WP:OR.

  That said, the most accurate numbers for vertical drop can be found by consulting the US Geological Survey data or similar official sets of data. There's a really nice web UI to that data at openskimap.org and anybody can pull up a ski area, find the top and bottom, and get the vertical drop. If you do that, you'll see that the numbers in this article are often way off. You'll also be doing original research which we are not supposed to base article content on.

  So, the basic problem is that much of the data in the article is demonstrably false, and there's no good, solid, independent, reliable sourcing for the actual numbers that would allow us to bring the article in compliance with Wikipedia policies. It would be great if we could find solid data, but we can't, and we shouldn't be repeating information that is clearly false. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: everyone knows that we have never published original content. Bearian (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Pinging Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts participants: Miminity (talk · contribs), Maile66 (talk · contribs), Reywas92 (talk · contribs), Marincyclist (talk · contribs), and Dream Focus (talk · contribs). Cunard (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NOTCATALOG. All the sources are self-published. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and potentially merge with (/split into) List of ski areas and resorts in the United States/List of ski areas and resorts in Canada. While the article could use more independent sourcing and trimming of the likely outdated lift ticket prices, this is good content and organization and should be kept similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Lake Tahoe area ski resorts. Data such as elevation and number of lifts are more informative than the simple bulleted list and does not make it a catalog. Reywas92^Talk 14:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this article provides a good way of comparing North American ski resorts and has useful content that goes beyond simply a list of names and cities like the main list. I suggest renaming the article to "List of..." so it is in-line with convention, and removing ticket prices per WP:NOTTRAVEL, but it should be kept and the statistics can be updated as-necessary. Marincyclist (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The relevant question my be found at Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process which says:

Verifiability: if an article is unverified, but verification seems possible, it may be worth keeping. However, articles with mainly unverifiable content should be deleted.

So, does it seem possible to verify all or even most of this data? If so, it may be worth keeping. But I haven't heard of a path towards finding reliable sourcing for most of the data, so my take is that it does not seem possible i.e. the article contains "mainly unverifiable content". Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are websites such as onthesnow.com, slopestat.com, skiresort.info, and powderhounds.com that all contain most of the relevant statistics listed in this article. I also don't think ski resorts "inflating" figures is really as common as some say. Marincyclist (talk) 01:04, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A quick spotcheck shows that onthesnow.com & slopestat.com just reproduce whatever numbers the resorts provide. skiresort.info gets some of them right (as per USGS data) and repeats what the resorts claim for others. powderhounds.com only covers US West & Vermont. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A valid navigational list to list all the articles for a similar thing together. They should be split by nation though. Valid information list. Lists are more useful than categories because more information is listed, helping people find what they are looking for far better than a category can. I don't believe the prices should be listed, since that's not usually something that is done. Even in the articles linked to it doesn't list the price. I don't think any business an legally lie about information, so no reason to doubt how much snowfall or measurements they have. If a government website can be found listing the information, or a reliable source that list this information, that would be better to use as references. Dream Focus 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 05:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• comment shouldn't this be List of North American ski resorts? Mangoe (talk) 13:36, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There's issues with this article (notably out of date information), but it's still helpful for easily comparing hills and getting a high-level description of each. Being able to sort by any given category is very useful to see a hill's given ranking, something other site don't accurately have. "Marketing fluff" is a bit harsh, what mountains are inflating their statistics? ReidMoffat (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  ...what mountains are inflating their statistics?

  Nearly every ski area in the midwest overstates their vertical. Accurate stats are the exception rather than the norm. If we wind up keeping this list, I'll be happy to point them out. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with List of ski areas and resorts in the United States. This does not need to be a standalone article. The format of the target article can be changed to accommodate the comparison table, but it needs to be better-sourced and updated. Merging will improve the article and make the WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOTCATALOG arguments moot.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Agreed, but we would also have to merge with List of ski areas and resorts in Canada because this table is not specifically about ski resorts in the United States, but all of North America. Googoogootoo (talk) 08:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge is an excellent solution to the concerns raised above. (See my comments above.) Bearian (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of ski areas and resorts in the United States. I agree with User:DesiMoore. Merging this article will help editors fix any and all outdated information, improving the site as a whole. JTZegers (talk) 01:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Latifa al-Droubi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The only thing the reliable sources can confirm is that she exists. Her existence is not grounds for the article's existence. Notability is not inherited. Everything in the article is speculation. Even the "first lady of Syria" thing is a speculation. Let the woman be a private citizen if she wants to be or attain publicity if she wants to attain it. Surtsicna (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Politics, and Syria. Surtsicna (talk) 13:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep spouses of heads of state, even ones with a low profile, are generally considered notable. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 19:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to which guideline or policy? We have a guideline that specifically says that nobody is considered notable solely on the basis of being related to someone. I cited it. Surtsicna (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. That is absolute falsehood. scope_creep^Talk 07:29, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - al-Droubi is going to be a notable figure (at least) because she's the wife of al-Sharaa. 🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 20:02, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Being someone's wife is explicitly not enough for someone to be notable per WP:NOTINHERITED, and we are not supposed to predict whether she will ever become notable. The guy could die tomorrow. Surtsicna (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Ahmed al-Sharaa#Personal life. All we have are some clickbait-y "Who is Latifa al-Droubi?" articles and a BBC piece that cites "unofficial sources" for some very basic biographical information. She clearly leads a private life and I don't think there is nearly enough well-sourced information available about her for an adequate BLP. Even if she is notable (and I agree with Surtsicna that she almost certainly isn't, per WP:NOTINHERITED), this should be a redirect until there's enough information in reliable sources to confirm more than the fact that she exists. MCE89 (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clearly a notable figure in her own right. She has been mentioned in dozens of WP:RSs across multiple languages since her first public appearance. No notability is being WP:INHERITED here. Eelipe (talk) 05:52, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is "significant coverage in reliable sources" that is required, @Eelipe, not merely being "mentioned". If you need a comparison, note that Malia Obama and Barron Trump are mentioned in thousands of reliable sources across virtually all languages, yet we seem to firmly agree that this is not enough because it is not significant coverage. Surtsicna (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:SIGCOV before making a nonexistent bar of "thousands" of sources required for notability. Per SIGCOV, "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." There are more than a dozen sources on the subject that fit this description. Eelipe (talk) 15:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please read more carefully. I did not say that thousands of sources are needed. I said that being mentioned in thousands of sources is still not WP:SIGCOV. Not one of the sources mentioning the subject addresses the subject in detail, as we can see from virtually nothing being known about her. The entire article is speculation after speculation. Surtsicna (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect Mentions don't add up to reliable coverage for a WP:BLP Lots and lots of passing mentions. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 07:28, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She has been in position for only 2 weeks, and there is already significant coverage from multiple media sources in several countries (and more that are not included in this article, including Italy and Kashmir). RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In what position has she been? There is no RS that "first lady of Syria" is a thing in post-Assad Syria. Surtsicna (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: WP:NPOL is satisfied by the de-facto First Lady of Syria position. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 16:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How does she figure in WP:NPOL? She is not a politician or a judge. Where is the RS for first lady of Syria being a position in Syria? Surtsicna (talk) 08:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not an official position in the US either, but it clearly has political significance and can be considered a major political position. The release of the photograph with the Turkish First Lady supports this. I think footnote 13 in NPOL is relevant here: "People who satisfy this criterion will almost always satisfy the primary criterion. Biographers and historians will usually have already written about the past and present holders of major political offices. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of major political offices, incorporating all of the present and past holders of that office, will be complete regardless." TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. TheJoyfulTentmaker (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Numerous Wikipedia languages have been translated, and the spouse of the current president is notably mentioned in many reliable sources, which is considered sufficient to meet WP:GNG. HurricaneEdgar 01:50, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – I was originally going to argue for delete, on the grounds that in the ultraconservative Islamic culture that Ahmed al-Sharaa comes from (don't forget he used to be an al Qaeda leader), wives have a very low public profile – consider how little is known about the wife of MbS, she is never seen. However, the fact that she's already officially accompanying him on state visits, and being photographed doing so – is a sign that al-Sharaa wants her to have somewhat of a public profile, closer to the Western idea of a "First Lady", contrary to what his ultraconservative Islamic background suggests. So, unless he changes his mind about this, I expect there will be more coverage of her in the future, and so even if we don't have a lot of sourcing right now, almost certainly there is more to come–if we delete this, we'll just end up creating it again in a few more months, so let's save the effort by not deleting it. She's probably never going to have the kind of high profile that Asma al-Assad had, but if Sara bint Mashour Al Saud has an article despite never being seen in public and almost nothing being known about her, then surely Latifa al-Droubi who is being photographed accompanying her husband on international trips should too. SomethingForDeletion (talk) 02:39, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as she is clearly taking up a public position by accompanying her husband on state visits and allowing herself to be photographed. PamD 11:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable public figure as first lady. Moondragon21 (talk) 14:27, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep She is definitely not a private citizen since she has been accompanying her husband on public outings and state visits. As the spouse of a head of state who's fulfilling some ceremonial functions, she is clearly notable. Keivan.f^Talk 14:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Other than Vatican City, the spouse of an executive head of state is inherently notable...although even in the case of the Vatican there's precedent Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Latifa al-Droubi meets the GNG. Kudos to Goldsztajn for highlighting an interesting angle in an otherwise unnecessary debate. gidonb (talk) 05:07, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - She is meeting with other first ladies, such as Emine Erdoğan of Turkey, and there is enough media coverage for her to have its own page. Slh7477 (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maumee, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A "no there there" spot of which I can only find a passing reference to a store here in an old history of the county, and this book tends to have paragraphs on real towns. Other than that searching is drowned out by hits on the river. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The sum total that I can find, thanks to Baker listing the alternative name and apart from all of the "Maumee, Jackson, Ind." post-office directory listings, is a 1988 history of Jackson published by the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana that says:

  Another group of families settled at Findley's Mill on Salt Creek, later known as Maumee.

  Looking for more about Findley's Mill just leads to geological reports of sandstone in Salt Creek Township, Jackson County, Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 21:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Us this another ghost town? Bearian (talk) 11:49, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As above, I have nothing saying that it is any more than a post office, which is what the Baker source in the article really only supports. The 1886 Brant & Fuller History of Jackson County, Indiana uses the spelling Finley's but adds no more information to the sentence quoted above. It even conveys less, as it does not say "Mill" or "Mills", just "Finley's" as if we are to know, a century and a bit later, what that means. It went without saying in 1886, and now it is, as far as I can find, lost to history. Uncle G (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Apparently the publishers of the Seymour [IN] Tribune in September 1931 thought there was a place called Maumee, Indiana, as exemplified by THIS news short. Carrite (talk) 04:41, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I challenge you to tell us what Maumee is, other than a handwaved "place", from that source. The basic "Maumee is …" introduction to an article. You'll find it difficult, as the source does not say. And is it talking about the Robertson Cemetery in Jackson or the Robertson Cemetery in Jefferson? Interestingly, the old 1980s GNIS coördinates for the Robertson Cemetery in Jackson are 38°32′30″N 86°00′08″W / 38.5418°N 86.0021°W / 38.5418; -86.0021 (Robertson Cemetery) and the current ones in the National Map are 38°54′18″N 86°00′21″W / 38.9051°N 86.0058°W / 38.9051; -86.0058 (Robertson Cemetery), neither of which are near this purported Maumee at 39°01′17″N 86°15′42″W / 39.0213°N 86.2616°W / 39.0213; -86.2616 (Maumee), not even on the same river as Maumee. The modern closer cemetery location is still 26km distant from where Maumee is purported to be.

    I have "Maumee was a post office.". ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 06:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As I've said on other discussions for these nonexistent places, if we have to do this much digging through gray literature to find whether or not a place was a "village" or "station" or "post office", and after all that still can't determine where it even was (i.e. WP:V), we don't have enough information for an article. The article creator certainly didn't do this much work, so why should we? WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. This made me laugh. I spent way too much time trying to find Moody, although I did solve the mystery in the end. Can you imagine trying to be a geographer in Indiana? I fully support getting rid of all of these random post office/railroad stop articles and condensing them into one page so we don't have to think about this anymore. Kylemahar902 (talk) 23:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per above discussion. While in theory, a ghost town can be included, this one doesn't pass. Bearian (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Winnie Nantongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Editor recreated previously deleted article without any changes Equine-man (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Equine-man (talk) 11:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, and Uganda. Shellwood (talk) 12:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources do not establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 14:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:51, 30 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 13:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vinnie Hornsby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable outside of his band Sevendust. This is a clear case of WP:BANDMEMBER. Edit: Just saw Hornsby is also in the supergroup Projected, so not entirely sure anymore---FMSky (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Bands and musicians. FMSky (talk) 13:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Sevendust. The nominator is correct that he has achieved no personal notability outside the band. The article attempts to beef things up with a basic band history and minor trivia about his height and number of tattoos. I'm taller than him and have more tattoos, but that doesn't get me a WP article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It should be noted that Vinnie's bandmate, John Connolly, also might possibly not have notability outside of Sevendust. It seems inconsistent to remove Vinnie's page but keep John's; otherwise, having pages for all five core members seems to be the most logical and uniform decision - especially since Sevendust is decently well-known in the metal/rock genres, at least, on a consistent 25+ year scale. I suppose I'd support redirecting Vinnie's page only if John's got redirected as well (for context, the other 3 members Lajon & Clint & Morgan, have all made numerous appearances outside of Sevendust unlike John & Vinnie). Xanarki (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The solution there is to subject Connolly's article to this same process and see where the community discussion goes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested; we have frequently done this in the past couple of years, and if it's not a consensus then it should be. Only one reliable source is currently in the article, not enough for a BLP. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Roy Burman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I am unable to find sufficient in-depth coverage from reliable independent sources to meet WP:GNG. AndySailz (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, and India. AndySailz (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: When I created this article, I believed that the sources I used were entirely reliable. However, after the admin Significa Liberdade edited the article, they removed all unreliable sources, for which I sincerely appreciate their efforts. [76]The subject is an author, and to be honest, I also struggled to find completely reliable sources. Therefore, I have decided to draft the article so that I can take the time to find better sources. Baqi:) (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Maharashtra and West Bengal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sohail Khan (athlete) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SPORTBASIC. The person does not have significant coverage in Reliable sources. AndySailz (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sports, and India. AndySailz (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The subject is an international Kudo player and has been covered by reliable sources such as Dainik Bhaskar, Rajasthan Patrika, The Print, and even 'ETV Bharat'—all with significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). Even if we consider the minimum criteria under WP:THREE, the subject still meets the notability guidelines. Baqi:) (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All three references including ETV Bharat are not reliable and fails WP:RS. AndySailz (talk) 05:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Madhya Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I looked at the articles in the sources mentioned by user Jannatulbaqi. Besides their questionable reliability is the fact that none of them constitute significant coverage as WP defines it. One article named three people from the city that were going to the Kudo World Cup, one was clearly a PR release naming four Kudo athletes that had been appointed as income tax officers, one mentioned Khan had attended a public school Kudo tournament as a guest, and one was entirely an interview. Several others I couldn't access. Most of his championships appear to be in youth divisions which don't show WP notability. I couldn't find info on his 2017 world championship (would again not have been as an adult). The Kudo International Federation (KIF) did not hold any world championships in 2017, though they did have a youth championship in 2018. No Indian athletes are listed [77] and no division appears to have had more than 2 entries. The 2023 world championships the article mentions do list the top 4 in each division, but there's no mention of any Indian athlete.[78] According to fightmatrix he has competed in MMA, where he has lost more fights than he's won and is currently ranked #341. I don't see anything that shows he meets WP:ANYBIO, WP:NSPORT, WP:GNG, WP:NMMA, or any other WP notability criteria. If additional relevant information is found, please let me know. Papaursa (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I don't know about nominator but this seems to be satisfying WP:GNG completely.Adamantine123 (talk) 15:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adamantine123, would you please tell us exactly which sources meet WP:GNG? I have already commented on a number of the sources claimed to show WP notability, so I am interested in which ones you consider reliable, independent, and significant.Papaursa (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Subject is ranked over top 300 in the world in MMA as mentioned by Papaursa, clearly fails WP:MMA. The sport of Kudo doesn't have any established notability guidelines therefore we have to establish WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG, which it isn't. The article is written in an incredibly non-encyclopedic way, imo blatant vanity page with potential WP:COI. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Acosta (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not meet WP:NCOLLATH. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Baseball, United States of America, and Iowa. UtherSRG (talk) 12:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. GNG is the applicable standard here. NCOLLATH is not an exlusionary standard. Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails GNG due to lack of significant, independent coverage. Only one reference on the page, this Delmarva Sports Network profile, might offer significant, independent coverage. The independence is questionable since it is heavily (but not exclusively) based on an interview with the subject. The remaining sources are either not independent (produced by Acosta's school or its conference) or not significant (routine stats pages). I am willing to reconsider if additional sources are found, so please ping me. Frank Anchor 17:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to keep per the sources added into the article by Epluribusunumyall, which establish notability. Frank Anchor 22:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Frank. I believe that notability should be more determined by the significance of a person’s accomplishments, rather than just counting the sources.50.39.138.50 (talk) 20:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't how notability is established, in fact, we tend to lean against notability solely based on awards and achievements because it can be seen as self promotion and be hard to stay neutral.

If enough sources generally cover the individual, which they seem to do here, there's no reason to not keep them. We have plenty of notable baseball players who had entirely uneventful careers but still made news coverage enough in reliable sources that they get articles.

It's okay to believe that notability should be established that way, but that's not how it's currently established, which is what we're discussing here. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 23:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, but I suppose that in AfD discussions, we look beyond just counting sources and also consider whether someone meets Wikipedia’s general and specific notability standards. We need a broader view, and in Acosta’s case, that means checking if he meets WP:NCOLLATH in addition to having enough sources. I haven’t seen anyone bring that up yet in detail —it seems like most of the participants are focusing on the source count.50.39.138.50 (talk) 22:01, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added another source from iccag.org Dog Bungler (talk) 02:41, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, been able to track down two additional independent sources that help to establish GNG (KKOJ and Daytona Beach News-Journal articles). - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Frank Anchor Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The question here is whether coaching for public community or university teams qualifies Mr. Acosta for a Wikipedia article. His highest career achievement is coaching the athletic team at the University of Maryland Eastern Shore, which competes in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association. I'm not entirely convinced and I suggest that we hear more opinions on this.50.39.138.50 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the sources in article as it has been expanded from the time the nomination was made, the article meets the general notability guideline based on the sources about him as an individual. Alansohn (talk) 00:18, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of American football and rugby league (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No particular interaction between these two sports, apart from one cross code game pitting two minor teams against each other, which is already mentioned (with a cited source) in Clash of Codes anyway. BilletsMauves^€500 12:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Rugby league. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete: Lack of sources is the main issue for this article, though it seems well written and under those circumstances I usually argue for draftification. However, the previous mentioned lack of interaction between the two sports does make me wonder if adequate sources would be available for this topic. Mn1548 (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Coment: Comparison of Canadian football and rugby league and Comparison of American football and rugby union are in a very similar position but with slightly more sources. AfD should be considered for those if this article is deleted. Mn1548 (talk) 14:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Would this go towards GNG? Alvaldi (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks a good source Mn1548 (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think so, yes. BilletsMauves^€500 14:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In the 19th century, the differences between rugby and football were fewer, and the rules slowly evolved over the last 25 years of the century separating the two games. See, e.g., this. Our article on History of American football also does a decent job tracing the evolution of football rules away from rugby. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cbl62 But Rugby has Two Codes. Rugby League and Rugby Union. The article should not be deleted Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In the 19th century, the differences between rugby and football were fewer, and the rules slowly evolved over the last 25 years of the century separating the two games. See, e.g., this and this. Our article on History of American football also does a decent job tracing the evolution of football rules away from rugby. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Issue is American football evolved from union as did league. Here you're comparing two sports that evolved from union, not one and union itself. Mn1548 (talk) 17:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here's a little [79][80] ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article Rugby League and Rugby Union are different sports Servite et contribuere (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the article with comparison of American Football and Rugby Union instead Servite et contribuere (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Against this. League and Union are two different sports, the article would require renaming and I think would cause too much confusion for readers not familiar with the subject. Mn1548 (talk) 11:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BilletsMauves Read Comparison of rugby league and rugby union and Comparison of American football and rugby. There are Two codes of Rugby, not just one Servite et contribuere (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know. What does this have to do with the deletion rationale ? BilletsMauves^€500 11:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BilletsMauves Because it would be wrong to compare American Football with one code, and not compare it with the other. It shouldn't be deleted. The article should probably be merged with the other one instead Servite et contribuere (talk) 16:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a valid keep rationale. Also, if you think the article should be merged, why are you advocating for a keep above? BilletsMauves^€500 19:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning Keep Likely passes WP:GNG with sources such as ‘Like a mini-car crash every three seconds’: The NFL vs NRL debate — which is tougher? (Fox Sports), American Football and Rugby League are more similar than they think (Morning Star), American Football hits are harder than Rugby League hits (Te Ao Māori News) Alvaldi (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Brismée (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I do not see any indication that they pass Wikipedia:NFILMMAKER. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Belgium. UtherSRG (talk) 12:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. satisfies WP:GNG (several old books; unfortunately I can see only snippets, so I didnt use them in the article). As well as WP:NFILMMAKER: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" --Altenmann >talk 13:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep. per Altenmann. Entry in Davay, P. (1973). Cinéma de Belgique. Duculot. (p. 80); Sojcher, F. (1999). La kermesse héroïque du cinéma belge: 1965-1988 : le miroir déformant des identités culturelles. Harmattan, p. 238 etc..... -Mushy Yank. 00:50, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rust To Glory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No evidence for notability, no references, just a carrier for the spam link to the streaming platforms, so promo too. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and Motorsport. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This doesn't seem to be independently notable outside of the rally. FWIW, I do kind of get the impression that the editor is also editing from a place of personal excitement for rallying in general. There's a definite COI here and I do think he wants people to know about and think kindly of the rally he created, but I don't think he's necessarily here to promote himself exactly. I don't see where he's tried to create a bio article and he didn't include his name on the film article. He needs to avoid COI editing of course, but I'm hopeful that his energies might be able to re-oriented towards non-COI topics. I've asked at WP:RALLY for someone to look over the parent article on the rally and ideally provide some guidance to the editor. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Film does not meet WP:GNG, and I am unable to find any independent sources that reference the film. Aside from the COI editing, I think mentioning the film in Budapest-Bamako is fine since it is relevant to the article, however it does not meet the criteria for a standalone article. GalacticVelocity08 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

10 Lives (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A disambig disambiguating only one full page, which per WP:ONEOTHER has a hatnote to the only other use on Wikipedia. Can't be redirected to its primary topic 10 Lives as preposterously suggested by its prod remover, since that would make this a speedy. —Cryptic 11:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OneOther? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Redirect - Redirect to 10 Lives per WP:CHEAP. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Keep dab page with 4 items. --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We don't need a disambig page for one article, and nobody is going to type "10 Lives (disambiguation)" as a search term so leaving it as a redirect is pointless clutter. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just pointless clutter, it's never done, and it's so consistently never done that there's a speedy deletion criterion specifically for redirects ending in "(disambiguation)" that don't point to disambigs, set index articles, or similar pages. —Cryptic 20:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  One article? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the argument of Doomsdayer. Geschichte (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There is also an article Ten Lives. Peter James (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is something, though. It can still be handled in the hatnote (WP:TWOOTHER), but it's less clear. —Cryptic 20:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    TwoOther? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nice attempt at sarcasm but you should admit your vendetta against ever deleting anything no matter how useful it is or isn't. There is still only one blue-linked article of this precise title even after the recent expansion that apparently inspired the votes below. Some more non-notable items of that title were dug up from obscure artists, but the disambig page still offers no additional value to anyone searching for actual articles in Wikipedia that they can read and learn from. I will also reiterate that nobody is ever going to type "10 Lives (disambiguation)" as a search term. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 22:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Come again? --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: found another album, reconfigured the dab page, added better hatnotes to both primary topics. PamD 08:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because PamD found something else with the same name. LarryL33k (Contribz) 17:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, currently four things named 10 lives on the disamb. page. Does not meet WP:ONEOTHER anymore. jolielover♥talk 05:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cambria Productions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Cambria Productions should be deleted as it lacks significant coverage from independent, reliable sources to establish notability. Additionally, the content in the article is minimal and doesn't provide substantial information about the company's impact or contributions to the industry Loewstisch (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Companies. Loewstisch (talk) 09:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and California. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:29, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The available sources do not provide sufficient evidence to establish the company's notability. Fails WP:CORP.--ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fred & Eric (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article lacks sufficient coverage from reliable, independent sources and also a lot of links to your own website Loewstisch (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Comics and animation, Organizations, Companies, and England. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:NCORP based on lack of significant coverage in fully independent, secondary reliable sources. PR sources and connected sources do not contribute to notability. A BEFORE search only finds social media, user-submitted content and more PR. It seems very likely that the article may have been created and heavily edited by the Creative Director of the company per: [81] and other edits; WP:PROMO may also apply. Netherzone (talk) 14:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CS Link (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources, making it fail to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Television, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, and Slovakia. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Did OP look? Loads of local-language coverage as you might expect, such as Czech Radio [82] [83], Mafra [84] [85], Czech Television [86] [87]. C679 14:08, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Confluent, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not notable, linkedin source and other references are not reliable sources; I managed to find only primary or not reliable sources online. Taking off shortly (talk) 09:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, could not find reliable sources or significant coverage. Note: I PRODed this but was contested. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 10:25, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Technology, Internet, and California. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:NCORP. This is a publicly traded (Nasdaq and Russell 1000) company. Per WP:LISTED, sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. That is the case here.

• "Meet Confluent, The Big-Data Startup That Has Silicon Valley Buzzing". Forbes. 2016-06-24. — Article by a paid staff member (not WP:FORBESCON). The same author wrote several additional articles for Forbes – [88], [89] – although WP:MULTSOURCES says to treat this as one source for the purposes of determining notability.
• Juan, Mike (2023-07-19). "This Data Player Sees Itself As The 'Central Nervous System' For Many Companies". Investor's Business Daily. — Investment analysis, with quotes from multiple analysts.
• Miller, Alex; Wilhelm, Ron (2021-06-02). "Confluent's IPO brings a high-growth, high-burn SaaS model to the public markets". TechCrunch. — While WP:TECHCRUNCH indicates no consensus as to the reliability of TechCrunch in general, this is an article by two staff reporters, one senior, and goes beyond run-of-the mill reporting for TechCrunch. I think it meets the requirements for reliability, significant coverage, and independence.
• Novet, Jordan (2021-06-02). "LinkedIn spinout Confluent files for IPO, with annualized revenue of over $300 million". CNBC. Retrieved 2025-02-07., Levy, Ari (2021-06-24). "Confluent climbs 25% in Nasdaq debut after cloud software developer raises over $800 million in IPO". CNBC. Retrieved 2025-02-07. — Typical examples of the type of coverage Confluent's 2021 IPO received.
• "Confluent, Inc.: Initiation of Research Coverage". William Blair. 2025-02-06. — Analyst coverage. This is what WP:LISTED is referring to when it says Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. In fact, all of the analysts listed on Confluent's investor relations page will likely have written pieces that constitute significant independent coverage, but they almost invariably require a paid subscription or to have funds invested with the firm performing the analysis. I could not locate any that were not paywalled.
• "Confluent IPO | S-1 Breakdown". Meritech Capital. Retrieved 2025-02-07. — Exceptionally deep analysis of Confluent's market position prior to their IPO. Although I don't believe Confluent is one of their investments, Meritech is a VC firm, so I could see an argument that this makes this article less than 100% independent. Nevertheless, I think it provides a good example of what a typical analyst report looks like.

These sources are sufficient to satisfy NCORP's requirements for significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Jfire (talk) 05:45, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pharmazz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No single sources meets NCORP; routine not reliable and deep media sources; not notable company by its own Taking off shortly (talk) 09:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, India, United Kingdom, and Illinois. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 10:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TravelPerk (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotinal routine coverage sources only about seed fund raising and similar event-based news. Not meeting NCORP Taking off shortly (talk) 09:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, Travel and tourism, Germany, Spain, England, Florida, Illinois, and Massachusetts. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 11:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Finite promise games and greedy clique sequences (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Only source is an email list, user generated content. AFAIK there exist no other sources or published work on this topic, as the author of the topic at hand (Harvey Friedman) primarily releases results through this email list. C7XWiki (talk) 09:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Games and Mathematics. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 11:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources have been provided to indicate that anyone other than these games' creator has published any content about them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:01, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm not finding any indications that the mathematics literature has picked up these concepts. We can't base an article entirely on mailing-list posts. (The links given in the article aren't even viewable outside of NYU, and searching found nothing usable.) XOR'easter (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Less notable even than the articles we sometimes see based on only a single recently-published primary source. This has no published sources at all and searching found none. Friedman is a recognized expert so the sources can be considered under WP:SPS but I don't think they contribute to notability. Quickly growing functions are one of the cruftier corners of Wikipedia's mathematics coverage and this article exemplifies that. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:12, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wesean Student Federation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

notability KabirDH (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, the article does not meet the standard for inclusion. Chegouahora (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Chegouahora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Fraternities and sororities, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Draftify: The article violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Verifiability policies. There are multiple Extreme POVs trying to link the group with insurgents by using “seemingly” valid reliable sources, but these have nothing to do with how the term is used by the organisation itself. Stating this the Etymology section is excessive and unsupported by reliable sources discussing the term in the context of the organization, violating WP:UNDUE. Also Newspaper sources merely repeating the organization’s claims do not meet WP:RS standards as independent, third-party references. I don’t feel the lyngdoh paper is reliable as it’s written by a high schooler and newspaper articles mostly just repeat what the organisation has said. So this article needs to be further cut down and taking all the sources into account I don’t feel it will should be more than 1-2 paragraphs long ZoUnified (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is a separate discussion happening regarding the undue weight on the Talk page, and a possible RfC if additional edit warring occurs. The POV issues can be resolved without deletion/draftifying EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 01:12, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All the sources listed are Third Party and Reliable. There is also considerable coverage on the organisation that would support keeping the Wikipedia article on it. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's at least one article on the page that meets WP:GNG as an independent secondary source and WP:SIGCOV from other sources. The Lyngdoh source, the currently used Haokip source and the Mokokchung times source would each, by themselves, fulfill GNG. By policy, this article's content may need better verifiability but clearly meets standards for inclusion as an article.

As an outsider to WP:INDIA, I've additionally observed bludgeoning with citation tags that have been mostly resolved as well as a lot of wishywashy claims of a lack of notability over the last day. If these stem from an objection to the WP:POV views on the term Wesea, wikipedia is not censored and it's merely an uncomfortable fact that Wesea is in the organisation's name. All of this is, of course, irrelevant to this AfD but is perhaps relevant context to consider given that the nominee did not explain at all what their concerns are. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fringe topic SN bastion (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— SN bastion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. I am very surprised that there is this much coverage for a student group founded less than a year ago, but the sources narrowly get it over the line IMO. The best by far is the Haokip article, which seems to be a proper peer-reviewed journal article focused entirely on this group. The other sources are much less convincing. The Lyngdoh source is by a high school student and I'm sceptical that the site is a WP:RS. The other sources, including the Mokokchung Times, EastMojo, Shillong Times, and Hub Network pieces, don't have bylined reporters and seem to essentially repeat the group's announcements, so I think they should be discounted somewhat. But the Khasi language source is good, and the sources I can find make me strongly suspect there is much more out there in little-spoken northeast Indian languages that I'm just not able to find. I would also note that this group split off from Northeast Students' Organization, which seems to be unambiguously notable. So at worst I think this is potentially a case of WP:TOOSOON. MCE89 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Switching to delete. My initial view was that the Haokip journal article seemed to be by far the best source, and that alongside some weaker sources there was just about enough to meet WP:GNG. But after looking at it again given Worldbruce and Kautilya3's comments below, including the fact that it seems to cite at least some non-existent references, I don't think it's reliable or that any weight can be placed on it. Without that journal article, there's nowhere near enough to meet WP:GNG. MCE89 (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The article clearly meets the inclusion criteria, contrary to the nominator's claim. The sources cited such as Lyngdoh,Haokip, Mokokchung Times and the Morung Express article strongly support the article's compliance with WP:GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is edging towards a keep since the opposing arguments are made by users who barely edited anything else. Nonetheless, a little more input from the community is appreciated for a clear cut consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - there's enough here to satisfy WP:GNG in my opinion.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:56, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What Benison said.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kautilya3, RangersRus, Raymond3023, and Walsh90210: Notifying, as concerned editors per WP:APPNOTE, all who participated in the previous deletion discussion. --Worldbruce (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sources 2-5 say nothing about the WSF, they are only background about the term Wesean. EastMojo is paywalled, so I can't evaluate it fully, but the site follows a "citizen journalists" model, which is not a hallmark of reliable sources. From what can be seen, "In a statement, the WSF ...", it appears to be like Hub News, Ka Shelm, Mokokchung Times, Nagaland Post, The Morung Express, The Shillong Times, and Thingkho Le Maicha. All of them are essentially primary source press releases, repeating what WSF said in a letter - paraphrased for length perhaps, but without any critical analysis, evaluation, synthesis, or reference to sources other than the WSF. These do nothing to establish notability.

Lyngdoh is a high school student who doesn't appear to have published anything else, writing in the "Assertion" (i.e. opinion) section of Round Table India, which encourages visitors to "Please send your article submissions to contact.roundtableindia@gmail.com". This is not a reliable source for anything other than Lyngdoh's opinion.

Haokip is a political science student at Mizoram University. He doesn't appear to have published anything else. His paper has 7 notes and 39 references. Only two have publication dates after the March/April 2024 formation of the WSF, and neither of them can be found by Google or by direct searches of the Human Rights Watch and North East Now websites (the supposed publishers). This does not inspire confidence in reliability. If it is reliable, it is not enough on its own to establish notability. --Worldbruce (talk) 16:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This article is not notable and the sources do not justify it existing in Wikipedia. Halum Halum (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)— Halum Halum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - note to admin Please carefully consider the decision, as there are many sock accounts and anti-India editors trying to sway the outcome of this AfD using WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I'm unsure about voting on this AfD since I'm outside of India, but I can see many sock accounts involved. 49.49.25.233 (talk) 17:32, 4 February 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, CycloneYoris ^talk! 08:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per WP:GNG, we need at least two reliable sources with substantial coverage about the topic. The two sources that have such coverage (Lyngdoh and Haokip) are not reliable. They are student research and Haokip's article is really, really poor in its citations (citing non-existing sources, sources not supporting claims etc.) -- Kautilya3 (talk) 08:07, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly not meeting WP NCORP; deleted last year at AfD and recreated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aave Protocol; all the sources are or paid, or trivial with no reliable deep coverage. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Software, and Finland. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. A couple of reasons for why this should be speedily kept, and why the AfD should be quickly closed. I write about all kinds of related topics (Bitcoin City and many others) and am certain that Aave is notable enough. That's why I made sure that academic journal articles and many other sources were added.

1. Aave is #32 on Coinmarketcap. The top 50 cryptocurrencies on Coinmarketcap.com are certainly notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia. This isn't some relatively unknown altcoin that is barely used. In the crypto world, you see Aave's presence a lot. Ask the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cryptocurrency and they can tell you without a doubt that Aave is notable enough. Might as well delete Dai (cryptocurrency), Uniswap, or other articles with similar levels of notability?
2. Aave is already on the French Wikipedia (fr:Aave) and the Persian Wikipedia (fa:پروتکل Aave), which were created and edited by different editors familiar with how notable different crypto topics and coins really are. They were also created before the current English Wikipedia article for Aave was created. These are also two of the largest Wikipedias.
3. The first AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aave Protocol, had only one delete vote, so it was closed as a soft delete. Re-creating the article with sufficient citations is thus a valid option, since the original version apparently didn't have that many sources. Per WP:CONCISE, this is better named as Aave, and most sources refer to it as such without the Protocol part, which was why the article was created as Aave rather than Aave Protocol. The French Wikipedia also has fr:Aave, and it was created before the current English Wikipedia article was.
4. The sources are not "trivial" as the nominator claims. Multiple peer-reviewed scientific papers are cited, in fact 6+ papers (something that's practically impossible for barely known altcoins), and additional sources cited include TechCrunch, Bloomberg News, and Goldman Sachs Research, not random non-notable crypto blogs. The article does not have any blatantly obviously promotional content either (no awards, no corporate puffery, no corporate leadership fluff, no tabloid sensationalism), since most of it actually looks quite, if not a bit too, technical.
5. Finally, the AfD nominator is recklessly deleting articles without properly evaluating everything. He's been making dozens of disruptive AfDs and has been disregarding WP:BEFORE and other Wikipedia language versions, and neither has he been properly evaluating sources and notability. Thie nominator's contribution history has nothing but AfD nominations, and the account was created just last year with around 100 edits. To add to the confusion, the nominator's comments are frequently mangled, ungrammatical, and poorly worded. This kind of activity is highly disruptive and inappropriate, so I would suggest that this nomination be quickly closed.

Even if we disregard #5, #1-#4 provide very strong reasons for why this article should be quickly kept.

Newatlascamels (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The “speedy keep” vote is effectively winning the jackpot by raising arguments that should not have been raised. It's classic canvassing too. Let's analyze the sources: Bloomberg, TechCrunch, and other media outlets do not appear to provide reliable coverage, only announcements of launching A, launching B, etc - classic WP Trades. --91.222.32.118 (talk) 13:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manisha Rani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails GNG and lack of significant coverages. AgerJoy talk 08:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Dance, India, and Bihar. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 11:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: The subject has participated in a reality show, and with news about them emerging from time to time, I believe they will eventually gain notability. Baqi:) (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Easily meets GNG, extensive coverage are found online, though primarily tied to her television shows, which are among the most popular in India. Notability is established.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 07:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep: Subject though not very well known, was in the news in India as ealy as 1 week back for a new TV gig. This would constitute towards Notability as an actor. STC1 _talk 09:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noori Kiran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable publication, Unable to find significant or in-depth coverage. AndySailz (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and India. AndySailz (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a 60-year-old magazine. The passage adheres to WP:GNG guidelines, and offline sources provide in-depth coverage of the magazine in accordance with WP:OFFLINE. Baqi:) (talk) 08:22, 6 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!} 08:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep provides notable coverage of her career, with references to her achievements and recognition in the field of acting. The article is supported by credible sources and offers information that meets Wikipedia's notability criteria. --Loewstisch (talk) 09:48, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Loewstisch Who is 'her'? Taabii (talk) 11:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • And "acting", as well. That rationale seems to have no connection with the article at hand whatsoever. Nor to any discussions around this one on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 6. Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: After reviewing the article, I added a notability tag nearly a month ago. Subsequently, a user nominated it for AfD. The only Keep vote comes from the article's creator, with no valid rationale. He attempts to establish notability by adding numerous directory links, none providing significant coverage. Wikipedia notability is not inherited, nor is mere age a criterion for notability.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 10:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Owais Al Qarni: Hi Owais Al Qarni, thank you for comment, I believe you did not consult WP:BEFORE before making your decision. If you conduct a thorough search in both Urdu and English, I’m confident you will find a wealth of information. Additionally, there is considerable offline material available about the magazine. Please perform a comprehensive search once again. Thank you. Baqi:) (talk) 13:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not my responsibility to establish its notability. If you have found relevant sources, please add them to the article. I have noticed that you repeatedly claim sources are available but have yet to provide them.–𝐎𝐰𝐚𝐢𝐬 𝐀𝐥 𝐐𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐢 ʕʘ̅͜ʘ̅ʔ 14:16, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M1 Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No relialbe media coverage, only acquisitions coverage (not in-depth). Thus it fails per NCORP Cinder painter (talk) 09:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest that AfD volunteers should consider checking the article's history and following the link I put in when I first created it.—S Marshall T/C 09:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Lebanon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• [Later] Okay. To non-admins it looks like I created this article on 7 July 2011 (unless you happen to be one of those non-admins who check the logs). In fact, I created it after the community specifically authorized its creation at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 28.
• Admins will be able to see that the real original creator was User:Chadlupkes. After Chadlupkes created it, User:Prm1 made it a great deal more promotional. (Special:Contributions/Prm1 shows you that 100% of Prm1's contributions have been deleted.)
• The promotional version was summarily deleted by User:JzG, who was at that time a sysop.
• JzG's deletion was brought to deletion review by User:John Vandenberg, who was at that time also a sysop and sometime member of the Arbitration Committee, on the grounds that we ought to have an article about the M1 Group. The community, including tragically now-deceased sometime member of the Arbitration Committee User:DGG, agreed.
• As you can see from the M1 Group talk page, I created it by translating from the French Wikipedia article, at fr:M1 Group. On checking this again now, I suspect that the French Wikipedia article was itself a translation of the en.wiki article version originally created by User:Chadlupkes.
• Therefore the correct result of this AfD is to undelete the history from first creation in order to restore attribution for compliance with the Terms of Use.
• Finally, I would note that although I translated this from French, I don't speak Arabic. You would expect any company based in Lebanon and owned by a former Lebanese Prime Minister to have sources in Arabic, but I don't know the correct search terms. In view of the company's entry on the Dirty List for its dubious activities in Myanmar, I would also suggest searching for sources in Burmese (and, considering the geopolitics, possibly Hebrew).—S Marshall T/C 16:19, 30 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!} 08:23, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• All of the namedropping of the arbitration committee, which doesn't decide content, is irrelevant. The old history up to but not including the advertising blurb rewrite, is now undeleted. Perhaps we can concentrate on sourcing now. Uncle G (talk) 11:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Patanjali Wellness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The references in the article currently consist of routine coverage (WP:ROUTINE), which is typically found in Indian media (WP:NEWSORGINDIA). Apart from that, the article entirely fails to meet the WP:NCORP guidelines. Baqi:) (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Business, and India. Baqi:) (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, Medicine, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 30 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!} 08:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The company is backed with multiple reliable sources meets WP:SIGCOV and thus passes WP:NCORP. GregLoo (talk) 09:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Tattwamayananda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BEFORE shows no coverage in reliable, independent sources. Fails GNG. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Spirituality, and California. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TNT and WP:BLP. The formatting makes no sense to me, nor even the title. The sourcing is far below what we expect from a biographical article of a person living in North America. Bearian (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello Bearian,

  I’ve gone ahead and made the necessary changes as discussed. I’ve worked to address the concerns, and I hope everything aligns with your expectations now. Please take a look and let me know if any further adjustments are needed!

  Please appove it.

  Thanks,

  Shashi. Shashi Boinapalli (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeraxmoira,

I’ve gone ahead and made the necessary changes as discussed. I’ve worked to address the concerns, and I hope everything aligns with your expectations now. Please take a look and let me know if any further adjustments are needed!

Please approve it.

Thanks,

Shashi. Shashi Boinapalli (talk) 00:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With an unbolded Keep opinion here, this can't be closed as Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tusayiwe Mkhondya (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article subject may lack the required notability. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment Well it may, but I'd be surprised, the article has been patrolled, it has multiple reliable sources over several years, detailed accounts that are both national and international, well sourced photos of both her and her creations.... and that is assuming we ignore the additional stuff on youtube etc. All of that together defines notability for me. Victuallers (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 07:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - all but (3) Voice of America are less than reliable. (1) Newsweek has gotten such a weak reputation that it has its own nickname; (2) Malawi's nation is unknown to me; (4) Metro UK is on the list of unreliable sources; (5) and (6) are unknown; and (7) is basically a press release from a company that provided charity. If you find better sources, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I was surprised by Bearian's findings (as was s/he). I have removed the references to the unreliable sources of Newsweek and Metro and what remains is still independent coverage from different sources over time. cheers Victuallers (talk) 14:08, 3 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!} 08:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: per Victuallers, enough coverage FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Owen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

As a local councillor, I don't believe she meets WP:NPOL. Coverage merely confirms she was in council or contested the federal election. The misconduct incident doesn't add to notability. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 07:55, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Topic does not hold a national or state-wide office. If there are atleast three sources that meets the GNG, I’ll be willing to change my !vote. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 10:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Brisbane is undoubtedly a large and prominent enough city that substantive and well-sourced articles about its city councillors would be kept under WP:NPOL #2, but this isn't reaching that bar. We would need to see content about her political impact — specific things she did, specific projects she spearheaded, significant effects her work had on the development of the city, that sort of thing — but apart from one minor misconduct allegation that doesn't rise to that level of significance, this is otherwise referenced almost entirely to primary source verification of her vote totals on election day, which isn't support for notability. A keepable article about a local politician at the city council level has to be a hell of a lot more than just a summary of her electoral record. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A search for sources do not indicate notability meets WP:NPOL. Spinifex&Sand (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Conologue, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Appears to be an early post office back-added to the topos from an old map. Need more evidence that that of an actual settlement as these maps recorded post offices as well as actual towns. Mangoe (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Baker (p.101) says that this was a post office, and warns that we might have to search for Conlogue. So I did. The printed 1980s version of the GNIS database records this as "Conologue Post Office", which is a bit of a clue in itself. I found Conlogue in Jackson in an 1869 government listing of post offices.

  But those of you fresh from the discussion of Fleming, Indiana (AfD discussion) will enjoy what I found after that, which was Conlogue in a table on p.65 of the 1876 Monitor Guide to Post Offices and Railroad Stations in the United States and Canada which says "(R.R. name, Fleming's)". So this is the earlier name for the post office by Fleming's station on the O&M.

  But other than the shipping guides and post office directories: I found nothing.

  Uncle G (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Conologue and Fleming. Thanks for your effort, Uncle G, and if we have to do this much digging to find whether a place actually existed, and there is still uncertainty, then we don't have enough info for an article. Essentially a WP:V fail. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It meets WP:GEOLAND: a quick search of Newspapers.com shows that it had a school up to at least 1947, a cemetery, and a church in the 1960s and 1970s. There were still burials at Conologue Cemetery up to 2021. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:20, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, then where is it? The church is not at the location that GNIS gives for the "populated place", and looking at where the church was on the topos (and there is a building at that location appearing in the aerials up to 1960; it disappears before the next one in 1983), it sits in isolation; there's no town there. Unless the news clip says, there's no indication where the school was, and in any case neither schools nor churches require towns to exist. Again, it's a familiar issue: without direct evidence of a town from people talking about it as such, there's nothing inconsistent with this being a locale with no distinct village/town. Mangoe (talk) 22:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article from 1986 [90] explains where Conologue school house, church and cemetery were (are, in the case of the cemetery). Looking at the sources again, I find none that describe Conologue as a town or village - at most they say "Conologue community". They all say things like "Conologue school, Redding township". I am now !voting to Merge this article (and the Fleming one) to Redding Township, Jackson County, Indiana - and editing that to list Unincorporated Communities (like Conologue) or to list schools, churches, etc (there are plenty of newspaper articles that do just that - eg, they published scores for each school in Jackson County, by township). There are sources which can be included in the Redding article to provide information about its facilities over time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to add other sources here, so they are available to add either to this article, if kept, or to Redding Township, Jackson County, Indiana. A 1963 report of a fire refers to "the old Conologue school" [91]. Sisters Eva and Phoebe Brooks Quinn reminisce in 1990 about Fleming and Conologue [92]. School attendance records in Jackson county, 1932, part 1 [93] and part 2 [94]. 100 year old Lydia Nichter tells kindergarten students about Conologue school etc [95]. Schools in Jackson county listed by townships (Redding and Carr) and scored, part 1 [96] and part 2 [97]. Jackson County Fair display about old schools, 1995, part 1 [98] and end of article [99].
      • I strongly disagree with an "unincorporated community" list in the township, simply because these aren't unincorporated communities. That's just sweeping the mess elsewhere. Yes, listing schools and churches is the way to go; and in other states this is what the (19th century) sources themselves do, too. In Kansas, for example, the government reports have lists of schools and churches in the Board of Agriculture annual reports (Biennial report — Kansas State Board of Agriculture at the HathiTrust Digital Library) for each individual county. The real question is whether Indiana naturally breaks down by county or by township as far as sourcing is concerned. Uncle G (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

        Is there a source that names unincorporated communities in Indiana? Conologue and other places like it seem to meet the definition of unincorporated community given in Unincorporated area#United States. 1920s papers (eg Jackson County Banner and The Tribune (Seymour, Indiana)) published social information for communities like Conologue, Spraytown, Indiana, and others with hard-to-search names like Oak Grove, Pleasant Ridge, etc - examples from 1926 here [100] and here [101]. Here's a notice to Conologue Community in 1928 [102]. People are described as "of Conologue" as late as 1956 [103]. This is not at all my area of expertise, and I'm not going to put more time into it. It may need someone to write more histories or directories of whatever these places are/were. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here yet and new sources brought into the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:50, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fleming, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Not seeing evidence that this was more than a short-lived post office at a rail point. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Especially as Baker says (p.133) outright that it was a railway station that later gained a post office. ☺ After no success with a lot of histories and gazetteers, I finally located this as Fleming's in a table on page 80 of W. F. Allen's 1874 Gazetteer of Railway Stations in the United States and the Dominion of Canada. It was on the Ohio & Mississippi. That source says that the station served a population of 200, but makes no statement about what form that population took. Fleming's is in the station listing for the O&M in James Macfarlane's 1890 An American Geological Railway Guide too. The post office is in the 1899 USPS directory. But no Lippincott's nor the Thomas gazetteer has a Fleming or Fleming's, out of the several that they do have, in Indiana. Uncle G (talk) 08:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, does not appear to meet WP:GEOLAND. The only result I have found so far in Newspapers.com is this [104] from 1975, about a road crossing a railroad "at or near Fleming, Spencer-Redding Township", that two farmers used to get to their farms. It's not easy to search, as Fleming is a common surname, and there was a school in Duckcreek township called Fleming School five miles north and one mile east of Elwood, Indiana - but unlike Conologue, Indiana, it does not have lots of mentions as an inhabited place. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gikomba fire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The article fails Wikipedia:Notability (events) as I cannot find sources for it that are not simply routine coverage contemporary to the fire. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 03:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: there are multiple sources for the event and others follow-up coverage, like BBC, DW, CNN, Kenya Star, The Nation, Nairobi News FuzzyMagma (talk) 17:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:02, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The Nairobi News article specifically says that the issue at the market is that fires are common, basically every year of late. This implies that there's nothing special about this fire. Mangoe (talk) 03:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  People are murdered everyday but some murders are being covered more than the other. So, if we are to follow your analogy, murders should not be covered on the encyclopaedia because obviously, people are being murdered everyday. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 06:48, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment – I don't think their point is that any event that happens daily should be excluded. A murder that's covered on Wikipedia has some kind of significance or notability to it. The nominated article at present doesn't have a claim of significance or notability to it, and the objections of the delete side is that the coverage appears routine. Yue🌙 07:06, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per WP:MILL. Absolutely ordinary event, with no major consequences. Svartner (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and move. The sources provided by FuzzyMagma seem to indicate that while this event isn't notable, the market is. There's plenty of other coverage as well to meet GNG, since it's apparently one of the largest markets in East Africa. [105], [106], [107][108][109] -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would help if participants reviewed the sources just brought to this discussion. And if this article is Moved (which would have to happen after AFD closure), what is the suggested new title?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Edgal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG and all the sources cannot establish WP:SIGCOV. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Liberia, Nigeria, and Sierra Leone. Ibjaja055 (talk) 07:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't use LLMs to write rationales. Uncle G (talk) 11:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not appear to have any valid secondary sourcing to prove WP:GNG. m a MANÍ^{1990(talk | contribs)} 00:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Soft keep - Article would need a WP:HEY improvement to get a hard keep from me. I disagree with the nom regarding notability and significant coverage. There are plenty of WP:RS in news and books covering the subject. The issue I have is the lack of refs in many of the headings/claims, and the WP:REFBOMB in the "Pan-African advocacy" section which was initially a concern for me until I did WP:BEFORE. YouTube is also questionable as a ref. Where appropriate, they should be in External links.Tamsier (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kofi Owusu-Nhyira (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A non notable lawyer and entrepreneur. The sources in the article and a WP: Before could not establish notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Ghana. Ibjaja055 (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe subject is notable has received significant coverage in third party sources. Owula kpakpo (talk) 09:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Basu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Based on a BEFORE, I do not believe Basu meets WP:JOURNALIST. The only sources I have been able to find are primary and/or lack significant coverage. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Journalism, and United States of America. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 12:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Connecticut, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Or move back to the draft space. The article was not ready for the main space due to its lack of reliable sources with in-depth coverage of the subject. Yue💌 19:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I find articles they have written, but cannot find references written about them. Fails WP:ANYBIO. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adam B. Sefkow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Assistant professor who works on team projects in high-energy physics with no major awards, WP:TOOSOON. Page was Prodded since his h-factor of 35 is small for the field, particularly as almost all of his publications have 5-32 coauthors. PROD was opposed by Espresso Addict with the argument that 35 is enough to possibly pass WP:NPROF#C1, it appears unaware of the consensus that h-factors have to be field normalized. As has previously been discussed at WT:NPROF, an h-factor of 35 is very notable in math; a good start in solid-state physics and low for high-energy physics. There is also the need to consider the number of authors, de-emphasizing large team citations such as he has been involved in. Ldm1954 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 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) 06:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Not unaware of any of that, just unkeen to set a trend of uncontested prods of academics with that kind of citation profile. I don't pay much attention to the h-index, more to the total citations and the citations of the top papers. Here both appear healthy (5386 in total, with the top papers 732, 506, 242, 189, 178 and a further ten papers >100); I don't think the wider discussion of AfD is unwarranted even if it turns out I'm the lone soul opposing deletion. Will look into it a bit further on the morrow. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very few of these papers have anything like 150 coauthors; they are mostly in the range of ~12–20. Ignoring those with >=10 coauthors, the top papers seem to be 732, 189 (1st author), 120, 110, 72. Several of those I've omitted, Sefkow was placed third, which at least in fields I know would be one of the major contributors (1st, 2nd, 3rd, last). There's also the award, which I'd say was more early to mid (under 42 years) than early career. I'm coming down on neutral; I don't feel an urgency to delete, but I'm willing to go with the flow. It would be good to hear from the article creator, Debrah Minkoff. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. In a field where some of his highly-cited publications have 150 coauthors, we cannot set much store on h-index and citation counts of all publications. This sort of pattern of publication immediately gives most researchers publications with high citation counts, and the h-index is merely an indicator of longevity, not of being a leader. It is too indiscriminate and I don't think the standard should merely be that all high-energy physicists are notable. Alternatives are to look for notable awards and society fellowships, distinguished and named professorships, or heavily-cited first-author papers. His "Design of magnetized liner inertial fusion experiments using the Z facility" is first-author and has triple-digit citations, but it's the only one. He is an assistant professor so WP:PROF#C5 is out of reach. There is a 2017 reference for two awards [110], but one is really just a startup grant (not a prize or medal) and the other is also an early-career award [111]. I don't think it's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: New Jersey and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:56, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hedwig Tusar-Taxis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Does not pass WP:NBIO. She has achieved nothing in her life, so she does not deserve own encyclopedic entry. Being married to a notable person does not make her a notable person. FromCzech (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 06:36, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Notability is not inherited. Article composed of various original research and does not demonstrate any notable achievements of the subject. C679 08:32, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to her first, notable, husband Vlastimil Tusar. PamD 09:10, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per PamD. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is significant coverage of her in two sources that are included in the article, one as Further reading [112], pages 375-376, and one in External links [113] (which is unfortunately not the actual article, but announces a "New series: Wives of our Prime Ministers" and says "You can find the full story of Vlastimil Tusar's two women in the magazine Pátek, the Friday supplement of Lidové noviny." I haven't yet tried to find the Friday supplement.) There is also SIGCOV in this article from the National Museum in Prague [114]. These sources are from 2004, 2010 and 2011, so she is clearly notable almost 100 years after she married Tusar. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is an other very actual article from December 2024 published in the NÖN and listed as reference in the article on Hedwig Tusar-Taxis: Attempted murder 99 years ago. Bloody Christmas in the Hellerhof Paudorf. --Culturawiki (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect per PamD is a good option. I don't understand how the sources listed above support notability. If there is such a thing, add it to the article. But, for example, the one from the National Museum only describes what she wore as the wife of the prime minister. The article in NÖN describes that she witnessed a crime, if I understand correctly. Even if it were WP:SIGCOV, remember that it is not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. FromCzech (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is the case for many wives of heads of state that articles about them focus on what they look like and what they wear (whether they achieve anything themselves or not). The WP article on Brigitte Macron says "Her style of dress at international meetings has often been commented upon." That seems to be what is considered notable about her (and the age difference between her and Macron .....) - and gets written about. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Lynch (mining engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

The only indepth coverage I could of him was his unfortunate death. Take away that and his career was unremarkable. So WP:BLP1E applies here. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Australia. LibStar (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Shoaib (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Taabii (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Rajasthan. Taabii (talk) 05:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:NPOL as the subject has not been elected and has insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment @Taabii: not satisfying NPOL is not grounds for deletion, I ask you not to continue nominating articles for deletion under this claim. A WP:BEFORE is necessary that, as Pharaoh of the Wizards asserts, addresses the GNG criteria (not the NPOL criteria). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:46, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Goldsztajn I'll follow your suggestions. Thank you. Taabii (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chaz Rainey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional biography for a non-notable showbiz lawyer. Contested draftification; moved back to mainspace without improvements. Sources do not support WP:GNG, WP:NBIO or even WP:NPRODUCER as the films he has produced are not notable. The sources are WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in coverage of other subjects: ([115], [116], [117], [118]), affiliated, non-independent sources: ([119], [120], his own website); and an LA Times reference, but it's in the sponsored/business directory section, not independent news coverage ([121]). Nothing else found in BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Film, Law, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:15, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources in the article don't support BLP/Basic notability, as they are either trivial mentions or are about cases he worked on. Nothing to support NPROF. I couldn't find anything useful on google and scholar searches other than an SSRN paper from his time at LSE with no citations. Oblivy (talk) 06:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gamble Hill (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

I prodded this due to being unable to find any sources discussing this location (only a couple mentioning the adjacent "Gamble Hill Drive" and "Gamble Hill Croft"). Another user expressed scepticism towards the completeness of my searching, noting that they found the location on Google Maps. I am listing it at AfD to see if anyone can find any sources that would establish notability. — Anonymous 03:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and England. — Anonymous 03:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Created more than a decade ago. Only three sentences total. No sourcing at all. — Maile (talk) 04:12, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The best that I can turn up are books on the mining industry (e.g. ISBN 9780118843553) that report that the quarry that you see here in Armley (which was a township and an ecclesiastical parish) was a mine into the Elland flagstone, and a couple of 1960s sources breathlessly announcing modernization programmes that report that it was flattened and built over by (subcontractors to) the Leeds Corporation in the 1960s. Uncle G (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bramley, Leeds. There's an image of the Gamble Hill estate in that article. In 19th and 20th century newspaper sources the road Gamble Hill and subsequent developed area of Gamble Hill are usually written as "Gamble Hill, Bramley". It is recognised as a named suburban area by Ordnance Survey in its Open Names database, so could have presumed notability under WP:NPLACE, but as the article is unsourced and there seems little coverage other than mentions, it's probably best redirected for now. Rupples (talk) 22:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The borough and civil parish that contained Bramley and Armley both, back in the time of those 19th century sources, was Leeds, according to White's 1838 History, Gazetteer and Directory of the West-Riding of Yorkshire. So addresses from the 19th century are going to be a little tricky. It doesn't help that Gamble Hill doesn't appear in things like Wilson's 1860 Our Village: A Sketch of the History and Progress of Bramley During Seven Centuries. Here's what one book says, by the way:

    A substantial area of land immediately to the east of Hough End Tannery, between Old Farnley and Bramley, Leeds, was investigated by the then Leeds Corporation for housing in the 1960's.

    — Godwin, C. G. (1984). Mining in the Elland Flags: A Forgotten Yorkshire Industry. BGS reports. H.M. Stationery Office. ISBN 9780118843553. ISSN 0950-9313., p.7

    So it was between towns (as the map confirms) until it was built over. There are notices putting out the development of the "Gamble Hill Housing Estate" for tender in places like the 1957 The Surveyor & Municipal & County Engineer. Seeing a 1962 source that laundry lists all of the individual houses that the initial development contract was for, I have a sinking feeling that one might be able to write something very dull about the housing estate. But let it be in the Bramley article, I think.

    One of the breathless announcements is the fairly obviously rehashed press-release titled "Leeds Road Contracts for Hargreaves" in the 1966 Roads and Road Construction, for the record.

    Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bramley, Leeds, per Rupples. I did a quick search when this was still a prod and didn't find anything signficant enough to support an article but it definitely is a historical settlement. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Newspapers.com has some hits for "Gamble Hill"; the ones I looked at have variations on "Gamble-hill, Bramley, near Leeds" in the late 19th C. Espresso Addict (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: it can't be redirected to Bramley, Leeds because that article does not mention it except in one image caption. Googling (hoping to add a sourced mention of it to the Bramley article), all I can find in the first few pages is a census report which treats "Gamble Hill" as a street name, equivalent to "Henconner Lane". If someone later adds content about it to the Bramley article, then the redirect can be re-created. There is no sourced content here to merge. PamD 12:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For what it's worth: Talk:Gamble Hill#Objection to Prod of 5 February 2025. Thank you very much! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 21:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Center, Jay County, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Once again the evidence for this being a "village" is Baker's say-so, and he has proven to be a weak reed. There is a cemetery, because there is a church, and that is what is there now. I expected searching to be mostly fruitless and so it mostly was, and in particular I didn't turn up a handy county history. But I did turn up this account of the founding of this church (which is very handsome on the outside, BTW) which turns out to have been United Brethren, at least when it was started; the largest portion of the UB church was eventually folded into the UMC, and in any case I could not tell whether the church is still in use. Anyway, what's particularly interesting about the account is that while it indicates that there was once a schoolhouse at the location, it rather conspicuously says nothing about a town. This proves nothing of course, but I would remind newcomers that a schoolhouse is not proof of a town either. That's basically all I found; possibly someone can find out more. Mangoe (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• There are two county histories, Montgomery 1864 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFMontgomery1864 (help) and Jay 1922 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFJay1922 (help), the latter incorporating the former. Both have the school and the church, but no village nor town. Nor is there a Center in Jay county listed amongst the 23 entries for Centre in Indiana alone in the 1902 Lippincott's. Uncle G (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Montgomery, M. W. (1864). History of Jay County, Indiana. Chicago: Church, Goodman, & Cushing. (History of Jay County, Indiana at the Internet Archive)
  • Jay, Milton T. (1922). History of Jay County, Indiana: Including Its World War Record and Incorporating the Montgomery History. Historical Publishing Company. OCLC 607766443. (History of Jay County, Indiana: Including Its World War Record and Incorporating the Montgomery History at the HathiTrust Digital Library)

William W. Cates (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

for William W. Cates (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for biographies (WP:BIO). The subject lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. The citations provided are either self-published, primary sources, or trivial mentions. The Los Angeles Book Festival award appears to be a pay-to-play contest rather than a widely recognized literary honor. The bibliography consists entirely of self-published works, which do not contribute to notability. Additionally, the National Geographic reference does not substantiate the claim regarding the winery. Given the lack of verifiable, independent coverage, this article does not demonstrate the subject’s encyclopedic notability and should be considered for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicholasEyes (talk • contribs) 03:01, February 6, 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and California. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Louisiana and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Moana Marie Nunes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject is only notable due to her marriage with Antonio Sabàto Jr. - see WP:INVALIDBIO. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Entertainment. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I disagree with the comment on her notability tied to her husband. The only section that has sourcing is her Personal life. The career section is totally not sourced, but that section shows her notability. — Maile (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC) I have changed my vote to Delete. I've been searching for info on her for weeks. Nothing comes up. — Maile (talk) 03:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, Beauty pageants, American football, California, Hawaii, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Confused. This person is clearly a big celebrity, but she doesn't have a lot of coverage in mainstream media, leading me to wonder why she's gotten so little coverage, at least from what I see on Googling, from them compared to what's in the article. Has there been a blacklist? Is she just famous for being famous? What's going on? I'm genuinely interested in an answer, so please ping me. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no answer from anyone else forthcoming, I'm going with "yes, the subject is famous, but not notable." Bearian (talk) 10:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 02:16, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there are multiple claims to notability. She did more recently receive press from her marriage with Antonio Sabàto Jr, but she meets WP:SINGER for creating the Hawaiian Tropicè theme song, singing the Star Spangled Banner for various notable events, etc., WP:ENT for TV work such as Starz... CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 02:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SINGER says "regardless of what notability criterion is being claimed, the claim must be properly verified by reliable sources independent of the subject's own self-published promotional materials". Before listing this article, I looked but I couldn't find any reliable sources that predated her marriage to Sabàto.

If you are aware of any reliable sources that establish her notability as a singer (or anything else), please add them to the article. Without the existence of such sources, notability can't be proven and the article should be deleted. Martey (talk) 20:10, 30 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!} 02:04, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I don't agree that "this person is clearly a big celebrity" or even that she is "famous". Her IMDb page has only 4 news items (see https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0547234/news/ ), all of which were to report her marriage to Antonio Sabato Jr. I wouldn't consider Sabato that big a star, but IMDb has 223 news items about him. And to compare that to someone who is clearly a superstar, IMDb has over 40,000 news items about Taylor Swift. Judging from the sources in this article, it appears that to the extent that Nunes receives any media coverage at all, it is WP:INHERITED from her relationship with Sabato, as all of the cited sources other than her own web site include Sabato's name in the headline. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bobtown, Indiana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This book's explanation of the name's origin for a place in Clay County strikes me as a bit of a "just so" story, but it's about all I get besides Baker. I'm just not finding a trace of the place searching and there's nothing there which suggests it was really a town. @Uncle G:? Mangoe (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:23, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The interesting thing is reading Baker, p. 71. Baker tells us that xe can only guess at what this is because it doesn't appear any maps that xe has consulted. It's like reading a deletion nomination rationale straight out of the source. ☺

  Wanting to be thorough, although one could just leave it at that, I did some looking. There's a biography of John Mellencamp (ISBN 9780857128430) that says that this was the original working title of The Lonesome Jubilee because Mellencanp's grandparents "once lived there".

  Other than that, though, I have turned up nothing. There are some soil surveys that name a soil type after this, but they aren't documenting the (supposed) town. The gazetteers only turn up the place in Massachusetts. I couldn't even construct more than a vague opening sentence of an article, with zero hope for expansion or clarification, because even the biography only narrows it down to Jackson County, and is only indirectly reporting the existence of the place based upon Mellencanp's recollection of how xe named a music album. For a place, I'd prefer a geographer to a biographer.

  Uncle G (talk) 17:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I added a 2015 local newspaper article source, as well as a Billboard magazine cite about the Mellencamp connection. The property owner name Mellencamp appears right near the location on some plat maps. eg [122]; though not listed as "Bobtown" on that one, you can see where the school was located, and there are a bunch of smaller plots centered at the location. It was/is an unincorporated community which has receded into remembrance, like so many U.S. midwestern locales.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding: there are 101 hits for "Bobtown" in the archives of the Seymour Daily Republican (1898-1920), on internet archive [123]. Mostly mundane reporting of what's happening in the community. But more than enough to show it was a recognized populated community.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 22:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking out a random sampling of the Daily Republican and finding random things like reports of football teams with "CORTLAND" as the headline, and "Lawrence Phegley sold a cow" without any sort of clue about a Bobtown, this seems to be another case of counting the number of hits rather than reading the sources. I challenge you to find just two of those newspaper hits that actually tell you what Bobtown is, the basic "Bobtown is a …" introduction part of an article. Should be easy, right, with 101 of them? So prove it. And as you note, Billboard is Mellencamp's recollection, as I discussed above. That map that doesn't say Bobtown at all is a contraindication, if anything, and yet more support for Baker saying that this isn't on any maps at all. The only real source is Spicer, which you've mis-cited by the way, but which doesn't say vital things like that it was a town, or a village, or even a hamlet. There's a one-room rural school and grocery story run by a Bob that apparently gave rise to a nickname. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I said the daily republican hits were "mundane", you're telling me to prove they aren't mundane? is this a trick? Don't let your obvious hate of the work of John Cougar Mellencamp cloud your opinion of the once beautiful small rural Indiana community which went by the name of Bobtown. There are USGS maps which list Bobtown on them, by the way e.g. bottom third center here [124]. Seriously though, I understand your view of notability of such places like this varies from mine, and that's ok.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:57, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 02:00, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Altaf Tadavi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No other reason of notability except winning a season of Big Boss, a notable reality show. The subject fails WP:ENT and WP:MUSICBIO. Also see MC Stan, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MC Stan, this and this Taabii (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, India, and Maharashtra. Taabii (talk) 11:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 12:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete— No GNG-worthy coverage. Mostly covered for wearing expensive jewelry and winning Big Boss.EmilyR34 (talk) 05:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom., mainly news sources are due to winning Bigboss (which dosent inherit notability) and fails WP:NACTOR as he didnt have sig. roles in multiple notable films. TheSlumPanda (talk) 09:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as has substantial coverage of his music career in three Rolling Stone India articles already referenced in the article. Also news coverage of his winning Big Boss certainly contributes to his notability and is a claim to winning a major competition as per WP:ANYBIO, also passes WP:GNG imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.Delete. Per nom. Winner of reality show Bigg Boss (although 1E), but enough coverage in multiple Rolling Stone articles and GQ India makes the subject pass WP:NBIO. RangersRus (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm going to be contrarian here for a reason. I recall that we generally keep articles about the winners of 'major' reality shows. Am I wrong? Bearian (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't there WP:1E. Guide if I'm wrong. Taabii (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The subject is not only a winner of the Bigg Boss event but also an established rapper. When considering WP:ANYBIO, the subject meets the criteria due to their notable achievement of winning the Bigg Boss event. Furthermore, even before their participation in Bigg Boss, they had a career as a rapper, which aligns with the WP:ENT criteria for entertainers. Additionally, the subject has received significant media coverage, including in-depth features by BBC and several Urdu newspapers, which further solidifies their notability. Baqi:) (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bigg Boss (Hindi TV series) season 16. The sources for this article are not great to begin with, since many of them fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Still, according to WP:MUSICBIO #10, a redirect is appropriate in this instance.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Rolling Stone India articles are about his music career and don't fall under NEWSORGINDIA, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The previous AfD happened before the three Rolling Stone articles were published. If we group all the Rolling Stone coverage as one and add the Bigg Boss title coverage, the subject seems borderline notable. Some sources call him an undeserving winner. Considering this and the fact that Indian media publishes a lot of articles, I wouldn’t argue for a strong keep, but it does pass GNG and there is enough to write a neutral article. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, feels like this AFD is another case of systematic bias given that I've seen winners of many western reality shows keep their pages. He meets WP:GNG and seems like quite a notable figure. Also those deletions are from two years ago, much has changed. jolielover♥talk 02:33, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ADInstruments (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Sources are routine coverage or directory listings. Deleted by PROD in 2006. Jfire (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Biology, Technology, and New Zealand. Jfire (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This one's borderline but I'm leaning Keep. This source from the University of North Carolina at Pembroke discusses the use of ADInstruments products in their biology coursework, and this article from the Otago Daily Times is over the line for significant coverage. It's not ideal, but it is sufficient. HyperAccelerated (talk) 21:45, 30 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!} 01:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of knitters in literature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:NLIST doesn't have the clearest criteria and lists usually seem to end up kept at AfD, but this particular one seems trivial enough to test usual convention. I don't think there are enough major literary characters specifically known for knitting to warrant the existence of this list. — Anonymous 01:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. — Anonymous 01:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:35, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - An interesting list. Those of us who had required reading in school of A Tale of Two Cities remember Madame DeFarge knitting and knitting...and then knitting some more. The Knitting navbox at the bottom is helpful. — Maile (talk) 04:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if somehow notable (doubtful, and the article's 0 sources do not go any way to proving that) nothing here is salvageable. Knitting is not defining for any of these anyway, and almost all are not notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I think the broader topic of knitting in literature would plausibly be notable — a quick search found quite a few sources that discuss it as a literary theme (e.g. [125] [126] [127]). But WP:NLIST would require sources that discuss "characters who knit" as a group or set, and I'm not really seeing any evidence of that. There are sources that use specific characters/texts to analyse how knitting features in literature, but none that describe "knitters" as a defined group. And I agree with PARAKANYAA that there's really nothing salvageable here, this is just an unexplained collection of characters who happen to be described knitting. MCE89 (talk) 10:37, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or possibly merge to Knitting. This is both fun and obscure, but as obscure does not mean not notable: @An anonymous username, not my real name: Was the opinion that this topic is trivial and I don't think there are enough major literary characters double-checked with the WP:BEFORE search which is required before a deletion nomination? Looking at the sources brought up MCE89, I cannot access the first one, but the other two to me seem to cover "knitters in literature" as a group at least as much as "knitting in literature", both having (female) knitters already in the title. The book Sock by a reputable publisher likewise covers knitters in literature as a group starting p. 99. So I think these establish the minimum for notability and WP:NLIST. For other sources like Victorian Needlework and Cult Media, Fandom, and Textiles knitting may be in the forefront, but they still talk about various knitters, and showcase that them being knitters may not be their central trait, but has a specific relevance for each character.

Now, granted, a clear inclusion critereon is not defined so far, but that's a problem that can be solved on the talk page is therefore no grounds for deletion. I would suggest to use secondary sources, both those listed and others, and then only keep those characters where secondary sources talk about them knitting being a characteristic. If this should in the end lead to a short list, it can be merged to Knitting. If someone wants to reorient this article to cover the knitters in literature embedded in a Knitting in literature article, I have no objections. But again that would be no grounds to delete everything first. Daranios (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are good, but I still would argue that they discuss Knitting in literature more than knitters in literature. Under different circumstances, perhaps a merge would be viable, but the target doesn't exist plus have you seen the page? There isn't really anything salvageable. — Anonymous 18:03, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@An anonymous username, not my real name: That's a new argument as compared to the nomination. And indeed the article currently looks pretty bad. But seeing that some entries we have now are treated in more detail in the found relevant secondary sources, I think it would still be good to keep as a starting point to the improvements I've described above. Thanks for acknowledging my first small steps in that direction. Also see the discussion on a prose version below. Daranios (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I have to agree with a comment above: I think there's room for discussion of knitting as a trope, but listing all the individual knitters is into WP:NOTTVTROPES territory. Mangoe (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In its current state, this is just a pure collection of WP:RAWDATA absent any meaningful context or analysis. That does not an article make. It does not even make for the beginnings of an article. The editors who say that there is nothing to salvage here is correct—whether the topic is theoretically notable doesn't really enter into it. This is rather a textbook example of violating WP:INDISCRIMINATE/WP:NOTDATABASE, which says To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As such, WP:DELREASON#14—Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia—applies. Analysis, not examples, is what makes an encyclopedic article (examples can support the analysis, but can never replace it). It seems likely that a Knitting in literature/Knitting in culture/Knitting in fiction article (or whatever title is most suitable) would be appropriate, but there is nothing at the page presently under discussion that would be of any use whatsoever for that. TompaDompa (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Knitting or ideally a "Knitting in X" article as @TompaDompa: mentioned. I was initially planning on !voting weak delete given the only reasonably non-self published material covering this I could find was this from The Believer (magazine) and this from the Port Jefferson Library, but after reading over @Daranios:'s reply, I'll support keeping it on the site in some form, but I don't think there's grounds for keeping the standalone list on the site, as Tompa put it. --PixDeVl yell talk to me! 00:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @PixDeVl, out of curiosity, what content would you recommend merging? The list is extremely poorly formatted with copious misuse of external links, and I don't think its material is usable anywhere on Wikipedia in its current state. An article being messy is not a reason to delete it, but it is very much a reason to not merge its content. — Anonymous 01:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @An anonymous username, not my real name: Thinking over, really it's more a merge of concept then info, since unless more sources can be found regarding those characters specifically(possible!), the only good sources I've seen are the Believer and Port Jeff ones I linked above(neither of which are used in the list being discussed), which could be used to make a small section on knitting in culture with examples on the Knitting article, IMO. I do think finding enough sources for Knitting in culture would be best overall. PixDeVl yell talk to me! 05:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Of the sources found so far, I think only this: An Incomplete Survey of Fictional Knitters could be used to justify this article's existence. However, the broader concept of knitting in literature has received some scholarly attention (e.g. "knit lit" about characters who join knitting circles) so I would support this list being included in a separate article such as Knitting in fiction, Knitting in culture, etc. Astaire (talk) 02:25, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Knitting was so common back then, of course some characters would do it. All the references I click on are dead links, so I can't see if this was a significant trait or just a passing mention. Are these major characters that have things written about their knitting at times in the books they are in? Dream Focus 06:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: Would you perhaps like to check out the sources listed above to answer your qeustion? Daranios (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:LISTN, "knitting in literature" may be a notable topic, but this seems indiscriminate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:19, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - While the topic is interesting, I don't see enough encyclopedic value. Not opposing any chances of a merge. Azuredivay (talk) 12:21, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as nominator: I'm less opposed to a merge now that some basic improvements have been made; the content is now at least viable to remain on Wikipedia, but I still question the need for a standalone article. — Anonymous 13:55, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Knitting as a concept in fiction may be notable, but characters knitting seems to be less so. As it stands, this list doesn't meet notability guidelines for its given topic, and there's no content worth preserving, meaning a move wouldn't be viable either. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Extreme case of poorly written proof for WP:NOTTVTROPES. Badly formatted, badly referenced, not encyclopedic WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The 2nd and 3rd sources found by MCE89 are titled "Worsted, Weave, and Web: The Cultural Struggles of the Fictional Knitting-Woman" and "Women Knitting: Domestic Activity, Writing, and Distance in Virginia Woolf's Fiction". Both "knitting-woman" and "women knitting" refer to knitters, even if not using that word. One of the sources found by Astaire is titled "An Incomplete Survey of Fictional Knitters". (Thank you to two Delete !voters for finding sources!) The book Sock that Daranios found appears to have 5 or 6 pages on knitters in literature (I can only see snippets). So four sources that discuss knitters in fiction. It also seems clear that there are enough sources for an article on knitting in fiction, and it wouldn't surprise me if there was enough for knitting as protest (eg [128]), which is not yet even mentioned in the Knitting article. This list definitely needs improvement (removing external links and providing some context would be a good start), but doesn't need deleting. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The sources that are being mentioned might be useful in creating a completely new article or article section on the broader concept of knitting in fiction, but do not do anything to justify or support a itemized list of specific fictional characters that have knitted. And as this particular list is a poorly written list with no sources to justify the entries or context to allow readers to actually glean any information from, there is, as said by Pokelego999, no content here worth preserving. Rorshacma (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RebeccaGreen. I'm surprised to find that sources exist and have been presented. The current status of the article, and whether or not it is indiscriminate, may be remedied by regular editing, and hence no policy-based reason for deletion remains. Jclemens (talk) 21:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether the WP:NOT issues could in fact be remedied by regular editing or are inherent to the concept would seem to be a point of contention here. If one takes the position that they are inherent to the concept, then WP:DELREASON#14—Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia—still remains as a policy-based reason for deletion. TompaDompa (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way would NOT apply to this list that could not be remedied by regular editing? Jclemens (talk) 05:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • The argument would be that this is fundamentally not appropriate for a list approach, and that the steps that could be taken to end up with an acceptable article on a similar topic (which would then have a different title and entirely different contents) does not constitute regular editing of this article. There seems to be broad support for a knitting in literature prose article (or corresponding section in the main knitting article), as noted. TompaDompa (talk) 06:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion There seems to be general agreement that a prose article on this topic (or a closely related one), or alternatively a section in the main knitting article, would be a good idea. As an WP:Alternative to deletion, I propose that we turn this into a prose article and change the title (since it would no longer be a list). That seems like it would be a compromise solution that most or all participants here could get behind. Thoughts? TompaDompa (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Amended per below. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I would be happy if someone were to take the effort to transform this into a prose article, which may be Knitting in literatue or Knitters in literature, or even a section "Knitting/Knitters in literature" within Knitting, if that's preferred. Seeing that some of the examples listed here do appear in the discovered secondary sources, and possibly most will, I expect that we will not loose what is relevant in the current state of the article while improving on the present issues. I am only opposed to deleting everything first and leaving unclear if there will be a better replacement in the forseeable future. Daranios (talk) 14:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Good point on a section in the main knitting article being an option; I have added it to my suggestion. TompaDompa (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, I agree that turning this into a regular article about Knitters in literature, or a similar title, would be a good idea. Daranios has made a start by adding refs and some info, but it would be rather disjointed to have info from the various sources against each knitter in the list. I also agree with Daranios that it's better to work on improving this rather than deleting it. So I guess the WP:ATD we'd be recommending is a move from List of knitters in literature to Knitters in literature? RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Knitting in literature (-ing, not -ers) seems like the preferred option. TompaDompa (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or delete per TompaDompa and WP:CONSENSUS. Most of this isn't sourced and doesn't meet the standard for its own article. Is there enough coverage to preserve a section? Nothing I see in the article at present, but some editors are saying that sources exist. I'm going to WP:AGF, and otherwise note the consensus that this shouldn't have an article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment with regard to earlier "mostly unsourced" opinions: Now more than half is referenced with secondary sources which can also provide commentary during further expansion on the topic. Textile as material, method, and metaphor in Virginia Woolf's fiction is another secondary source which can most likely provide further context for the examples from Virginia Woolf, but I can only access a small part. Daranios (talk) 16:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]