Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Purge page cache if page isn't updating.
< January 22 January 24 >

Purge server cache

Bidule

[edit]
Bidule (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. I couldn't find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. The review that exists in the article is quite nice, but notability usually requires multiple reliable sources, and I couldn't find any outside of the review that is already cited in the article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 00:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Leib Ostrow

[edit]
Leib Ostrow (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 sufficient on WP:GNG, WP:PRODUCER. Royiswariii Talk! 15:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP without citations. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Bibus

[edit]
Bibus (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. I couldn't find sufficient sourcing to establish notability. There is a link to a review in the External Links section, but it appears that the link has rotted and the Wayback Machine doesn't contain a readable copy of said review. HyperAccelerated (talk) 23:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 FC Zebra Ladies Iwate season

[edit]
2024 FC Zebra Ladies Iwate season (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 PROD but no reason provided. My initial concern was No indication of meeting WP:GNG or WP:NSEASONS. This source mentions the team Zebra Ladies Iwate and confirms that it plays in division 2 of a regional league. This places the team in the 5th tier of Japanese women's football, which, in my view, is way too low to warrant a separate article (even in men's football in England, we only go down as far as the 4th tier in our season coverage here). To get an idea for the level of play here, please consider that the attendance of one of the league matches was only 30 spectators! This is way below the level that should be covered in a global encyclopaedia. By comparison, even matches in the seventh tier of England attract bigger attendances than this and nobody would argue that those seasons need their own articles. This article is the closest to WP:SIGCOV from those available but it barely covers FC Zebra Ladies Iwate and most of the coverage is about the two players being transferred. I think it's interesting that these Hong Kong footballers would join this random 5th tier Japanese team but creating an entire season article for it seems over the top.

I have considered WP:ATD but the team doesn't have an article and, in fact, even the league season doesn't have an article! To go even further, the actual league itself as a whole doesn't have an article. Creating an article on an individual team season before the team itself or even the league seems to be putting the cart before the horse. My proposal is we delete this article on a season that clearly doesn't warrant an article but I have no opposition to someone creating an article on the league and, perhaps, individual league seasons if they can provide appropriate independent sources. At a stretch, FC Zebra Ladies Iwate might warrant its own article but there would need to be plenty of good sources for that. I can't think of a scenario where this 2024 season for this 5th tier club would ever be notable as we are not a football almanac. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 22:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seasons of Melrose Place

[edit]
Seasons of Melrose Place (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 page used to contain summaries for every season of this series, but those have since been removed, presumably because they were duplicates of the summary sections of each individual season. As a result, the page now is redundant, albeit with less information, to List of Melrose Place episodes. DeemDeem52 (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This looks like the result is to redirect, but no specific target page has been identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Content has been moved to Melrose Place season 1, Melrose Place season 2, Melrose Place season 3, Melrose Place season 4, Melrose Place season 5, Melrose Place season 6 and Melrose Place season 7. It would be weird to redirect this article to List of Melrose Place episodes, in my opinion. I suggest using a template instead, probably {{Copied}}. Dugnad (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Musos Awards

[edit]
Musos Awards (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 award. No significant non-routine coverage in reliable sources. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The awards ceremony is making a comeback this year with reliable notable press surrounding the event and notable celebrities in attendance. Jpruit2 (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this! The award is gaining significance with a notable passed linked to Soccer Six, both of which are making notable returns this year Jpruit2 (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ruidoso River Museum

[edit]
Ruidoso River Museum (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 can't find any WP:SIGCOV of this museum at all, and it looks like it may have permanently closed according to social media chatter. The best coverage is passing, promotional mentions like this, which in my view is not sufficient to support a redirect to Ruidoso, New Mexico. This article may be referring to the same museum. Suriname0 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

North Belleville, Indiana

[edit]
North Belleville, 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)

Possibly the second least reliable source used in GNIS updates would be state highway maps (NOAA charts are worse and fortunately very little-used). The spot in question is next to a now-abandoned PRR rail line west out of Cartersburg, and it may have been a rail spot, but tthere is just nothing there on any map. I can't image why the Indiana DOT felt the need to label an unimportant T intersection next to the tracks which appear to have just been taken up, but in any case I find no real testimony for this as a settlement. Baker seems to be just reading the name off the map as there was certainly nothing there when he wrote his work. Mangoe (talk) 22:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, United States of America, and Indiana. ZyphorianNexus Talk 00:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baker on page 244 says a "village" that is literally north of Belleville, Indiana, but gives no dates. The 1895 Lippincott's should have this on page 2009 with the other "North Something"s, but does not. It has Belleville proper on page 620, also giving the name of the railroad that it was on. There's no North Belleville anywhere in the Arcadia Publishing books on Plainfield (ISBN 9780738594484) and Hendricks County (ISBN 9780738598970).

    Looking backwards in time, however, the Indiana State Gazetteer and Shippers' Guide for 1866–67 has North Belleville "on the Terra Haute & Indianapolis rail-road, 1 mile north of Belleville" but does not say what it was. The 1854 Baldwin and Thomas A New and Complete Gazetteer of the United States has North Belleville on page 831 and says that it was a "village" located "19 miles W. by S. from Indianapolis". So Baker and the contemporary mid-century gazetteers agree that this was a village on the railroad. It's in a 1856 Lippincott's as well, but has dropped out of Lippincott's by the end of the 19th century, whereas Belleville has remained listed, despite the implication of Baker and our Belleville, Indiana article that North Belleville was where the railroad was re-routed to.

    There definitely was a village there, and it was definitely on one railroad. The gazetteers confirm it; but they give almost no detail, not even the usual listing of some buildings, and the histories (I also checked Hadley's 1914 History of Hendricks County, Indiana.) are mute on it entirely.

    Uncle G (talk) 11:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abode Solicitors Ltd

[edit]
Abode Solicitors Ltd (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 search for sources yielded 1 google news hit. Fails WP:CORP. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The PROD makes this article unqualified for "soft" deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shucayb Dad Mohamed

[edit]
Shucayb Dad Mohamed (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:JOURNALIST. All the sources are unreliable and cannot establish any notability. Ibjaja055 (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Elon Musk's arm gesture

[edit]
Elon Musk's arm gesture (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)

Per WP:NOTNEWS. Musk has been in many controversies of similar nature recently, e.g. the whole Alternative für Deutschland situation. I don’t think this one specifically warrants its own article when it’s already covered in both in Elon Musk as well as Nazi salute appropriately. There also doesn’t seem to be a dedicated article on the man’s controversies or even, surprisingly, political views, which would probably be a better starting point. Mystic Cornball (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Nonsense"? That definitely implies a biased view about the topic at hand that would incentivize someone to want to delete this article. Even if you don't think it was a Nazi salute, this moment has immense coverage. Paintspot Infez (talk) 03:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User Anomalocaris, User Paintspot Infez, please remember WP:GOODFAITH and do not malign User Dream Focus as 'biased' in your hearts. Calling this whole affair 'nonsense' does not reveal User Dream Focus' bias: this affair is complete nonsense, as so much of politics is. It is trivial to find images of countless political figures (Obama, for example), raising their arms with their palms down. It's just one of those orientations that the human forelimb tends to pass through, especially if one spends countless hours speaking to and waving at crowds. Much of the coverage of this event (reliable and otherwise), largely boils down to Godwin's law.
... However, with all of that said, I must ultimately disagree with User Dream Focus about the correct course of action, and register my opinion that we should Keep this article. The fact that this 'Roman salute' business is nonsense (and it is, undoubtedly, nonsense of the silliest kind), does not mean that it is not significant. The massive number of RS already accumulated on the page, and the oodles more that can be found by searching about it on the internet right now, show that tons of people really care about this event (silly though it may be). There's no doubt that we should have a Wikipedia article about it: obviously plenty of Wikipedia editors regard it as sufficiently encyclopedic, and there are so many RS about the event, it's a keeper. (P.S., love the name Anomalocaris) Joe (talk) 03:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly do assume good faith. But words have meanings. Wikipedia's article Nonsense begins, "Nonsense is a form of communication, via speech, writing, or any other symbolic system, that lacks any coherent meaning. In ordinary usage, nonsense is sometimes synonymous with absurdity or the ridiculous." The article under discussion is written in ordinary English and has coherent meaning. One might argue that it is absurd or ridiculous that Mr. Musk's gesture has received all the attention it has received. But it has received this attention. The original event really happened. The attention really happened. Whatever it is, it isn't nonsense, and anyone who calls it nonsense is exhibiting either bias or a misunderstanding of the difference between nonsense and silliness. Cheers! —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Dean scream would beg to differ. As would Covfefe and We begin bombing in five minutes. Dflovett (talk) 04:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can also add Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident AlanGiulio (talk) 09:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Key word "automatically". This just happened, and shows little sign of long term significance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like your personal opinion. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reminder that the ADL is not a credible source for this sort of thing. That !vote also has nothing to do with Wikipedia deletion policy.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 17:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Significant coverage by reliable sources. WP:TDS is an essay, and I am interested what the interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS is from those voting to delete on the basis of that policy. WP:NOTNEWS mostly concerns tone and wording, not notability. The only part that discusses notability is point 4, i.e. WP:NOTGOSSIP / WP:NOTDIARY, which recommends against adding trivia. I'd argue, however, that this event is not trivial, as evidenced by its coverage by sources from across the world and across the political spectrum. I can only charitably imagine that the citation of WP:NOTNEWS is an argument against this event "[having] notability or for which our readers are reasonably likely to have an interest." Yue🌙 08:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Point 2 considers the enduring notability of events, which is my main concern specifically. If you look at the examples brought by other editors of comparable events, all of them are several years old at this point and have shown sustained and tangible impact on culture and/or the subject's respective political careers or campaigning efforts. Whether that's the case here remains to be seen.
    If you look at the article so far, it's almost exclusively reactions and social media posts, but zero tangible consequences; contrast that with reactions to Musk's behavior in the past, which e.g. led companies and organizations to step down from the platform altogether. Hence why, so far, I am not convinced this needs its own article instead of being covered appropriately in the articles about himself, his his political activities, or generally the article on the Nazi salute. Mystic Cornball (talk) 09:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Content is enough to warrant its own article. The main article in Musk will end up WP:TOOLONG. Plus content is thoroughly cited for inclusion. KyuuA4 (Talk:キュウ) 08:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding TOOLONG: The content could easily be condensed to three or four paragraphs without losing any relevant information. That's how it's done in the German and French Wikipedias. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. I agree with the sentiments expressed by Mangoe, Chrisahn and especially Crelb and MCE89. This is a notable event in American politics as I can scarcely think of anything like it happening however it is still running the possibility of being a flash in the pan event in the media coverage of two individuals (Trump & Musk) who end up the news extremely often due to inflammatory and absurd statements or actions. I don't see why it can't be merged and kept the same length in another article like Political activities of Elon Musk rather than being kept as it's own article (reiterating what MCE89 and Crelb stated).AssanEcho (talk) 08:58, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I should have state however, that I wont be sad or happy no matter if the article is merged, kept or deleted, so I think my opinion should be viewed with a grain of salt since im much less invested in this article than the many other editors here. AssanEcho (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete - Prime example of recentism --FMSky (talk) 09:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is worth noting that several events, which are charged with significant cultural and societal meaning and impact, are covered with specific pages, e.g. Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident, Joe Biden's farewell address, Death and state funeral of Silvio Berlusconi and others. For coherence, if we delete this page, we shall delete also the cited ones. I suggest using Template:Infobox event, which refers to "one-off event", as this event is supposed to be.AlanGiulio (talk) 09:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Chrisahn (talk) 15:37, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    From Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS:"While comparing with other articles is not, in general, a convincing argument, comparing with articles that have been through some kind of quality review such as Featured article, Good article, or have achieved a WikiProject A class rating, makes a much more credible case."
    Indeed, Talk:Chris Rock–Will Smith slapping incident points out it's presence among the Wikipedia:Good articles/Social sciences and society.
    For consistent, the use of Template:Infobox event suggests that Wikipedia acknowledges and supports the creation of entries for culturally or socially significant one-off events. Furthermore, in terms of Cultural and Societal Impact, the event described in the page has greater cultural and societal significance to the cited examples, warranting independent documentation. The event has the power to legitimize and banalize a gesture with profound political and cultural implications, which is likely to be emulated in the future, providing the need for readers to find an informative page on the topic itself, thus further sustaining the opportunity for this page to keep on existing. AlanGiulio (talk) 16:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify until long term significance is established or merge. Very obvious violation of WP:NOTNEWS, and I haven’t seen anyone make a convincing argument that this has long term significance and enduring notability at the moment. My personal opinion is that it will have long term significance because of how it affects the Musk-Trump relationship given that this dominated the news cycle when it is supposed to be all about Trump’s inauguration and executive orders, but that’s pure WP:CRYSTAL BALL. At the moment we just don’t know (WP:TOOSOON), and this shouldn’t be an article according to policy. Kowal2701 (talk) 14:45, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Keep This page correctly identifies the incident as a controversy instead of a Nazi Salute. It also contains the reactions of outside media and would fit well to be with other controversies of similar caliber such as the Yaroslav Hunka scandalBarakHussan (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, A Hitler Salute is extremely offensive to the many people who have died in the holocaust. He did it with such vigor. It is so offensive. Its part of who he is. When describing him, his life, his accolades, it should definitely stay on his Wikipedia page. Afterall it is who he is. 151.205.191.98 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. — Chrisahn (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nagore Dargah Kalifa

[edit]
Nagore Dargah Kalifa (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)

Clear COI issues, since creator shares the same name as the article's title. Article is written with very poor grammar, and would need to be completely rewritten if kept. The author also created a second article, Kalifa Masthan Sahib, which appears to be a duplicate of this same topic. Not sure if the subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 22:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Council for Registered Gas Installers

[edit]
Council for Registered Gas Installers (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)

Declined prod. Only primary sources provided and largely uncited. A mere 3 google news hits including 1 from Dailymail. Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 21:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2035 AFC Asian Cup qualification

[edit]
2035 AFC Asian Cup qualification (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)

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Main article for the tournament doesn't even exist yet, and this was created way too early for no apparent reason. CycloneYoris talk! 21:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just a copy of the 2031 article (seriously, that exists too?) with minor adjustments. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Traumnovelle: I've now nominated that page for deletion as well. CycloneYoris talk! 00:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This event will happen ten years from now, so there may not be enough significant coverage at the moment. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

AXS Pte Ltd

[edit]
AXS Pte Ltd (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. References are mentions, routine announcements, or otherwise unreliable so not meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Not sure how this made it out of AfC after being draftified and then being made even more promotional by SPA. CNMall41 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A Future in Chains

[edit]
A Future in Chains (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 book described in this Wikipedia article doesn't seem to exist in any relevant libraries; in fact, the article also doesn't discuss or mention anything about the work's publisher. I strongly presume a self-published novel.

Large portions of the article seem to be composed in a non-neutral manner by an LLM. I doubt that the opinions described in the article can be found in any meaningful publications.

The article doesn't cite any reliable secondary sources. Let me present a quick source analysis:

  • Footnote 1: Refers to Daily Times Nigeria; the text is very obviously LLM-generated, and the author's profile in that source indicates to me that the account (called ada-ada) is used for advertising and promotion. It is not a reliable source.
  • Footnote 2: Refers to Vanguard News. Same LLM-text as found in FN1; the source includes a disclaimer that reads Comments expressed here do not reflect the opinions of Vanguard newspapers or any employee thereof. Obviously not a useable source.
  • Footnote 3: (The Nation Newspaper) could possibly be a reasonable source, but I am not sure. Either way, it heavily quotes the subject, and thus, it is not intellectually independent or indicative of notability.
  • Footnote 4: Despite containing author information, the article is actually posted with a "The Editor" profile, and the text reminds me of something LLM-generated.
  • Footnote 5: dto. FN 2.

Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The references are quite weird given they use edited photos of the author and LLM generated text.
The article creator was blocked for paid editing so Delete an article created by a banned user without substantial edits by anyone else. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Internal enemy

[edit]
Internal enemy (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 WP:DICTDEF of a very commonly used epithet. I can see a merge to political repression but simply padding the article with more examples where the attack has been made is not actual improvement. Mangoe (talk) 05:30, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources cited show it's a consistent concept with the potential for expansion into a non-stub article, not a "dictdef" or "epithet" as claimed. (t · c) buidhe 05:34, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Although, to be fair, this source suggests that a merge to fifth column could be considered, that's not a matter for AfD. (t · c) buidhe 05:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: not sure why every other editor in this discussion is ignoring the sources that are already cited in the article. I hope the closing admin takes that into account. (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The very first source devotes a whopping two sentences to the fact that the ancient Greeks categorized internal and external enemies by a different word as an example of the relationship between politics and warfare, namedropping the Republic. Note however that the article does not bother to cite the Republic itself.
Every other source is just describing a fifth column. RakdosWitch (talk) 18:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge with Fifth Column. I don’t see how this article could ever go beyond a definition stub unless it gets overloaded with random examples. RakdosWitch (talk) 18:28, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding delete/merge with Fifth Column as suggested by RakdosWitch. Sinclairian (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is no consensus yet. Can't be Merged to Fifth Column as this page is a redirect, not an article. Please check links before you suggest a page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 06:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Fifth Column for reasons provided by RakdosWitch. Insanityclown1 (talk) 19:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am confused by the relister's statement that this page is a redirect, not an article. The nominated version certainly isn't a redirect, and I'm not seeing any point in the page history at which it was. Fifth Column is a redirect to Fifth column, but surely any !vote to merge/redirect to the former is really talking about the latter. XOR'easter (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Pedantry sells… but who’s buying? Obviously meant Fifth column RakdosWitch (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not pedantry. Closers work with statements made in a discussion by the participants. If you really meant Fifth column, then check the damn link and make sure you are suggesting the right target article. It's not the closer's job to make sure your comments are accurate or search for the right target. It's forbidden that we impose our own opinion or investigate, we work with what is suggested here by participants. Is it too complicated to check the links you suggest? Liz Read! Talk! 06:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If it was as obvious as the sky being blue and the grass being green what page I meant, you are being a pedant and allowing a false sense of bureaucratic “rightness” to interfere with a simple AfD. Chill. RakdosWitch (talk) 15:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RakdosWitch, and what should we call editors with 45 edits that try to school users who have been editing for years? Are you evading a block? Liz Read! Talk! 06:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I edit very sporadically because I am more concerned with page construction and meta discussions. I am more of a “lurker” and usually only jump in when it’s something I feel strongly about that I see mentioned elsewhere or that I stumble upon. I don’t see how my edit count is particularly relevant to whether or not it’s pedantic to go into a frothing rage over a bit of capitalization, and I don’t get why a random accusation of block evasion is going to make me think you’re not being a bit overzealous. Not relevant to the deletion discussion though! RakdosWitch (talk) 06:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I don't usually step into AfD discussions, but I just want to try and ask everyone to remain civil here.
To Liz, RakdosWitch's edit count has no relevance to the quality of their current points. On one hand I do believe RakdosWitch could have brought it up in a better way without hostility, 'check the damn link' feels like it also comes off too strong as a reply, especially accompanied with 'Is it too complicated to check the links you suggest?' Both of these come across as needlessly rude. And accusing someone of block evasion without evidence reads to me a bit like you're casting aspersions.
And to RakdosWitch, calling people pedants and describing their behavior as a 'frothing rage' for attempting to explain policy, even if done in a less than ideal way, is also impolite. If something like this comes up again, I might just recommend something simple for your initial response. Something like 'Yes, I meant Fifth column, and I agree that it should have been clear that is what I meant.' may work. It gets the same point across without insulting someone. Flavor to taste, no need to be quite so formal as I made mine, just trying to communicate the same point a bit more politely.
Everyone here needs to take a step back, I think. I mean no disrespect when I say this, but I feel like both parties here are attacking each other rather than focusing on the article at hand. ShyAndroid (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons already given (primarily DICTDEF). I'm not sure a redirect is even needed. I highly doubt people are searching the term "internal enemy" on Wikipedia. That said, I won't strongly oppose a redirect to Fifth column (there, did I use the right link?) if others think it's warranted rather than it being a redlink. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 10:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are substantive sources being offered with which the delete opinions are not engaging: at the moment this looks like a no consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge with Fifth Column. Guys please, be reasonable, these are colloquial expressions which evolved with time. They literally refer to the same concept. A separate page is not needed; a few paragraphs in Fifth Column would suffice. Silvymaro (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Don’t know why it’s claimed there was no engagement with the sourcing. I had to go to my library to find a digital copy of that source I discussed earlier to demonstrate how weak it was! RakdosWitch (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - firstly, there are a lot of sources that refer to internal enemies (as opposed to external ones). I mean loads, lots of academic papers, books, newspaper and magazine articles. Second, other than assertions above, I don't think we are forced to accept that it is the same thing as a Fifth column and it seems to me to be perfectly plausible it isn't. What I mean is this; a fifth column is the accusation of a group of people within a country who are cooperating with an enemy. An internal enemy can be that, but can also be an individual or group working against the government or the establishment even when that country isn't at war with anyone. It can even be an idea or inanimate object. There are papers talking about countries struggling against the "internal enemy" of climate change, for example. I accept the page isn't good at the moment, but it seems to me it is possible to construct a page which explains the concept as being a distinct one. JMWt (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to fifth column. Discounting the !votes because people linked a capitalisation redirect is pedantic and goes against NOTBURO. Traumnovelle (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OGA Golf Course

[edit]
OGA Golf Course (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 golf course has gotten a few brief mentions in some news articles, but none of them have gone into enough depth to justify its notability. Fails GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 17:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features)#Engineered constructs says:

    Buildings, including private residences, transportation facilities and commercial developments, may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance, but they require significant in-depth coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability.

    Sources

    1. Wallach, Jeff (2004). Best Places to Golf Northwest: British Columbia to Northern Utah, the Western Rockies to the Pacific. Seattle: Sasquatch Books. pp. 31–32. ISBN 978-1-57061-395-1. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.

      The book notes: "The Oregon Golf Association (OGA) Members Course at Tukwila may have one of the longest names around, but it's also long on great golf. Bill Robinson stitched together this tapestry of holes in Woodburn, forty minutes south of Portland. The fabric of Bentgrass stretches 6,650 from the longest of four sets of tees and boasts a couple of reachable (and especially good) par 5s, a huge double green at nine and eighteen, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. Water, wicked bunkers, and pesky woods are also on the menu of this stupendous walking course. The holes here are pure and clever. The OGA course opens with an inviting slight dog right followed by the opposite dog, but this one has more bite—in the form of a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play. Number four is a complex 516 yards: Blind tee shots run down toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and forest and over the chasm to a plateau green. A second par 5 follows. The back side contains the best par 3 on the course, a volatile 172 yards that slope toward water. ..."

    2. Robinson, Bob (1996-05-01). "New OGA Members Course draws rave reviews". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The opening of the course's second nine holes in late April marked a milestone—the accomplishment of the OGA's 20-year dream. ... The OGA isn't finished. A clubhouse is in the long-range planning stages to replace the current temporary building. But the major goal—the public golf course—finally is a reality. ... In effect, the OGA Members Course is owned by the nearly 50,000 members of the OGA from 154 member clubs in Oregon and Southwest Washington. The members paid the dues that made the project possible. The idea began in the mid-1970s, when the OGA started having difficulty securing courses for its tournaments. ... In 1976, the OGA began charging each member $1 in annual dues to go into a course acquisition and usage fund. Later, the charge was raised to $2 per member and, finally, $5 when a five-year capital assessment went into effect. Still, as late as 1993, the project was no sure thing. The OGA had $1.2 million in its fund at the time."

    3. Petshow, Joe (1994-07-31). "OGA to open its course. The first nine holes open for public play on Tuesday". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "The Oregon Golf Association's new Members' Course faces a tough task in the days ahead. Keeping 50.000 shareholders happy. ... Nine holes of the course will open to the public on Tuesday. A driving range and putting green opened earlier this year. A second nine holes is scheduled to be completed in 1996. The clubhouse will be the site of the OGA's offices and also will house a golf museum. ... The course is located at Tukwila, a new housing development in north Woodburn. The Tukwila partners donated 170 acres. ... The Members' Course was designed by Bill Robinson, who recently renovated Willamette Valley Country Club in Canby and Bend Country Club. The course flows through a filbert orchard and has six lakes, three wetlands and 31 sand bunkers. ... Another feature is an 18,000-square-foot green, which will be used for the ninth and the 18th holes after the second nine is built. Until then, it will serve as the ninth green. The course also has a 12,000-square- foot putting green, and a driving range with an 80-yard wide tee area, three flag placements and seven targets."

    4. Wallach, Jeff (2013-09-25). "The Off-Trail Oregon Golf Trip". Links. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17.

      This is the same author as Wallach 2004. The article notes: "As you head inland over the Coast Range to the lush Willamette Valley, try your best to turn a cold shoulder to Pumpkin Ridge Golf Club and instead set your sights on the OGA Golf Course. Unlike its name, the course is anything but unwieldy. Located half an hour south of Portland, this Bill Robinson layout boasts a couple of reachable par 5s, a huge double green at Nos. 9 and 18, and some of the finest putting surfaces in the region. The layout opens with two dogleg—No. 1 bends slightly right while No. 2 turns left. The second has more bite, with a hazelnut orchard right, a pond left, and a tree and bunkers that could come into play as one approaches the green. The 4th hole is a complex 516 yards, beginning with a blind tee shot that runs toward a ravine. The second shot climbs back uphill between bunkers and through forest, over a chasm to a plateau green."

    5. Petshow, Joe (1993-09-01). "Officials plan for OGA course". Statesman Journal. Archived from the original on 2025-01-17. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes: "Golf nuts should enjoy the future home of the Oregon Golf Association. The OGA's planned 18-hole public course and an Oregon Golf Hall of Fame is situated north of Woodburn on farmland that includes a filbert orchard. The association on Tuesday officially unveiled the plans for the course, under construction east of Boones Ferry Road and north of Highway 214. The scheduled opening for the first nine holes is May 1994. ... The first phase of construction includes nine golf holes, a driving range, maintenance facility and temporary clubhouse. The cost for the first phase is approximately $1.7 million. ... The course, which includes a wetlands area and views of Mount Hood, will be within the Tukwila real estate development. The 170 acres of land for the golf course was donated to the OGA."

    6. Less significant coverage:
      1. Golf Digest (2006). Carney, Bob (ed.). OGA Golf Course (7 ed.). New York: Fodor's. p. 534. ISBN 978-1-4000-1629-7. ISSN 1534-1356. Retrieved 2025-01-17 – via Internet Archive.

        The article notes: "★★★★1⁄2 OGA GOLF COURSE. PU-2850 Hazelnut Dr., Woodburn, 97071, 503-981-6105. Web: ogagolfcourse.com. Facility Holes: 18. Opened: 1996. Architect: William Robinson. Yards: 6,650/5,498. Par: 72/72. Course Rating: 71.7/71.8. Slope: 131/128. Green Fee: $26/$48. Cart Fee: $25 per cart. Cards: MasterCard, Visa, Discover. Discounts: Weekdays, twilight, seniors, juniors. Walking: Unrestricted walking. Walkability: 2. Season: Year-round. High: Apr.-Nov. Tee Times: Call 5 days in advance. Notes: Range (grass, mat). Comments: This "must-play course" has the "best condition and layout in the state." It has "soft lines, big greens and tough pins." The "front nine, which winds through hazelnut trees our readers tell us, is more interesting and challenging than the "boring" back."

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow OGA Golf Course to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 12:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WISEPA J195246.66+724000.8

[edit]
WISEPA J195246.66+724000.8 (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:NASTRO, SIMBAD show six references which are all catalogues and do not provide significant coverage. 21 Andromedae (talk) 15:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems consensus is redirect, just it still needs a consensus on where it should be redirected to. So far, its either redirect to list of brown dwarfs or List of star systems within 40-45 light-years.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Shadow311 (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting Extinction

[edit]
Rewriting Extinction (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 see no evidence this passes WP:NORG. Paradoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Paradoctor (talk) 15:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep - The "Primary Criteria" section in WP:NORG states "presumed notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."
    Multiple references on the page pass this criteria (BBC Video, Guardian, The Sunday Times). Other reputable sources not mentioned on the Rewriting Extinction page (ITV, The Independent) have featured Rewriting Earth (and formerly Rewriting Extinction) and their campaigns.
    In the Guardian article and BBC video, Rewriting Extinction is the subject of the piece.
    As per the Guardian: "Rewriting extinction: Ricky Gervais joins celebrities creating comics to save species", "Ricky Gervais is the latest celebrity to join an ambitious year-long storytelling campaign called Rewriting Extinction with the launch of a comic called Bullfight." The remainder of the article is a feature on Rewriting Extinction, in the form of an interview with its founder, Paul Goodenough. PersonDoingSomeEditing (talk) 16:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NORG. A google search brought only blogs or websites that talk about the comics they have published. TNM101 (chat) 16:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The organization has changed its name to Rewriting Earth, but is still active. The obvious connection to renowned environmental activists, celebrities and important comic artists lends relevance. The article should be expanded to include current campaigns that have been reported on by the BBC, for example. It can be assumed that further campaigns will follow, as regular work appears to be taking place. Lavendelboy (chat) 09:48, 17 January 2025 (CET)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Publicola (disambiguation)

[edit]
Publicola (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)

Unnecessary disambiguation, best addressed with hatnote. Gjs238 (talk) 12:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Redirect or delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Create disambig at Publicola, then Redirect Publicola (disambiguation) to Publicola. Gjs238 (talk) 02:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Tanzim Qaedat al-Jihad (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 is of a non-notable branch of the Jemaah Islamiya. WP:BEFORE search founds nothing that discusses the subject in depth and not merely mention. The only source does not even discuss the group in depth but of that of its leader, Noordin Mohammad Top. Maybe a merge with the article about the leader would suffice. ToadetteEdit (talk) 09:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources above. Given that the group existed after he died I agree with the above that it is not a great merge target. We can have a serviceable article on this. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Christer Holloman

[edit]
Christer Holloman (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)

Entirely promotional Amigao (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jönköpings AIF

[edit]
Jönköpings AIF (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)

Defunct sports club which does not seem to meet WP:GNG. AlexandraAVX (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - besides defunct. is part of history of Sweden football. Preserve history is one of goal of Wikipedia. Butzen (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bi-State Police

[edit]
Bi-State Police (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 article is an exercise in WP:OR on the topic of bi-state police agencies, which does not appear to be covered in reliable, independent secondary sources. I cannot find non-primary source material on this subject in Google Scholar, Google Books or any other searches. News results turn up only WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of police chases across state lines, and search results bring up individual instances (primary sources) of bi-state police cooperation but not secondary coverage of the topic. There's also nothing on the website of the Police Executive Research Forum, a major outlet of secondary research on law enforcement.) In lieu of secondary coverage, the page creator here has cobbled together several examples, based on primary sources (like compact agreements or the agencies' own websites) and sometimes the page creator's own impressions (see "Texhoma doesn't have its official seal posted anywhere, but you can see faint visuals of it on officer uniforms and cars in pictures posted on its official police page on Facebook"). There is no evidence here or elsewhere of the secondary coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. Furthermore, the article fails WP:NOT by failing WP:NOR. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Remove the photos, trim the details, add some bullet points or a table, and rename "List of United States law enforcement agencies with multi-state jurisdiction". Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case it would fail WP:NLIST, since I wasn't even able to find secondary-source discussion of those departments as a group. It would still be an exercise in original research to compose that list. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These agencies are rare, so the possibility of them being grouped together as a whole wouldn’t be likely. Not to mention, they all operate in different states. What secondary sources could be used? Is their website not a primary source? Is state law not a secondary source? Furthermore, each agency refers to themselves as a bi-state agency. Information relating to the police department is likely to be secondary, because unlike other law enforcement departments they’re part of a bigger organization that involves more than just law enforcement. It has reputable sources. Is there any way to fix the page in your eyes, since you’d love to delete it? LgShai (talk) 03:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For example, in the DRPA section I gave references from a federal news article, DRPS’s website, and NJ-Pa state law. Is the news article not a secondary source? When writing this, I took notes and examples from PAPD’s main page, so would some information on that page qualify under Original Research too? Most of their references come from the port authority’s website with federal website news articles as secondary references. LgShai (talk) 03:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    State laws AND agency websites are primary sources. They can be used for information but not to establish notability per WP:GNG or WP:NLIST. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:35, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    So state law and agency website references mean nothing unless a random author or news station reports on it. LgShai (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    For purposes of notability, more or less yes. Please review WP:PRIMARYSOURCE and WP:N; there is a lot of good information there to explain how this works. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a fan of that rule, but I’ll see what I can do. Most information about these agencies comes from before the times of Internet. Would I have to find an article about them as a whole for this specific page, or would individual articles be good? LgShai (talk) 04:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ll be adding secondary sources the next few days, but I will be leaving the primary sources because Wikipedia policy allows primary sources that have been reputably published. Any interpretation will be removed for primary sources, unless I am able to find a secondary source. LgShai (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My interpretation of WP:NLIST is that the list topic...bi-state/multi-state law enforcement agencies...has to have been referred to as a group. In this example, it has been...these are real things, with a handful of sources referring to these law enforcement agencies as having bi-stare jurisdiction. Magnolia677 (talk) 12:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt these agencies are real things. But let's look at the secondary sources added by the page creator:
  • Local news/trade publication stories that focus on the distinct topic of railroad police ([8], [9], [10])
  • Trade journal op-ed about federal versus state jurisdiction, no mention of police agencies, bi-state or otherwise ([11])
  • Conservative think-tank report that examines law enforcement task forces but does not appear to mention bi-state/multi-state agencies ([12])
  • CRS report focusing on interstate compacts with a single mention of their implications for police agencies: The Supreme Court, however, held that states could delegate their police power to an interstate compact commission because the Framers of the Constitution intended the Compact Clause to allow the states to resolve interstate problems in diverse and creative ways. ([13])
  • Book chapter on interstate compacts that does not mention police. ([14])
  • Think tank op-ed on Port Authority that does not mention police. ([15])
I still don't see any WP:SIGCOV of bi-state/multi-state policy agencies as a group or even as a concept. I think the best we could do here, if we can find some more secondary sourcing along the lines of the CRS report, is to do a very selective merge (to avoid the original research problems in this page) to interstate compact. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kilbride Swifts F.C.

[edit]
Kilbride Swifts F.C. (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 amateur sports team. Fails WP:GNG and WP:CLUB. Article on same topic was previously deleted (following 2009 AfD which covered a number of clubs playing in regional junior/intermediate/amateur leagues). Article has been tagged for notability/refs since 2012 and for attention since 2022. It has been barely a 30-word sub-stub in all that time. In my own attempt to expand the article (and as part of WP:BEFORE) I cannot find sufficient sources to confirm if the club still exists. All I can find are scarce passing mentions in hyper-local sources in directory-style entries, decade-old ROTM match reports (or two decades for that matter), or this article from nearly 25 years ago about a head butt incident. I cannot find ANY sources which deal with the subject as a primary topic. I can't even find poor or passing mentions to even establish the basic facts (where the club is/was based, when it was formed, if it still exists, if/when it closed, etc). Not even primary ones (no website, no Twitter, no Facebook, nothing). If there aren't sufficient sources to write more than 50 words about this topic, how can we possibly state that GNG is met? Guliolopez (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Illewi

[edit]
Illewi (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 evidence I can find for this place is mentions of its name in the DPLA [16] and Smithsonian [17] [18] [19]. These only situate it as a place in (western) Okpella but give no further information. It doesn't exist in the sources for List of villages in Edo State, which are seemingly comprehensive. Other-language Wikipedia articles shed no further light.

I also haven't found it named on a map. The article for Imiekuri gives a location which is unnamed in Wikimedia Maps and named Imiakebu in Google Maps, with nowhere named Ilewi (or similar) nearby.

The first Smithsonian source I listed show that such a place exists or existed in the area, but I'm not sure that's enough evidence to judge it as a "populated, legally recognised place" per WP:GEOLAND. Ligaturama (talk) 16:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Felix The Cat Kept On Walking

[edit]
Felix The Cat Kept On Walking (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 had redirected this, and would suggest this as the outcome of this AfD. Neither source is significantly about the short film, and no better sources seem available that give this film more than a passing mention or a database treatment in lists of animated shorts or in more general Felix the Cat sources. This, with a short plot summary, is about the most extensive source I could find. In books specifically about Felix it gets nothing but a mention[20] Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation and United States of America. Fram (talk) 15:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as in the nom. I must thank both of you this morning; Fram's nomination at Herostratus's suggestion gave me exposure to an old film I'd never seen. I had a friend (long since passed) who was a huge fan of Felix, and as a child I was frequently exposed to many of these shorts on TV in Honolulu. As much as I'm happy to see these films available and in the public domain, I concur with Fram's source analysis above. I'm interested to see if Herostratus can find more direct detailing. BusterD (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but, on further consideration, let's rename and rearrange -- let's make the article be about the song, which seems more notable (and came first), so rename the article to the song name ("Felix Kept On Walking") and move the film stuff down to the bottom (or delete it, but why).
As a song It meets WP:NSONG I would say (the song is notable if it is the "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works...This includes published works in all forms", and "all forms" would include advertisements and chinaware and toys and t-shirts and what have you I think, and there are plenty of those (([21]) and some even still today ([22], [23]). and it meets 2 of the 3 supplementary bullet points (which are not proof of notability, but are worth considering and de facto considered pretty much sufficient I think): "Has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts", which they didn't have charts in the 1920s I don't think, but the song was clearly a hit which would have at least made the Hot 100 surely, and "Has been independently released as a recording by several notable artists", which we have a number of artists notable enough to have their own articles covering it.
It is true that there aren't any reviews or articles on the song, but this was 100 years ago, there weren't even music magazines then, and things were generally different then, and so of course not; I think we need to be a little flexible here or else we are going to end up overemphasizing recent material just because we have the sources for it rather than it being actually more notable, and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER says not to do that.
And on top of that there's even a whole idiom based on the song (obscure and obsolete, granted, but still) -- "well, Felix kept on walking" probably something like "Well, another day in paradise" or something. I don't think we should throw info like that back into the darkness.
Whether to leave the stuff about the film in a short section at the bottom is a judgement call, something for the article talk page. Herostratus (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your extremely expansive reading of WP:NSONGS is contradicted by the explanatory footnote about the "non-trivial" nature of the published works: ""Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable. " Advertisements, chinaware, t-shirts, ... are not reliable sources and thus don't count towards meeting WP:NSONG. A deviant art page similarly is of no value for this discussion. Fram (talk) 08:28, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sikh-Rohilkhand War

[edit]
Sikh-Rohilkhand War (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)

Completely AI generated article based on hallucinated information, fails WP:GNG, sources do not treat this minor conflict as a war. - Ratnahastin (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very long series of conflicts between the Sikhs and the Rohillas, and I have mentioned multiple references, including page numbers. Please verify them yourself. Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's meet GNG Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And one more thing it's not hallucinated information i took AI help to complete article quickly and i mentioned multiple sources later with proper page number Jaspreetsingh6 (talk) 17:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed this article as much as I could, multiple references have been mentioned in paragraph, I am going on a break now so I will not be able to participate in the discussion, My only suggestion is that you can either move this page to draft until I fix it completely,Jaspreetsingh6 (talk)

Flash Fiber

[edit]
Flash Fiber (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 WP:ORG . The majority of the information available comes from primary or promotional sources, such as the company own website and business announcements. The company short-lived existence (2016–2021) and limited scope as a subsidiary focused on FTTH infrastructure in only 29 cities do not demonstrate sufficient historical or societal impact to warrant a standalone article. Nxcrypto Message 12:59, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SEI Club

[edit]
SEI Club (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)

Wholly promotional, failing neutrality and notability standards. Fails WP:ORG. Dubious sources with no editorial oversight and promotional tone. For example, the GQ article says, "the company offers something many have never considered: a coaching system that refines their approach to dating and relationships." The Businessworld article claims, "SEI Club's success is solely because of its exhaustive screening process and high knockback rate." Junbeesh (talk) 12:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cesare Toraldo

[edit]
Cesare Toraldo (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)

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORT due to the lack of any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources being cited in the article (or the corresponding IT WP article) or found in my WP:BEFORE search.

De'prodded by BeannieFan11 with the comment "being recipient of the highest honor for Italian sportspeople as well as a seven-time world championship medalist indicates notability". With all due respect to Beannie, none of this is a reason to keep this article within our PAGs. The Golden Collar is an award given out to roughly a hundred or more people each year, with coverage of it typically just being a listing of all the names (see, e.g., this 2017 report from the Italian Olympic Committee's website) so there's no reason to believe it would have generated significant coverage, particularly since Toraldo received it in 2019 and if it had generated such coverage, it would be available online.

As for being a "seven-time world championship medalist" this is only if you count team events. Toraldo does not inherent the notability of his team. FOARP (talk) 14:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: My research shows him mentioned in passing, but nothing specifically about him that seems like it'd count as significant coverage--even if it didn't seem mostly routine. I didn't take a too-deep look into Italian-language sources, but I did try my best to make sure I wasn't overlooking anything obvious. They didn't seem to have anything of note to say either. ShyAndroid (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Southwest Airlines Flight 1380

[edit]
Southwest Airlines Flight 1380 (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 run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, engine failures became a widespread cause for aviation incidents and accidents, including ones that resulted in diversions and emergency landings. While the aircraft was substantially damaged, and that one person was killed, though tragic, the cause of this accident is run-of-the-mill. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 13:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I have absolutely no idea why this shouldn't be kept. This has WP:SIGCOV and definitely fulfills WP:GNG. The original reasoning for this nomination is also deeply flawed. Almost every major aviation incident has a ""run-of-the-mill"" cause. Therefore, the effects of said incident should be gauged on its lasting effects. Ultimately, nominating this for deletion is a complete waste of people's time and has deleterious effects on the quality of this website. LizardDoggos (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— LizardDoggos (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Star Mississippi 22:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just an FYI, I'm just getting started being active in editing Wikipedia. Good for keeping watch about SPAs! LizardDoggos (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Aviationwikiflight has already presented the evidence needed to keep. Plus, the article was also subject to an episode on Air Crash Investigation. I'm starting to think, based on the nominator's other recent nominations (DL89, SQ321), that they have a problem with doing their WP:BEFORE research, and should stop nominating articles for deletion for a while. S5A-0043🚎(Leave a message here) 01:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is the only accidental passenger death on a major US airline since 2009. 4300streetcar (talk) 01:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Haag, Matthew; Salam, Maya (20 April 2018). "On Southwest 1380, Confusion and Distraction as Oxygen Masks Dropped". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  2. ^ Zhang, Benjamin (20 April 2018). "Here's what happened on the fatal Southwest Airlines flight". Business Insider. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  3. ^ Healy, Jack; Hauser, Christine (18 April 2018). "Inside Southwest Flight 1380, 20 Minutes of Chaos and Terror". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  4. ^ Negroni, Christine (19 April 2018). "Engine on Southwest Jet Not the Only One to Develop Cracks". The New York Times. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  5. ^ Levin, Alan (19 April 2018). "Metal Weakness in Southwest Jet Tests Limits of Safety Inspections". Bloomberg News. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  6. ^ "Southwest Flight 1380: What Happened Onboard". The Wall Street Journal. 26 April 2018. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  7. ^ Koenig, David; Lauer, Claudia (14 November 2018). "Hearing reveals chilling details of fatal Southwest flight". The Associated Press. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  8. ^ Goyer, Isabel (13 December 2019). "Engine Explosion Cause Found: NTSB Final Report On Southwest Airlines Flight 1380". Plane & Pilot Magazine. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  9. ^ C. Kemp, Alexandra; Dalal, Jahnavi; Tassawar, Usama; Lu, Chien-Tsung (1 January 2021). "Safety Analysis of Uncontained Engine Failure-Southwest Airlines Flight 1380". International Journal of Crisis Management. 11 (1). doi:10.6929/IJCM.202101_11(1).0002. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  10. ^ Auxier, Eric (24 April 2021). "Southwest Flight 1380: Anatomy of an Inflight Emergency". Airways News. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  11. ^ "Southwest 1380 Archives". Flight Safety Foundation. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  12. ^ Josephs, Leslie (19 November 2019). "Boeing commits to NTSB safety fixes on thousands of 737 NG jets after deadly Southwest engine blast". CNBC. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  13. ^ Pimentel, Dan (22 November 2019). "NTSB Issues Seven Recommendations After SWA 1380 Accident". Flying. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  14. ^ Broderick, Sean (20 July 2023). "Boeing Completes 737NG Nacelle Redesign Work | Aviation Week Network". Aviation Week. Retrieved 23 January 2025.
  15. ^ Velani, Bhavya (22 July 2023). "Boeing Finishes Redesign of 737NG Nacelles After Southwest Engine Blowouts". Aviation A2Z. Retrieved 23 January 2025.

Yvon Mariolle

[edit]
Yvon Mariolle (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)

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources. Only claim to notability is exactly the kind of participation-based notability claim based on wide-sweeping databases that WP:NSPORT2022 deprecated. Fails WP:NBOX since they were never ranked in the world-wide top ten.

Prod removed by BeannieFan11 with the comment "the source I added contains a story on him, although inaccessible - further, the Olympedia picture is captioned "Champion de France" - a national boxing champion in France absolutely would have coverage in newspapers of the day, and that a search of "'Yvon Mariolle' boxeur" still brings up passing mentions to this day indicates he is virtually certain to have been a notable figure". With the maximum respect for Beannie, a story that no-one can access in which the only thing we know is that possibly the name "Yvon Mariolle" is mentioned, is not a credible claim that significant coverage exists in this case. More is needed for a WP:NEXIST pass than pointing to a source you cannot read. If Mariolle had ever been French champion - and if this was actually something signficant enough to confer notability - this would be mentioned somewhere other than Olympedia.

Additionally the two-paragraph story about the death of Yvon Mariolle's twin brother Marcel is obviously not significant coverage of Yvon. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Olympics, and France. FOARP (talk) 13:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Boxing Business article isn't a case of "there may possibly be coverage of him" – we know, for a fact, that there's coverage of him there. We know this as Google Books gives a snippet view showing it talks about him on multiple pages and one quote talks about him and says something like "Let's examine his story" – and then it goes into his background. We only get small snippets of the story, but from what we do see, it talks about how he got into the sport, how he then became French national champion in 1965 and retained his title in 1966, and then continues talking about him, but I can't read further than that. Additionally, while the story on his brother is not significant coverage of him, it does indicate his significance (translated): "Marcel was none other than the twin brother of Yvon Mariolle, another boxer from the great era of the noble art of Orléans, selected for the Olympic Games in Mexico in 1968, who had been unable to get into the ring and defend his chances because of a toothache. Marcel, on the night of March 21 to 22, joined Yvon, who had also passed away, in the paradise of champions." The story would not speak so highly of him if he was an insignificant boxer. Given that we know there was at least SIGCOV in Boxing Business, know he was multi-time French national champion, and know that he was still spoken of highly in recent years, and no French newspaper archives were searched ... this should be kept. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    “No French newspaper archives were searched” - this is not true. All archives indexed by Google are searched in a Google search, and this includes the French-language publications indexed by Google. I didn’t mention it, but I also looked at Internet Archive which includes a substantial corpus of French newspapers including Paris Match, and found nothing but passing mentions. L'Equipe also have a photo archive which returns no results for Mariolle. FOARP (talk) 08:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Boxing. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 18:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This article is about a boxer who lost his first, and only, bout at the Olympics. He appears to fail WP:ANYBIO and definitely fails WP:NBOX. I can't tell if Boxing Business provides significant independent coverage but even if it did WP:GNG is generally assumed to require multiple sources. I'm not voting to delete in the hopes that additional sources can be found. If they are, please let me know so I can look at them. Papaursa (talk) 02:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siegfried Gurschler

[edit]
Siegfried Gurschler (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)

Mass-created article by Lugnuts. Fails WP:NSPORTS as the only coverage is in databases showing at most exactly the kind of participation-based notability that WP:NSPORT2022 deprecated. No WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE.

De'Prodded by BeanieFan11 with the comment "according to Olympedia, he later was an engineer and owned his own construction company - there's a decent chance he'd have received coverage for Olympedia to know that so I think this would warrant afd". With the maximum respect to Beanie, this does not state a keep reason within our PAGs. Having owned a company and been an engineer is not a credible reason to keep an article, or assume that there would have been any coverage of the subject. FOARP (talk) 13:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joppa, Indiana

[edit]
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]

ECCW Hardcore Championship

[edit]
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]

ECCW Vancouver Island Championship

[edit]
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]

Ethan H. D.

[edit]
Ethan H. D. (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 independent wrestler. No in deep coverage from third party sources, just some passing mentions [25] which are WP:ROUTINE. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 13:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gandalf Big Naturals

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Gandalf Big Naturals (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)

User:Urve raised a concern that the subject is not notable at the DYK nom, and I rather agree. Of the sources present, only the first two (Autostraddle and The Mary Sue) provide significant coverage, and neither seem WP:REPUTABLE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:01, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Mary Sue is considered reliable per Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. "Original reporting is reliable and original blogging may be appropriate for editorial/opinions, but reblogged content is not." I am uncertain of Autostraddle's reliability, but it seems to fall under PRIMARY since it's an interview with the creator. I'd say both are reputable enough as far as sources go, but only one really seems to count as SIGCOV here. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 17:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pokelego999 the Mary Sue source in question, which includes snippets such as "Gandalf was gifted some massive bananaramadonglehaumers", "Ever since then, Gandalf has been out there shakin’ them thangs for the greater good, and we couldn’t be prouder of him. Not only is this supremely swaggy of him as leader of the wizard community, it’s also aesthetically cool as all hell., and "Godspeed, you beautiful, braless bitch. Godspeed.", seems to fall firmly on the side of "original blogging", which is only "appropriate for editorial/opinions", not notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Editorials and opinions are perfectly valid for notability, though? The author is also a member of the site's staff, and not a random blogger, so this wouldn't fall under Wikipedia:BLOG either. I doubt this article is notable either way, but I wouldn't discredit the Mary Sue source entirely. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 18:59, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. If a good redirect/merge target is found that can contain the info without falling into Wikipedia:UNDUE territory, I'd be willing to go with that, but for now the subject is just non-notable, even with the sources discussed above. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 19:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect if a decent target is found. As I expressed at DYK, I'm not seeing the requisite amount of substantial, secondary coverage to justify a standalone article. I am somewhat surprised that we don't have a standalone list of Tumblr memes / phenomena article (pinging Theleekycauldron and Generalissima since you might be interested in incorporating some of this article into such a list?); if this is deleted, it can be refunded to redirect there for incorporation and attribution. Urve (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close. An AFD discussion that started with a keep opinion from the nominator; discussed earlier and closed as redirect, ongoing revert cycle regarding whether it should be a redirect. This is too messy; the correct venue would be to take the first AFD discussion up at WP:DRV. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DYCL-TV

[edit]
DYCL-TV (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)

Wc2025 (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

West Superior Invitation

[edit]
West Superior Invitation (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 indication of notability, sources are not independent, passing mentions or database entries (which don't support much of what they are used for in the article anyway[26]). No indepth independent reliable sources about the tournament found. Fram (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Cravens

[edit]
John Cravens (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 can't see how this university registrar is notable. Registrar is not an inherently noteworthy position, even at a large university, and the article is sourced only to primary sources (references 1-2), an apparently self-published essay (reference 3), and an obituary (reference 4). The essay itself is sourced mostly to the same primary sources (family papers) and various obituaries. Essentially no secondary coverage of this individual, fails WP:NACADEMIC. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Kalyeserye episodes

[edit]
List of Kalyeserye episodes (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 have a regretting to nominate this but the source was all dead links due to Conflict of TVJ and TAPE Inc.. ROY is WAR Talk! 10:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete grave abuse of non-independent and primary sources, and may lean towards WP:FANCRUFT. Enough of Philippine showbiz fandom-inspired articles like this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by JBW. (non-admin closure)‎ Geschichte (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhalla (name)‌

[edit]
Bhalla (name)‌ (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, created by a sockpuppet DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as per WP:SOCK guidelines. 𝒮-𝒜𝓊𝓇𝒶 10:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Matthew Bell (lawyer)

[edit]
Matthew Bell (lawyer) (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 lawyer. Plenty of sources were added to the article, but most of them only mention the subject in passing (or not at all). Notability is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subject warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 08:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In the ever-growing subject matter of export controls & sanctions. Mr. Bell is a legend. His cases with Weatherford and ZTE were record breaking and he managed a political firestorm that put ZTE as the bargaining chip in the original start of the Trump Trade war. He is one of the best speakers I have ever seen and is connected to nearly everyone in this area of law. Instead of the 6 degrees of Kevin Bacon people in the legal & compliance world joke about the 6 degrees of Matt Bell and you usually only need 1 or 2 degrees to connect to him. While I am new the Wikipedia process, I was pleased to see he had an article pop up on here. He has been quoted in numerous news stories and articles that might need to be added as I read more about notability. 64.92.63.94 (talk) 15:24, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Legends" aren't quite the level of sourcing we need, does he have articles written about him directly? Oaktree b (talk) 15:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NCAA Division II football win–loss records

[edit]
NCAA Division II football win–loss records (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 does not appear to have the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST, as the only source is from the NCAA and a cursory search turned up no non-database sources. Article was undeleted at REFUND after it was deleted at PROD but there has been no sources added since. Let'srun (talk) 01:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BUNDLE, I'm nominating the following article for deletion due to the same reason
NCAA Division III football win–loss records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Let'srun (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:NLIST, "one accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, and the schools themselves and NCAA D2/D3 are all independently notable. Not sure why WP:NOTSTATS was mentioned, it fairly clearly does not apply here. glman (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Glman: You are correct that NCAA DII & DIII schools are often discussed as a group by reliable sources, but to me that is a justification for List of NCAA Division II football programs and List of NCAA Division III football programs, not this article. From what I understood, NOTSTATS is relevant here because this could be considered an "excessive listing of unexplained statistics"; the topic of this list is not explicitly stated in prose in the article at all (however obvious it may be from the title of the article, the title of the table, or the contents of the table itself), and the list is not given any context. The numbers are just laid out with nothing added to make it more valuable than some database source website somewhere. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, the fact that the DIII list contains only 20 teams (and the No. 1 ranked team is a school that has apparently played a whopping one game) sort of undermines the "group or set" argument since the vast majority of said group is absent from the list. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure win–loss records are excessive or confusing. Nationwide opinion polling for the 2012 United States presidential election is the example given at NOTSTATS that was moved to its own article. Also, MOS:AVOIDBOLD says "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it." Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that they are not confusing, just that the wording of NOTSTATS seems to agree with the state of this article. The statistics listed in this article are, indeed, unexplained, and they're given no context or background information, which is not the case for the polling article you linked. I have no issue with the fact that there's no bold text at the start of the article, my issue is the total lack of context whatsoever (the "lead paragraph" of each article gives no indication as to what the article is about). The whole list is sourced to a single NCAA document which was published in 2017, meaning that the list is lazily sourced (read: unsourced) at best and OR at worst. The D3 article is even worse, since its one and only source links to a table which, without other user input, displays only "No data available in table". PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 23:52, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The list is directly sourced to the official NCAA stats list - I will add the source to the newest version, didn't realize that one was an archived copy. I'd be happy to write an opening paragraph, seems like a minor edit to preserve useful info if that's your concern.. glman (talk) 18:16, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Glman The records in the article don't even match the records in the new source. It's all still OR or just unsourced, since the "2024 record book" lists records from prior to the 2024 season. If you want the table to be sourced, there will have to be an updated record book or an individual citation for every team. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The NCAA utilizes a digital record book that is live, and can be sourced on the page. Not worth arguing over, as you will say it's WP:OR, despite the fact that the information is direct from the official source and is provided as a set. Again, if that's the issue, we can roll back the data to the record book and update once a year. Easy fix, just like the lead. glman (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A source from the NCAA would be WP:PRIMARY. Conyo14 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd argue this is not the case. Primary sources would be each school itself. The NCAA is a third-party record keeper of all official records. Regardless, per WP:PRIMARY, there is not an issue using primary sources for a list like this. glman (talk) 01:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree with your first point, and per point #5 in WP:PRIMARY they can't be used as the basis for an entire article like is the case here. Let'srun (talk) 02:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree to disagree. Frankly, I fail to see how this applies. This list is not statements of fact that could be manipulated by the opinion of a primary author, rather they are numbers - not objectionable. glman (talk) 16:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Per discussion - I have added brief leads to both pages and increased referencing to avoid OR concerns, will continue to do so later today. I've done minor work to the D3 page, but will update to match the full 2024 record book. glman (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd also argue that, per WP:LISTPURP, these lists are valuable information sources for a notable set, which I believe adds to the justification of retention. As established, the sets - NCAA schools - are notable. None of the comments so far have indicated they disagree that the set is non-notable, and as I've shared, I'm happy to improve the lists further if additional meaningful suggestions are made. glman (talk) 16:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability isn't inherented. Just because the schools are notable doesn't mean the football records are notable. Let'srun (talk) 00:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, that's just not what the guidelines say. The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable. glman (talk) 13:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The set is notable, and therefore their records are notable - WP:NOTINHERITED seems to disagree. It defines "inherited notability" as the idea that something qualifies for an article merely because it was associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects; it seems to me that in this case you are arguing that "something" (the records) "[qualify] for an article" because they are "associated with some other, legitimately notable subjects" (the set of teams), which is an invalid argument. It seems like I could use your same argument to justify keeping List of NCAA Division II second-string quarterbacks; such a list is obviously absurd, but it falls in line with the argument "The set [of NCAA Division II teams] is notable, and therefore their [insert category of information] are notable." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 17:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The set you are discussing is a List of NCAA Division II institutions which is definitely notable. However, the set here is for each of their football teams' overall records. The set of records for NCAA D2 records need to have independent (not the NCAA), reliable sources. Each record can be individually sourced by a newspaper/website, though the upkeep would be pretty difficult. Currently, you are arguing that the NCAA is not a primary source, which is not true. The NCAA, each individual conference, and school maintain these records. It is up to secondary sources to validate them, to which the Division I schools are, but not II or III. Conyo14 (talk) 18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A list of second-string quarterbacks would not be notable because the second-string quarterbacks are not notable. However, D2 football programs, and their records, which are inherently tied to those programs, are notable. I know we are not going to agree here, and an admin will have to parse our discussion for consensus based on policy. I'll continue to make the changes suggested here until that time! I appreciate all of our vigor in interpreting the polciies of Wikipedia. IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. glman (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:USEFUL and WP:VALUABLE. Let'srun (talk) 21:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    These were very clearly not my policy arguments; I've made those above. I'm well aware of WP:AADD. glman (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Your words: IMO, removing these articles would remove valuable, useful information about these notable subject to the detriment of the site. Conyo14 (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment An IP left a malformed keep comment on the talk page, just noting for the record. Thanks, ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:47, 10 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! 05:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Castro

[edit]
Hamid Castro (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 WP:FILMMAKER. Possibly a case of WP:TOOSOON, since subject's career is barely getting started. Coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking, and there isn't any evidence that subjects warrants a standalone article. CycloneYoris talk! 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there is more references that I found and he's been recently being more talked about, he's a well known guy in my state. I believe that he at least qualifies for a stub at most. There are New York Times and New York Posts standalone articles about him, and the region I'm living in (New York City), there have been a lot of local press covering him and filmmakers are what I write about and I believe this article should be kept as I don't see how this violates notability. Issacvandyke (talk) 03:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
of course, if you would like to chat about how this article could have been written better, I am open to all discussions :) Issacvandyke (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Just from researching the topic I found over 15-20 Clothing brands writing about the topic and a few standalone articles about the topic which have been added to the article from major news sources. If you ask me, the topics film is released in nationwide theaters (USA) in around a week, I say Keep. Filmwizardtx (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Leaning towards Delete. I could not find a source that meets WP:GNG and warrants this as a stand-alone article. So far, most of the sources I see are about Lake George (film). I don't think there should be a redirect since the film is unreleased and there is questionable notability of both articles.
    @Issacvandyke: Please link the New York Times articles you mention; I could not find one searching for "Hamid Castro" or "Hamid Antonio Castro" on their site. Also, NYPost is generally considered unreliable by Wikipedia standards (WP:NYPOST). - Whisperjanes (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination and per User:Whisperjane's source analysis. I couldn't find WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, and while a redirect would be a useful WP:ATD, his film doesn't look like it passes WP:NFILM either. Obvious sockpuppetry, but ineligible for speedy G5. Wikishovel (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hilary Mercer

[edit]
Hilary Mercer (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 is not inherited from the company. Fails WP:GNG. Sources are not independent of the subject and rely on shallow coverage, a profile and a BIC magazine article dominated by quotes from her. Lacks significant depth beyond passing mentions in secondary reliable sources. Junbeesh (talk) 08:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

YoungLA

[edit]
YoungLA (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:CORPDEPTH. Profile listing, non-critical blog, Instagram post, and routine coverage. Lacks significant in-depth secondary sources. Junbeesh (talk) 08:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Morriatti

[edit]
Michael Morriatti (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 WP:FILMMAKER. Promotional, resume-style article. Sources include an interview with a former Forbes contributor, paid articles masquerading as legitimate, and trivial, non-substantial coverage. Junbeesh (talk) 08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kanel Joseph

[edit]
Kanel Joseph (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:ENT. A YouTuber with no significant coverage beyond passing mentions and basic profiles. One minor controversy, but insufficient to establish lasting notability. Junbeesh (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manohar Chatlani

[edit]
Manohar Chatlani (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 significant coverage found, the subject fails WP:NBIO, WP:GNG and other guidelines. Taabii (talk) 07:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collier Trophy Selection 2011

[edit]
Collier Trophy Selection 2011 (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)

Singular instance of an award, should merge to the main article's page, Collier Trophy Nayyn (talk) 14:29, 16 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! 07:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Jenkins

[edit]
Oscar Jenkins (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)

There are many mentions of this in the press but further research reveals no biographical info or notable awards for gallatry etc., and is still only a WP:1E among tens of thousands of victims of conflict. Sympathy/empathy are not reasons to retain this article. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The status of Jenkins has turned into a major international incident between Australia and Russia. This is not a "sympathy/empathy" article. Thriley (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He may be one of tens of thousands of victims, but the fact that he was an Australian foreign fighter does make this quite unusual — as shown by the fact that it is currently front page news across Australia and has been reported on internationally by outlets like the BBC and Washington Post. It also looks like this may end up being an significant foreign policy event, with the Australian prime minister promising the 'strongest action possible' and there being talk of expelling Russian diplomats. I would support renaming the article to 'Death of Oscar Jenkins' though once it's confirmed that he has been killed, and am open to reconsidering in a few months if this doesn't turn out to have a lasting impact. MCE89 (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, Ukraine, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Foreign soldier gets captured... Non-notable soldierly career, or much of anything before that. They've also captured North Korean soldiers, but no mention is made of them. This person being from Australia seems to be the only claim to notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've helped expand the article with additional sources. My view is still to keep and then rename, but if the consensus is that this is not notable enough for inclusion at this time, I would ask that the article be draftified as WP:TOOSOON rather than deleted. This is already a relatively significant international incident and it seems likely to turn into a much bigger one if Jenkins' death is confirmed. If Australia does expel a foreign ambassador for the first time in 12 years, it seems pretty clear that an article on that event would be notable. MCE89 (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is quite a rational position to take compared to simply deleting the article. The very fact of this discussion amongst an international audience confirms that this is a notable event, and the potential to eject the Russian ambassador to Australia from Australia emphasizes an international political importance. Has to questions of Korean soldiers not being similarly highlighted, it certainly is hard to do that when their faces and bodies are burned to hide their identifications. As prisoners the Korean soldiers would have some entitlement to privacy under the Geneva conventions. As corpses there is no such entitlement. When some of those prisoners or corpses are identified, this too is likely to be an event of international significance.
    I have to question the relevance of the specific editor calling out an English language article as not relevant. It appears the editor in question may have some biases, and the Wikipedia community should explore that, as well. 24.10.58.64 (talk) 15:37, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I will further add that I am a military interrogator.
    This story is interesting to me separately, as the available video highlights Russian interrogation techniques, and incompetence in that field. That said, it is likely with the interrogator in the public video is not formally and interrogator, rather simply an officer, in the field. 24.10.58.64 (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Soft Keep or Draftify there's been a blaze of coverage, but it may be WP:TOOSOON to know if he or the incident is truly notable or just news. Mztourist (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per MCE89. Thriley (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per MCE89. BilletsMauves€500 18:21, 22 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! 07:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Per WP:1E, When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, an independent article may not be needed. That person should be covered in an article regarding the event, and the person's name should be redirected to it. The subject did not have a significant role in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, so a separate article is not warranted.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Like I said, I entirely agree with you that BLP1E applies here and that this article should be eventified (similar to articles like Execution of Oleksandr Matsievskyi). I don't think anyone is really arguing that Oscar Jenkins himself is notable as a BLP subject, but instead that his capture and possible death are notable per WP:NEVENT. A merge could be an option, but I think the thing that is notable about this event is the international incident between Australia and Russia that it is threatening to spark rather than the fact that he was taken prisoner, so I'm not sure a merge into Prisoners of war in the Russian invasion of Ukraine quite makes sense. MCE89 (talk) 16:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename to Capture of Oscar Jenkins which would solve the main problem for now. There is a lot of ongoing coverage about this incident – his capture and possible murder and its impact on relations between Australia and Russia, as well as its significance in drawing attention to Australian fighters in Ukraine. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:53, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melodic rock (disambiguation)

[edit]
Melodic rock (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)

There are no reliable sources talking about the definition of "melodic rock", let alone specifying that melodic rock refers only to a few certain sub-genres. Instead, "melodic rock" is simply rock music with somewhat more melody than usual. It's not a topic, and it's not needed for disambiguation. Binksternet (talk) 06:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a widely used term in sources, seems to be a rare synonym of arena rock. RakdosWitch (talk) 06:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Its not related to 2 of the 3 terms listed at the disambiguation page, though as far as I know its somewhat of a synonym for AOR/arena rock --FMSky (talk) 10:11, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt.

[edit]
MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt. (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 sources found. Also fails WP:NCORP. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔) 04:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; agreed. I'm not sure how this article was moved out of draftspace to begin with. I don't view it as article-worthy, not without some extra sources. Madeline1805 (talk) 16:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hungarian State Railways (MÁV). It's the current form of that company after merging with Volánbusz. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment: The MÁV Személyszállítási Zrt. was formerly known as MÁV-START, which operated under this name from 2006 to 2024 before being renamed. You can find sources from before 2024 by searching for MÁV-START. – balint36 passenger complaints 23:30, 11 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! 05:47, 16 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! 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tengku Baharuddin

[edit]
Tengku Baharuddin (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 that this younger son of a Malay sultan passes WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. He does not hold any office that would be presumptively notable, and I don't see any WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources (in the article or in my WP:BEFORE search) that would pass the general notability guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:31, 9 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! 05:45, 16 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! 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kara Mupo

[edit]
Kara Mupo (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 of this American lacrosse player to meet WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC. The most I found was this, which isn't much at all. There's also some quotes from her here. JTtheOG (talk) 02:56, 9 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! 05:38, 16 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! 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of SIGCOV sources means a standalone article violates SPORTCRIT. JoelleJay (talk) 20:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of people from Cumbria

[edit]
List of people from Cumbria (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 links to two pages which only cover one town and one city in the whole county. This is unnecessary and the same information is widely available in categories. Thirdman (talk) 02:19, 9 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! 05:36, 16 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! 05:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gina Hiraizumi

[edit]
Gina Hiraizumi (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 American actress. The closest to WP:SIGCOV I found was a few sentences here. JTtheOG (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please sign your comments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 05:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did sign and then expanded my comment in the same block, but all right, I'll sign again at the bottom.-Mushy Yank. 07:56, 16 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! 05:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Menlo Oaks men's volleyball team

[edit]
2025 Menlo Oaks men's volleyball team (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)

College volleyball season with no indication of notability. The sources are all either trivial mentions, at least 1.5 years old, or don't mention the team at all. An online search doesn't yield any WP:SIGCOV either. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and California. JTtheOG (talk) 03:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Maybe the team itself warrants an article but even that is not clearly established. I struggle to come up with a scenario where a college sports team's single season warrants a dedicated article. This season does not come close to notability. The content is largely promotional and the handful of references are weak and often quite old. An extreme example is the list of TV announcers which includes as a reference for one of the announcers an article from 2007. An 18 year old article that doesn't mention Menlo Oaks is neither reliable nor relevant to this team's 2025 season.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 04:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems like the consensus is that Division I football, basketball, volleyball (often) and hockey (sometimes) seasons generally have notability and therefore have their own article on wikipedia. Yes, Menlo is normally a Div II program, but they are competing in a combination conference agaisn't Div one teams who either already have a 2025 season article (i.e. BYU), or have had season articles in the past (USC, UCLA, Grand Canyon, etc.). Agree that some of the references aren't great, but those can be removed to bring the structure of the article in line with other college volleyball season articles. Epluribusunumyall (talk)
    Epluribusunumyall (talk) 02:04, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:NSEASONS, there is no such presumed notability. Significant coverage must be shown to meet WP:GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Volleyball-related deletion discussions. – numbermaniac 05:09, 16 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! 05:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abubakar Shehu Idris

[edit]
Abubakar Shehu Idris (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 tech startup entrepreneur. Sources are all sponsored posts Ednabrenze (talk) 05:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

They’re not sponsored posts. They started covering the person’s company as he is making waves in the state. Theshehv (talk) 06:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was procedural close‎. Merging this discussion into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nagadai. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 06:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fukudai

[edit]
Fukudai (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 my understanding, "dai" is the Japanese equivalent of saying "uni", so these disambiguation pages are basically for "Fuku uni". Given the double step from shortening to "Fuku Uni" to the Japanese usage of "Fukudai", I do not think this is an appropriate disambiguation page for the English Wikipedia, but I'm happy to be corrected. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:57, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it follows the same format:

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

Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Disambiguations, and Japan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If the term is one which may be searched for, then the disambiguation page is a good one. Same rationale for Hirodai. Such pages conform to WP:DISAMBIG because "for [the] word or phrase on which a reader might search, there is more than one existing English Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead."
    The foreign language argument is a red herring. For example, we disambiguate Jiaoda and Beida as Jiaotong and Peking Universities. Slightly less straightfoward example is how we disambiguate Shida to various Chinese universities (and other topics). Oblivy (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Human Rights Economy

[edit]
Human Rights Economy (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 concept fails WP:GNG. Sources are none other than trivial mentions or routine coverage. GTrang (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Human Rights Arts Movement

[edit]
International Human Rights Arts Movement (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:NORG. None of the sources are WP:SIGCOV. GTrang (talk) 04:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: I've had this on my list to do a WP:BEFORE but haven't had time yet, but I trust the nominator has, and I agree with the assessment of the sources currently in the article. Only the Brooklyn Rail piece clears the bar of WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. The rest of the coverage consists of WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS or affiliated coverage. (See the talk page for my view on why the AustLit source is defective in this regard.) All told, I don't see an WP:NORG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts, Organizations, and New York. ZyphorianNexus Talk 05:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fancy name, but not one hit in google news or google books (This is quite rare for something from an English speaking country). Fails GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Before I commence, I should declare an interest, in that I am the Editor who created the WP article in question. By way of overview, I believe the argument for deletion is based upon some unfounded assumptions, and I will elaborate. Before doing so, however, just a brief comment on the posting by Libstar. I mention in passing that I don't believe there's any requirement that a WP article has hits thru Google News or Google Books. That said, if one searches on both Google News and Google Books there are in fact numerous hits for the International Human Rights Arts Festival, which was the name for the IHRAM until recently. Now to the comment by Dclemens1971. He/she usefully notes that the Brooklyn Rail reference is significant. Agreed. I don’t agree, however, with his/her assessment that all the other references are trivial or incidental, and in particular I don't think that his/her that his assessment of the Austlit reference stands up to closer scrutiny. For instance, he/she rightly focusses on two issues with the Austlit reference, namely, significance, sometimes called substance, and independence. It is useful to look closely at both of these, under the under Notability (organizations and companies) Guideline WP:ORG. 1. Regarding significance/substance, the above Guideline suggests that the mention of the organization or company cannot be trivial or incidental. A number of examples are given. Conversely, the Guidelines gives examples of a substantial mention of the organization or company. The listing of examples in the Guideline is not exhaustive, and includes, as examples, a passage in a book or an encyclopedia article. I think the Austlit entry can be reasonably considered an electronic equivalent to both of these, and thus does qualify as being significant/substantial. I don’t think the Austlit entry could reasonably be described as trivial or incidental, especially when one looks at the reputation of Austlit. 2. Regarding independence, the Wikipedia article for Austlit itself explains that this is an ongoing Australian research project, jointly funded by Australian universities and the Australian Research Council. There is no connection whatsoever between the International Human Rights Arts Movement (IHRAM), which is based in the USA, and Austlit, which is currently based with the University of Queensland, Australia. Further, the wording used in the Austlit entry isn’t actually found on the IHRAM website. It is true that Austlit entry does provide a link to the IHRAM website, but if one looks in general at other Wikipedia articles on organizations, such links are common - it doesn’t necessarily mean there is some organizational relationship. There are thus at least two reliable and significant sources for the WP article in question. As the alleged of lack of such sources is the basis of the argument for deletion, I believe it follows that the article should in fact be kept. Research17 (talk) 06:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Draftify‎. At this point, there is insufficient supporting evidence for the notability of the game. Moving to draft until after the game to help better understand whether it has longterm notability. Drafts of articles can be found at Draft:2024 AFC Championship Game and Draft:2024 NFC Championship Game. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:14, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 AFC Championship Game

[edit]
2025 AFC Championship Game (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 also nominating the related page:

2025 NFC Championship Game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

These articles fail WP:SPORTSEVENT as they are not the final game/series (e.g. a Super Bowl) and there is no extraordinary event or WP:LASTING impact (at the time of this nomination). The games are adequately covered at 2024–25_NFL_playoffs#AFC_Championship:_Buffalo_Bills_vs._Kansas_City_Chiefs and 2024–25_NFL_playoffs#NFC_Championship:_Washington_Commanders_vs._Philadelphia_Eagles.

Please note that I oppose a redirect from these titles, as the NFL typically refers to its playoff games using the season year and not the calendar year. The 2024 AFC and NFC Championship Game titles already redirect to the playoff article. The 2025 AFC and NFC Championship Game titles should eventually be created as redirects to the 2025-26 NFL playoffs article (but deleted for now). Frank Anchor 03:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP There are other ones out there??? there a 2020 and 2019 one I don't understand why mine is the only one getting deleted, also in those two other articles, in the see also section of the games both my articles are featured on there, so clearly a person wanted my article there... Tommy516 (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and also, I created it so people can check it out before and after the games end, I am obviously going to update the scores after the games on Sunday so its fully up to date. Tommy516 (talk) 04:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is already being accomplished at 2024–25_NFL_playoffs. Frank Anchor 04:10, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The topic of this discussion is limited to the two articles on the current season's conference championship games. Any user is welcome to start a separate AFD discussion on the other articles on conference championship games. However, pointing out the presence of other articles is not a valid argument for retaining (or deleting) an article. Each must stand on or fall on its own merit. Frank Anchor 04:08, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This makes 0 sense lol Tommy516 (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Assadzadeh (talk) 04:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can withdraw the nomination on the procedural grounds to allow this scenario to play out, perhaps re-nominating sometime after the Super Bowl if there is no significant WP:SUSTAINED coverage specifically related to either conference championship game. With standing delete votes from @Assadzadeh: and @PeeJay:, I will not close the AFD at this time. If the articles are not deleted, they will need to be moved to 2024 AFC Championship Game and 2024 NFC Championship Game to match precedent from prior season articles and the names the NFL uses for these game (the league uses the season year, not the calendar year). Frank Anchor 15:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Any closing admin should not interpret this procedural withdrawal request as a change in my opinion, I still support deletion. Frank Anchor 15:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Taito SJ System

[edit]
Taito SJ System (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 arcade game system fails WP:GNG. GTrang (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Natalie McNally

[edit]
Death of Natalie McNally (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)

Routine murder prosecution, fails WP:NCRIME. Badbluebus (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This topic has received substantial coverage from independent sources. For instance The Guardian The Sun and multiple sources from the BBC 1 2 3 4 1timeuse75 (talk) 11:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable individual, being murdered by a streamer could be notable, but the article is basically one paragraph. I don't see how the crime rises to criminal notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete‎. per WP:CSD#G5 SmartSE (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gurteen

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Alex Gurteen (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 - created by apparent WP:COI editor (personal photos uploaded as own work) with promotional content. Does not appear to meet WP:NATHLETE and a WP:BEFORE search does not show anything to meet WP:GNG Melcous (talk) 03:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

HornBlasters

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
HornBlasters (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 private company (if clever at marketing); fails WP:NCORP with insufficient WP:SIGCOV. We have a single example (in the Tampa Bay Times). The rest of the coverage is niche WP:TRADES magazines that don't contribute to notability ([32], [33], [34]) and a thinly disguised press release (original here). A WP:BEFORE search turns up more of the same, along with a bit of thin churnalism (example) about the company's viral marketing stunts that focuses more on the effects of the stunts than on the company itself. Given that this is the third deletion discussion for this page, if the outcome is "delete" I'd ask participants to consider supporting SALTing so future attempts go through AfC and don't waste the community's time. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gale, Indiana

[edit]
Gale, 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)

I can only guess how the GNIS folks came up with this one. This got back-entered onto the maps after "Board decisions referenced after Phase I data compilation or staff researched non-controversial names." What seems to have happened in practice is that they conflated a housing development from the 1970s-'80s with the post office that shut down some seventy years earlier. The county history doesn't mention it and there's nothing there in earlier maps and aerials. There's no particular reason to believe that they have the location correct, and it seems unlikely that the development was named after the post office. Mangoe (talk) 03:16, 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 05:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No information found, and the post office does not count toward notability. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:00, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baker's Hoosier placenames book on page 141 says that this is a post office. It's there long enough to have made it into the 1895 Lippincott's, but it's not there amongst the Gales on page 1237, contraindicating any sort of settlement. This close to Indianapolis, the Bodenhamer and Barrows Encyclopedia of Indianapolis (IUP, 1994) seems worth a try, but that yields nothing.

    However the Arcadia Publishing book on Hendricks County (ISBN 9780738598970) has Gale on page 114 and says that there was also a blacksmith, hardware store, and the original site (until 1961) of the Bartlett Chapel Church. So that's one source that's more than a post office directory entry. Another is the Hendricks County, Interim Report of 1989 by the Historic Landmarks Foundation of Indiana, which on page 36 describes Gale in the past tense as a "village" that had "a general store, blacksmith shop, and a Methodist church". So this is a documented, albeit barely, historical village, now extinct.

    Uncle G (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • hmmmm... I don't suppose any of these gives us enough information to confirm the location? Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Arcadia publishing book has a drawing of the old church building, but no map. It does say that Hardscrabble, where Bartlett Chapel Church now is, is "a few miles east" of where Gale was; and that the original chapel building was re-used by the golf course. Both the current chapel and the golf course are on modern maps, so the location in the article at hand seems reasonable. The Hendricks County, Interim Report has a map (alas! too blurry to read on-screen) and outright says in words "Gale, located east of Danville at U.S. 36 and County Road 300 E, had […]" which again supports this article's coördinates. Uncle G (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gikomba fire

[edit]
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]

Center Valley, Indiana

[edit]
Center Valley, 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)

Look, the cited reference says "CENTER VALLEY is a postoffice on section 25, in the southern part of the township. There is no village at that point. What more needs to be said? Mangoe (talk) 02:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable place and factually incorrect article. Also, the IU registrar supposedly born there (reference 5) was born in 1864, apparently before the post office, so he was likely born in a different Center Valley. Anyway, without any information about this place we can't be certain of anything the article says, other than the name exists in GNIS and there was once a post office. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't in the 1895 Lippincott's as Center Valley. It's there, on page 838, as Centre Valley, a "post-hamlet" in Liberty township, with "a church and about a half-dozen houses". Yes, the 1885 History says the aforegiven, but the decade-later Lippincott's records more. Clearly, it went from there being nothing there to there being something there. Baker's Hoosier place names book has Centre Valley on page 91 and states that it was a "village". Baker also explains on that page that Center Valley moved from Morgan County across the border to Hendricks County in 1872 and there was a Center Valley from 1856. Zell's Popular Encyclopedia of 1869 confirms a Centre Valley in Morgan on page 485. Uncle G (talk) 12:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bhadrotsav of Brahmo Samaj

[edit]
Bhadrotsav of Brahmo Samaj (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)

Can't find any good sources, the article has potential close paraphrasing issues, and is very poorly written. JayCubby 02:58, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- (strong) -- It's been tagged with zero sources for two years. Plenty of time for an interested party to step-in. Indeed, even at creation 11 years ago, the article only had two non-reliable (and what appear to be primary) sources. I would recommend a merger with Brahmoism but that article doesn't even have a "holidays" section. (If you're interested, Brahmo looks ripe for deletion, as well. MWFwiki (talk) 03:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep― Found this Telegraph article, which is significant, and a Google Books search shows more results here.EmilyR34 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The Telegraph article can be summed up as 'usually deserted Bhadrotsab festival celebrated.' It doesn't go into much detail on the tenets of the religion. Relevant quotes:
    • “Though the samaj was founded on August 20, 1828, corresponding to the 6th day of Bhadra, the programme has been organised today, as Sunday is convenient for all,” said Diptiman Bose, one of the few Brahmos in the capital.
    • Hindus were the majority in the audience, for whom it was a reminder of an important historical event.
    The Google Books results seem fairly passing also, but it's hundreds of pages to dig through. I really get the impression that this is perhaps mergeable. The Google Books might be of help, but JayCubby 17:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of al-Qarn (1160)

[edit]
Battle of al-Qarn (1160) (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 WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. There is hardly any coverage of this battle in English-language sources. The sole English source cited does not reference "al-Qarn" and only briefly discusses hostilities between the Almohads and Arab tribes. The remaining four sources, which are in French, either briefly mention the fighting in passing or don't even mention "al-Qarn" at all. Skitash (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is an important battle in the history of the region at the time, same as the battle of Sebiba (which still dosent have an article, il think of maybe making) or the Battle of Haydaran the Battle is well described using the 1962 Book 'Berberie Orientale sous les Zirides' that describes most of the battles context. And the battle isnt as briefly explained, if its english sources that you need i will add more if you will let me move it back to a draft.
Thank you Algerianeditor17 (talk) 18:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Striking this !vote as a compromise no one else seems to be interested in. --Richard Yin (talk) 08:49, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom
Firecat93 (talk) 20:58, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:SIGCOV, "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." The sourcing in this article is not good (3 of the French sources provide information about Muhriz ibn Ziyad (under the spelling Mohriz), but do not mention the name al-Qarn (or not under that spelling)), although La Berbérie orientale sous les Zīrīdes, Xe-XIIe siècles has information about this on 4 pages. However, there do appear to be sources: on a quick Google Books search, I found Cahiers de civilisation médiévale, Volume 11 (1968) and Ibn Khaldun and the Medieval Maghrib Volume 1 (1999), both of which only provide snippet views - but having at least two sources in English suggests that more would be available in French or Arabic. The article needs more sources that actually reference this battle. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Both of the sources you cited provide only passing mentions of the topic. They provide little meaningful information and fail to justify the need for a standalone article.
    For instance, this source states "La counquête de l'Ifriqiya (1159–1160), précédée d'un soulèvement des villes occupées par les Normands, se termine, elle aussi, par une grande défaite hilalienne au Gabal al-Qarn (1160)." = "The conquest of Ifriqiya (1159–1160), preceded by an uprising of the cities occupied by the Normans, also ended with a great Hilalian defeat at Gabal al-Qarn (1160)."
    As for the other source, while I have limited access to it, it appears to echo the same point in passing—that the Hilalians lost to the Almohads in 1160. Skitash (talk) 13:37, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Non-english sources must be considered fully when discussing notability. The discussion is unclear, so far, about whether the French sources are sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. So far, we have arguments to Delete, Keep, Draftify and even Redirect. If we can't come to a consensus here, this discussion is likely to close as No consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony McGuinness (English musician)

[edit]
Tony McGuinness (English musician) (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)

Soybean46 (talk · contribs) tagged this article for deletion and added the nomination subpage to the daily list, but did not actually create the subpage. Nonetheless, a rationale was given in an edit summary: Nominated article for deletion, doesnt meet SIGCOV. I note that there are other tags since October 2015 that also indicate COI and OR issues, but my involvement here is entirely procedural and I offer no actual opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, wondering if User:ResonantDistortion has come to a position on what should happen with this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I have identified a couple more sources, including covering his career in marketing - including Music Week award, and of his solo career. Article has been updated. Should be enough to show independent notability. ResonantDistortion 20:51, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miran Rada

[edit]
Miran Rada (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:NACADEMIC. His google scholar page shows a very low h-index and the number of citations of his publications are not impressive. Badbluebus (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Santorini Film Festival

[edit]
Santorini Film Festival (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. Sources I find are mentions, unreliable, or advertorials. CNMall41 (talk) 02:14, 16 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! 02:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies Season

[edit]
2025 Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies Season (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)

Regional women's football team season with no indication of notability. All sources are primary. JTtheOG (talk) 02:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GiantSnowman: Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The sources all look to be from the club's own website? Ergo, not SIGCOV. GiantSnowman 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's been some secondary coverage added, looks like player signings and an interview (1, 2, 3, 4). JTtheOG (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I have added somemore secondary sources to the article, as the season progress there should be more coverage available. HKFighter (talk) 19:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 01:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepEven this early into 2025, the season in question, the team has picked up coverage in NHK (the Japanese equivalent of the BBC), TBS (another major national news organisation), and the Yamaguchi Shinbun (the major newspaper for the region where the team is from). The coverage so far has been about their signing of two professional players, rather than games played, but that is because the season itself has not yet kicked off. One assumes there will be more coverage coming as the season progresses. It seems much too soon in the piece to AfD an article which is still clearly under construction, but which ALREADY has enough coverage in major independent news sources around the new signings to have achieved notability. If anyone is wondering / wants to check that coverage out in Japanese themselves, they are citations 2,7,8 and 11 on the article as currently written. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Also found more coverage both in various written articles, and also a TV broadcast. Here, here (with mirror version here since the original has paywalls) here, and here. It’s still mostly about the signings, but also about plans for the team to move out of the regional competitions, and into the professional leagues, and how signing professional players works as part of this plan. Still, that’s 7 different independent media sources, all with their own slant on the basic information and what it means. Absurdum4242 (talk) 12:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that recently located sources (in the article and discussion) can be assessed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 02:28, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for arranging this. On that basis, this season article covers little that Renofa Yamaguchi FC Ladies doesn't already cover in a better way, therefore, we can delete the season (as excessive detail for this level of football) but keep the club article based on the news coverage relating to the club. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 17:44, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 New Zealand heat wave

[edit]
2025 New Zealand heat wave (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:NEVENT ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

R.K. Kotnala

[edit]
R.K. Kotnala (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)

Highly promo page for an academic full of issues. While he might pass notability WP:NPROF#C1, even after some cleaning of unverified statements the page contains far too much unsourced material. As general quality control I am recommending draftifying; somehow it has escaped the standard 3 month window for this. We need to ensure that articles in main space are not just notable, they are encyclopedic.

Issues:

  1. No sources for #Early life and education
  2. No sources for #Career as a scientist
  3. Highly promo tone about the so-called hydroelectric cell which "generates green electricity by splitting water", for which the only sources quoted are news articles.
  4. Claim of establishment of advanced measurement techniques for magnetic materials quotes a paper on biological extraction of metals
  5. From what I can see no secondary sources, only a couple of his papers and news articles in the cleaned up sources. Ldm1954 (talk) 02:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Michael De Medeiros

[edit]
Michael De Medeiros (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 neither of Wikipedia's notability or sourcing guidelines OhNoKaren (talk) 01:24, 16 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! 02:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Deborah Marquit

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Deborah Marquit (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)

Individual does not seem notable, I couldn't find enough sources with this person's name. Myrealnamm (💬Let's talk · 📜My work) 01:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jade (sea lion)

[edit]
Jade (sea lion) (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 sources are just routine coverage of an animal being shot and killed. The media has not covered the story since then. ―Panamitsu (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Myth by Tom Otterness

[edit]
Creation Myth by Tom Otterness (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 for the life of me can't find any reliable sources. the place and sculpture exists, but I don't think that it's notable. The only source I can find is 

https://brooklynrail.org/2014/12/artseen/tom-otterness-creation-myth/

but I don't think this is particularly reliable. Everything else I could find online was not independent, or was covering a replacement of one of the sculptures with a bronze copy. I think this is a WP:TNT, WP:GNG, and is full of WP:PROMO in current form. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bearian, please have a read of the museum link. It's a full presentation with multiple photographs and its own references. Museum pages are not primary references, they are simply recognition that a particular artwork (or in this case, group of works) both exists and is prominent enough to be brought into and remain in the collection of their prominent museum. Museums don't just take in any work, they closely and expertly judge notability for inclusion, which is why a single museum source is usually enough to provide notability to an artwork. In this case the artwork is also fully in public space, to be visited at any hour of the day or night, and was granted this exposure by the museum which, of course, puts its own reputation on the line when making such decisions. Thanks for asking for further discussion, an exchange of points-of-view. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "Significant coverage" generally means three or more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are hundreds of thousands of museums that have judged millions of artworks to be in their collections. Significance to display at a university gallery – or even the Met, with 1.5 million works and perhaps as many webpages about expertly judged objects – is not the same as notability on Wikipedia or the need for a standalone page here. No, a single source is not acceptable, and there is no basis for this claim in WP:N. Reywas92Talk 22:16, 11 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! 23:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete, absolutely over done, over the top article about a run-of-the-mill sculpture in a park. I laughed out loud at the line about "Despite being a world famous artist." If it is necessary to have 9 of the 16 sources be the person who made the sculpture, then that is not a "world famous artist" and this is not a notable sculpture. There is clearly not enough coverage in independent sources to support a separate article about this sculpture. This sculpture can be covered in probably two sentences in the article on the artist. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have removed "world famous artist", good catch. Aside from that, it's not one sculpture, or a "sculpture in a park", as you imply throughout your comment. It's a series of sculptures. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed you "upgraded" your delete to 'Strong delete', even after I fixed your main objection. Pointing out again, the sculptures are not just a "sculpture' in a park but a series of sculptures placed in the outside public space of the major art museum in Rochester, New York. Aside from the museum cites the sources seem to easily meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is at least this editor's 5th comment here. Their incorrect claims have already been addressed by multiple editors. Their multiple attention-seeking comments are adding nothing to this conversation other than filibustering and wasting other editors' volunteer time. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreeing so it’s not just from one person.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to artist's article. The fact that the only "analysis" source is the one Brooklyn Rail article is not enough to justify a standalone article. It becomes a WP:COATRACK for primary source expansion when dedicated articles should be sourced to reliable, secondary sources. In this case, they do not appear to exist. The Marlborough Gallery exhibition essay is not independent of the subject. The other sources in the Magart catalog listing might be relevant to a Centennial Sculpture Park article but even then are more likely to fill out a section on that topic within the museum's article than to substantiate an article about an individual sculpture discussed in passing. Expand in summary style within the parent artist article. Also note that this article should be retitled by the artwork titles guideline and that the multiple images uploaded to Commons need to be deleted, lacking a free license to display the copyrighted sculpture with no freedom of panorama. czar 14:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Art isn't really my area, but I did find some additional sources that I thought might be useful. These three articles (one admittedly in a college paper) talk about plans for the sculpture and about the controversy surrounding it in a fair bit of detail: [37] [38] [39] (edit: apologies, missed that one of these was already in the article). These two articles from 2018 are about ongoing maintenance of the sculpture, suggesting that it continues to attract at least some level of attention: [40] [41]. And I'm not sure whether this can be considered towards notability, but it's discussed at some length in this PhD dissertation (suggesting at least a minor level of academic interest in the sculpture?). It's definitely not the world's most prominent artwork, but a few pieces of artistic analysis plus some local news coverage as a landmark is enough to make me think it's marginally notable. MCE89 (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Dissertations and student papers are unreliable and not considered notable coverage for notability discussions. The Rochester City Magazine articles make the case for an article about the sculpture park, which can contain discussion of the sculpture, but where's the significant coverage to write about the sculpture itself without delving into primary sources like the article has? The other local news coverage is brief and doesn't contribute to this either. czar 21:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The museum source is not a primary source. And no, this is not bludgeoning, just a clarification about museum pages reporting about their holdings. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to re-read that essay on bludgeoning. I don't often cite essays at people, as it's rude and counterproductive, but you should really just stop responding to this AfD. You've responded 6 times, and people know your opinion, and we know you are going to disagree with those arguing delete. You really can just drop the stick. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 04:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 01:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG with the following significant coverage in reliable sources.
  • "TOM OTTERNESS Creation Myth". The Brooklyn Rail. 2024-08-19. Retrieved 2025-01-23.. Critical review and analysis in The Brooklyn Rail, a reliable source for art criticism.
  • "Gallery's sculpture garden not without controversy". The Buffalo News. 2013-08-04. p. 65. Retrieved 2025-01-23. The most interesting work at the new sculpture garden at Rochester's Memorial Art Gallery, the one that attracts the most attention, that takes up the most space, that visitors are most likely to spend the most time with, that is, in so many ways, delightful, is also the most controversial, the one with the darkest past. It's called Creation Myth and is the work of Tom Otterness, one of the country's best-known sculptors...
  • Jacobson, Sebby Wilson. "Inside Out: Memorial Art Gallery celebrates 100 years with a new sculpture park". American Craft. 73 (4): 90–93. Given a prime site at the park's busy corner, Otterness designed Creation Myth to link the gallery with its neighboring museums and artists' studios -and to reflect the region's history as the cradle of the U.S. women's rights movement. Reversing the roles of the traditional Pygmalion tale, the Brooklyn artist depicts female sculptors carving male sculptures amid a quarry-like setting that doubles as an amphitheater. Several massive, cartoonlike figures, composed of simple sphere, cube, cone, and cylinder forms, are rendered in Indiana limestone taken from the same quarry that supplied materials for the gallery's original building. Scattered throughout the site are about a dozen small bronze figures that depict the creative process, as well as same-sex couples kissing.
  • Steiner, Wendy (2015-08-01). "Moved by Metal On Beauty as Interaction". Metalsmith. 33 (4). Tom Otterness builds whole playgrounds out of the debris of the old Palace of Art, humanizing the cold geometric forms of modernism into lovable cones, cubes, and spheres. In the "Creation Myth" series, he deploys these figures to overturn the misogyny of the Pygmalion myth. In this archetypal account of male creativity, the sculptor Pygmalion refuses to use any model for his image of beauty, because he believes that all women are prostitutes. He fabricates an ideal female figure out of his own imagination, and predictably, falls in love with his self-projection. With the help of the gods, he kisses the statue to life and then marries her. This is Interactive Beauty with a vengeance, I suppose, except that the women in the story have no agency. Pygmalion is not only the artist, but the model for his artwork, its viewer, and its owner. Otterness amends this closed circuit with a female artist who sculpts a male statue, and when the two kiss, they kiss as equals.
Jfire (talk) 03:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremy Collins

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jeremy Collins (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 person may or may not have significant coverage verified by reliable sources. Nonetheless, being eliminated early in The Traitors (American TV series) season 3 and appearing in Survivor a few times doesn't make him more than known for just winning Survivor once. (I don't think his Price Is Right appearance improves much, does it?) Per WP:GNG, primary sources don't count as verification of this person's notabillity. This EW interview and Men's Journal interview (posing as an article in prose format) or this "article" featuring full quotes by the article subject are primary sources. So is this NBC article. This CBS article briefly mentions him as winner of Cambodia season.

When I nominated this article for the first time, I proposed numerous suggestions, which may have led to "no consensus" result. This time, I would definitely like this article to be redirected to Survivor: Cambodia. The alternative targets List of Survivor (American TV series) contestants and Survivor: San Juan Del Sur (his debut season) are nice, but his status as the Cambodia winner is IMO stronger than his other TV appearances. Even an article about a returnee was redirected to Survivor: Blood vs. Water per another AFD discussion.

If WP:BLP1E doesn't apply, then how about WP:BIO1E, WP:PAGEDECIDE, WP:NBASIC, and/or WP:BIOSPECIAL? (Failing NBASIC but meeting WP:NACTOR still doesn't make him an exception, IMO.) George Ho (talk) 00:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plus he won once but the show he won and was Fetruared on multiple times is also one of the most watched shows in the world has lasted more then 40 seasons and has spawned multiple spin offs across the globe im not sure how that cant possibly NOT make him notable it seems like the nominater while good intentiond has severley ignored the impact and popularity of the show Wwew345t (talk) 15:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The nominaters argument seems to be =wining Survivor =not notable while simultaneously ignoring that survivor is one of the most watched shows in the world the sources cover the article plenty Wwew345t (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing the article needs is extra sources Wwew345t (talk) 16:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://decider.com/2025/01/19/jeremy-collins-the-traitors/ shows that his Traitors appearance also got coverage Wwew345t (talk) 16:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you basing his notability on the show's own popularity? WP:INHERENT (essay) suggests we avoid one's notability based on another's. Decider.com is part of New York Post, which is considered "generally unreliable" per WP:NYPOST. WP:DECIDER somehow considers Decider.com marginally reliable but cautions using it.
Reading it, the "article" in disguise is just an interview, meaning I have to treat the source as a primary source, which still doesn't verify his notability.
What about other rules I provided if you still think BLP1E doesn't apply? George Ho (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument of WP:INHERENT would be more effective if he was some random contestant who got out early but he wasnt he pplayed 3 times all 3 times he made it to rhe merge section of the game this qualifes him for [[WP:NACTOR]] that was why I brought up the show Wwew345t (talk) 18:56, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://entertainmentnow.com/news/jeremy-collins-survivor/ is a source and https://www.usmagazine.com/entertainment/pictures/survivor-winners-through-the-years-where-are-they-now/ mentions not only his Survivor appearances but also his traitors appearance this https://thedirect.com/article/the-traitors-season-3-us-cast-contestants-peacock-photos-bios mentions his appearance on the traitors while also going a little bit in detail of what he did in his 3rd Survivor season I'll post some more links later but there's clearly substantial coverage establishing notabillity Wwew345t (talk) 19:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.monstersandcritics.com/tv/reality-tv/who-is-jeremy-collins-from-the-traitors-us-3-cast/ also describes his appearances on survivor and even brings up the fact that he was notable enough to be voted into the season he eventually won https://www.wickedlocal.com/story/entertainment/2025/01/09/traitors-season-3-will-jeremy-collins-be-a-traitor/77572114007/ while I admittedly am not sure if this counts as primary or secondary since it mentions a old interview he did this also covers his traitors appearance and why he was casted .Wwew345t (talk) 19:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thats 4 non primary sources and i could probably find more sufficient to say this article like many othet winner articles that shouldnt have been deleted passes BASIC and GNG Wwew345t (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The Entertainment Now website belongs to Heavy Inc., which aggregates news from other sources, like social media ones. This source takes info from Twitter (now called "X.com") and Instagram and interviews disguised as "articles". I'd caution using the source per WP:HEAVY.COM if I were you. Same for Us Weekly (WP:RSP#Us Weekly).
The Direct article was just previewing cast (including him) and the third season. Unconvinced that it's the indicator of this person's notability, despite brief description of his Survivor gameplay. Also unconvinced that Monsters and Critics is highly reputable (past RSN discussion). Wicked Local source republishes a USA Today "article" that primarily advertises (or hypes up) Collins's Traitor appearance, despite detailing his profile. George Ho (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The monters and critcs discussion is severely outdated it was almost 13 years ago Wwew345t (talk) 00:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And your dismissing the wicked article for "hyping up his traitors appearance" despite you making a claim that there were no sources that covered it Wwew345t (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wasnt the whole point of the afd because you only thought that the soucres only covered his cambodia win? The wicked local article is a secondary source and is primarily about the tratiors apprerance Wwew345t (talk) 00:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The USA Today article doesn't mention his elimination from The Traitors. This "article" resembles a pre-premiere press release, IMO.
Wasnt the whole point of the afd because you only thought that the soucres only covered his cambodia win? How about "primarily" instead? Also, I don't mind other reliable sources verifying his notability, but we still have to be cautious about how sources cover him. George Ho (talk) 00:31, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously the sources willb primarily cover the win as that is his most notable accivemnt however he wouldn't have been casted in said season at all if his first appearance wasnt notable at all i mean the season was "second chance" then his win had to have been notable ennoigh to have him invited again to another season they dont iust let anyone come back and then he would have had to have been a notable enough survivor player to have been invited to the traitors youll note that most other survivor players who have shown up for the traitors also have pages even if they didnt win a season of survivor (like cirie fields) basically what i mean is you dont come back multiple times including in a all winners season if you werent already a notable player Wwew345t (talk) 13:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
He wasnt just some guy who showd up in one season got out and thats it he played 3 times never finishing below 10th Wwew345t (talk) 13:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TRENDnet

[edit]
TRENDnet (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)

Nominating for deletion for failing to meet WP:NCORP; and passing mentions media coverage Villkomoses (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Verge (cite) and CNET (cite) provide significant coverage. I suspect that a proper WP: BEFORE was not conducted before this nomination was made. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
no significant coverage found, explained below in my delete vote 2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: [43], [44], [45] These mentioned above sources are not reliable as they do not provide in-depth coverage of the company or address the topic with the necessary depth. All the sources are event-based and focus on a one single event about some claims settlement. I also cannot not find any additional reliable, independent sources that provide significant coverage of the company. --2A09:5000:8:8034:74E0:C34:8C84:1D6D (talk) 13:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this, as current sources is more about the event of the "security leak" that the company faced and just brief mentions about the company itself. the article is supposed to highlight the company and not about what the issues they have faced see In re TRENDnet, Inc. which is more focused appropriately on what the citations here are pertaining to. If more RS can be found where it is more about the company being discussed. (e.g. History, achievements, contributions..) then this maybe considered keeps otherwise delete or return to drafts? Villkomoses (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is precisely one of the examples from WP:SUBSTANTIAL: A report by a consumer watchdog organization on the safety of a specific product. There's also a lot of product coverage in ProQuest and Google Books. Jfire (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Wiig

[edit]
Steven Wiig (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 an actor, fails WP:ENT, having only one notable named role in Milk (2008 American film). all his remaining credits are unnamed, often uncredited roles, with even his most notable appearance in Into the Wild (film) being an unnamed ferry ranger. only one local source is used as evidence for this "notability", alongside IMDb which is not reliable per WP:IMDBREF. as a musician, he fails WP:NMUSIC; his most notable accomplishment is playing in a band that Metallica's bass player also played in. once again, the "notability" for his music career is established with only one source. jeschaton (immanentize) 20:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other named roles include Into The Wild (as Lee's Ferry Ranger), Milk (as McConnelly), Yosemite (as Michael), Sacred Blood (as Buck), Waiting For Wiig (as Wiig), All The Others Were Practice (as Amir) and I'm Charlie Walker (2022) as Dan Wallace.
Recorded two albums with Jason Newsted's (Metallica) on Chophouse Records: Unipsycho (2002) and Live Lycanthropy (2003)
https://www.discogs.com/artist/2154086-Papa-Wheelie
Also released several albums with Shrakys, The Martichora and soon Radio Incognito Nagalist (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Member of the Screen Actors Guild since 2011. SMCLL (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Article updates Nagalist (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment:: "Lee's Ferry Ranger" is a job description, not a name. Sumanuil. (talk to me) 03:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Lee's Ferry Ranger" is the name of the character. Nagalist (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable appearances updated SMCLL (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I struck out the comment above because SMCLL had already entered their view below (duplicate !vote). Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSICIAN, or WP:GNG. I found one independent source not already used in the article[46] but like the others, it's merely local coverage, and even it says "Wiig's path to what you might call U.P. superstardom -- he's still relatively unknown in lower Michigan, but is becoming a household name in the U.P.", indicating a lack of notability outside of the area where he grew up. That was in 2014, but I cannot find any significant coverage since then either. Schazjmd (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the additional sources that Nagalist just added to the article, most are trivial mentions, a piece in a school paper, plus a few blogs and imdb. There is the cineSOURCE article, however cineSOURCE is a niche online site for the Marin area (where Wiig lived at the time), so it still seems like local coverage only. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Hollywood Reporter, San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate, Blabbermouth, Loudwire, Guitar World & Inside Pulse are NOT local niche resources SMCLL (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and above comment. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References updated Nagalist (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per updates SMCLL (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) — SMCLL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Sources updated SMCLL (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that editors can review sources added recently to the article. I'm not optimistic though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De De Pyaar De 2

[edit]
De De Pyaar De 2 (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:NFILM. Not scheduled for release until November and nothing notable about the production. References are announcements or other churnalism. Attempted redirect but that was disputed. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the original intention but now here we are unfortunately. I still think a redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD but would need to protect the title so we don't wind up here yet again. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is vote by me. this film was supposed to release in May 2025, but due to certain unavoidable reasons, the release has been deferred to November 2025. Now the editor who has nominated the film wiki page for deletion says the film is too early and nothing substantial, and I also get to see a comment that says redirected. For both my request is please look into the below wiki links of Hollywood films set to release in 2025 & 2026, as well as Bollywood films set to release in 2025.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2026
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindi_films_of_2025

As you can see Hollywood films like Avatar: Fire and Ash OR Avatar 3 is releasing in Dec 2025, Now You See Me 3 is releasing in Nov 2025, Mortal Kombat 5 is releasing in Oct 2025, Even untitled films have well-established wiki pages even a Shrek 5 releasing late 2026 has a well established wiki page. As for Bollywood films is Jolly LLB 3 set to release in July 2025, Baaghi 4 releasing late 2025 has a well established wiki page. All these films have well established wiki pages, now if delay in release is the reason for deleting this wiki page, what is the 'guarantee' the above films will be released on said dates. Or if 'too early' is reason to delete this wiki page, same logic needs to apply to wiki pages of above movies mentioned. As for 'redirect', I find no reason for it as the film was delayed due to reasons beyond the makers control, so this film was delayed, otherwise the fim would have released on earlier mentioned dates. Will those voting to redirect or delete apply the same logic to above films. think about it. As for material as b when it comes that can be added. I hereby rest my case. Bonadart (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be based on WP:OSE. Can you show how this meets notability under WP:NFILM?--CNMall41 (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
this film is a direct sequal to a superhit movie with almost the entire crew taking part once again, is that reason not enough for notability. you call it argument unfortunately today people when have no answer to reason they call it argument, sigh. Bonadart (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The term argument in that context does not mean anything negative. It means your "contention," "point," or "reasoning." Please don't go down that road. Now, as far as notability, I am unaware of anything in WP:NFILM that says direct sequals of a superhit movie are inherently notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify or Delete. Too early to pass WP:NFILM that has not even reached post production. Better to keep it in draft or recreate the article once significant coverage is available after post production or close to release date. RangersRus (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    'that has not even reached post production.' how do you know? can you show anything that says so. makers have not specified any reason for delay as for shooting afaik mumbai, punjab and london schedules are already done, so invariably the film is in post production, must be there are some delays here. how i know!! well remember 'singham again' where ranveer singh made the famous dialogue 'parivar bhi badne wala hai' and deepika delivered her baby before filmn released. 😀😀 this clearly meams shooting was clearly over when she took maternity leave. normally bollywood films complete shooting within 6-8 month. so filmn is obviously in post production. so draft or delete dont stand. if you insist check Baaghi 4 Jolly LLB 3, Avatar 3 Now You See Me 3 or Mortal Kombat 5, and do share opinion on them. ciao Bonadart (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Post-Production is the stage after production when the filming is wrapped and the editing of the visual and audio materials begins. Please do not bring other pages for discussion in this AFD. RangersRus (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    you still havent answered my questions
    1.'that has not even reached post production.' how do you know?
    2. check Baaghi 4, Jolly LLB 3, Avatar 3 Now You See Me 3 or Mortal Kombat 5 based your assertion about this film, shouldnt these pages be removed as well
    😀 i get it you got no andswer, period!!😀, or is it that if you try to delete these pages bigger players may come after you.
    i say again, just bcoz this film has been delayed doesnt call for deletion or draft or redirect, you cant raise notability flag everytime without reason.
    06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Bonadart (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    You are attempting WP:BLUDGEONING and crossing WP:UNCIVIL behavior. You are also attempting WP:CANVASSING by asking other editor to vote in your favor. I answered your question already but you do not understand and gave you a definition of what Post production is. Source on the page shows the film is in the making and no other sufficient coverage to show otherwise and if you have concerns about any other pages on the films, you can file an AFD for them. RangersRus (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer. Bonadart attempted WP:CANVASSING requesting other editor to vote in his favor and bringing more votes to do so. RangersRus (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    chill i didnt know requesting for help is considered canvassing here, as soon as i was made aware of such i removed the help request, btw i have no interest in requesting for other page deletion/afd. i have problem with the way the editor CNMall41 behaved, the editor simply removed the entire page saying 'too soon' in edit note, when the makers changed the release date without giving any reason from 1/5/25 to 14/11/25. when i reinstated it the editor becoming aware of it, immmidiately went for deletion request saying notability issue. how come too soon becomes notability in a jiffy? it is for this reason i thought seeking help from anyone will help stop such disruptive editing n nomination. btw i am involved in film industry so i know a bollywood film takes 6-8 month to finish shooting and around same time to post production. as such in all sense n purpose this film is in post production even if details arent there. i hope i make myself clear. ciao Bonadart (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Curious, how were you made aware of WP:CANVASSING? Off-wiki communication? RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I actually notified them with a warning for such on their talk page but they removed it. It's heading towards ANI unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak Keep or redirect to De De Pyaar De. Given the low quality of most of the sources, this article may well be premature, but given that it will certainly be notable upon release and that there is some coverage of the ongoing production I can't in good faith say delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    hi thanks for the 'keep' vote but i have point, you talk of low quality on this wiki page but the same type of sources have been used to create pages for Jolly LLB 3 and Baaghi 4, btw the way n when was made the page isnt premature, it was inline with release set for may 2025, if film were to release on date as mentioned earlier then it wont have been dubbed premature, as for delay till nov 2025 makers havent specified reasons so cant be called premature since shooting afaik is done & is now in all purpose in post production though no details available. btw as more info is published the page will grow as such redirect too isn't right. Bonadart (talk) 07:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have been told numerous times to stop bringing up WP:OSE. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArcGIS Urban

[edit]
ArcGIS Urban (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)

Cannot find WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:COMPANY, none such provided in the article and my googling does not turn up any seefooddiet (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ArcGIS since Urban is a product within Esri's ArcGIS line. Not sure if WP:COMPANY applies here since it's a product and not a company, but agree that this should be deleted due to poor sourcing. Artwhitemaster (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi all! I'm the user who created the page, and I'm still relatively new at making pages (mostly did small edits until now). Full disclosure: I work as a software engineer on this product (ArcGIS Urban), and I wasn't exactly familiar with the Wikipedia notability test - a learning experience for me! Since I saw the "nominated this article for deletion" banner, I haven't made more edits, but maybe it would help if I added more references and expanded the article? In the end I will defer to the experts on whether the page needs to be kept/merged/etc. CJJ2501 (talk) 11:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the reply! Please also keep in mind WP:COI; on Wikipedia working on topics you have a paid relationship to comes with significant caveats.
    Regardless of COI, you could try to identify more reliable sources (namely third party mainstream news coverage) but I've done some looking and am a bit skeptical it would pass notability. seefooddiet (talk) 12:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis

[edit]
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis (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 due to lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources, of the specific topic of five-wicket hauls by this specific cricketer. Not viable as a split-list because split-lists have to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. This appears to be a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR from primary sources. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Chalava

[edit]
Moshe Chalava (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 rabbi. From my searches only one source (an obscure one) accounts for his existence. On google, searching him up only nets 25 results, with the majority of them copying the en-wp article. Plasticwonder (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GoBolt

[edit]
GoBolt (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, sourced to press releases (fail WP:ORGIND) and funding reports (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 talk! 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework. On a pure WP:GNG basis there seems to be enough reliable sourcing here to meet notability. Certainly the sourcing is pretty bad and the author may need to be trouted and/or reminded of WP:SELFPUB, but other than that it's fine as I see it. guninvalid (talk) 10:47, 9 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! 23:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The one keep comment seems mildly contradictory with itself. As of now there clearly is not a consensus for any specific course of action.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. When you weed out the bad sourcing and announcements, there are still at least two good ones, Collier's (Canada) and The Globe and Mail. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: References 17 and 18 seem to be reliable, independent, and non-churnalism. All the promotional and non-independent sources need to go, however; far too many laundered press releases and routine announcements. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete none of the sources meet NCORP requirement. as this is a company page, GNG cannot be applied here. 17 and 18 sources are only about financing, event-based and no deep enough to provide reliable coverage. --71.251.8.132 (talk) 12:29, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

20th century in Russia

[edit]
20th century in Russia (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)

Page duplicates Timeline_of_Russian_history#20th_century. DeemDeem52 (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/Yesterday&oldid=768995417"