Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< January 19	January 21 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Don Colossus

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

The article, given the recent history and its state at the time of nomination, seems to be in large part a vehicle for promoting some cryptocurrency coin's website or wallet address. Beyond not being in good shape today, I doubt this article is salvageable due to notability and coverage issues. Given the many reverts in the history (a couple of them mine) over the crypto wallet spam, I expect a WP:PROD to be contested, so submitting here directly.

The handful of news articles about the statue itself are fairly short, they all contain roughly the same few paragraphs of information, such that there's not enough published about this statue to write a very good article even with more effort. My assessment after a quick search is that this is not near the level of significant coverage expected to pass WP:GNG guidelines. Mlkj (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Arts and Cryptocurrency. Mlkj (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Politics, and Ohio. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Probably TOOSOON, news coverage, sure, but I don't think it meets notability for art projects. This isn't the Mona Lisa. Oaktree b (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Part 4 here explains it [1]. The artist isn't notable, the artwork doesn't appear to be either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Donald Trump raised-fist photographs § Legacy, where the statue is already covered, as alternative to deletion and likely search target. The article's current state is irrelevant but apart from The Times's in-depth article, it's mostly local sourcing, which is weaker. There is plenty to expand from these sources and while I'd expect further sourcing after its unveiling this week, since we have no crystal ball, it's fine to all expand summary style within the parent article, the pose on which the statue is modeled. (The author's notability is a separate point, but there is way more significant coverage in reliable source about his practice linked within that article.) czar 03:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Shanley

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

Pinging Yankees10. ~~I understand Yankees fans may not have as firm a grasp on policy compared to Red Sox fans account of their tendency to support an inferior team,~~ but the article still fails SPORTSCRIT. Jay Cubby 23:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Jay Cubby 23:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The SABR biography has plenty of citations [2]. Blue Jays fans laugh then the Yankees and Sox start a feud anyway.... Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While there was minimal sources when searching for Doc Shanley, I found plenty beyond game logs and casual mentions when searching for Harry Shanley. Would suggest a pagemove upon closure. Wizardman 23:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourcing and a WP:TROUT for the nominator for (1) not doing WP:BEFORE and (2) the unnecessary antagonism in the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to newspapers.com (though I ought to apply through TWL). Good catch with the sourcing. Jay Cubby 03:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article itself is underdeveloped, but the sources presented already in this AfD clearly show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Florida, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Personal attacks in nominations is not a good look for you. Spanneraol (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Toma

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

Still fails SPORTSCRIT, has been prodded before. Jay Cubby 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. Jay Cubby 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources found. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Minister's Cup 2024

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NEVENT, tried to move to draftspace for improvement but the creator reverted the action. I brought it to AFD to avoid move-warring. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, India, and Uttar Pradesh. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Editors may recommend for draftifying if necessary. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:48, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creator (me) reverted back by improving what reviewer told to improve

I added more sources

If needed more

I will add more

But aren't enough sources are given for a single exhibition match trophy cup? Sid Prayag (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Improved the article.. Look again into it Sid Prayag (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect with Kolkata Derby – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A whole new cup? a whole new event organized by other.. How can i mix it. Shouldn't it have a separate article for itself Sid Prayag (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I have provided many sources of media house covering this cup. Isn't it significant coverage? Sid Prayag (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—No reason to merge. Clearly not notable. Anwegmann (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there any support for draftification here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Lucanzo (1590)

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

Fails WP:V. No real coverage of supposed historical battle. Fails WP:SIGCOV.WP:OR. No indication of significance. Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jaozinhoanaozinho and persistant WP:SYNTH, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:GNG-failing articles report for further context. scope_creep^Talk 09:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Angola, and Portugal. Shellwood (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, regarding your claims, there is no (OR) in the article. The troop strengths, alliances, and outcomes are directly supported by the sources cited. The specific engagement of the new source I've added is labeled as "LUIZ SÈRRÂO AND THE BATTLE OF 1590.".

The topic is already significantly covered. I've found additional books that mention the battle, though I haven't cited them all. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 19:41, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Jaozinhoanaozinho: If you do have sources, post them here per WP:THREE, so I can have a look. scope_creep^Talk 21:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia of African Colonial Conflicts: I-Z by Timothy Joseph Stapleton, 2016: "In 1590, Serrão organized an expedition that marched up the Lukala River into Ndongo. He sent his troops to Ngoleme-a-Kitambu, north of Kabasa, where he assembled the most powerful Portuguese force that Ndongo had ever faced, containing 15,000 African archers and more than 120 European arquebus infantrymen. When they arrived at Kabasa, though, they found a deserted capital. Some days later (December 29, 1590), they were surprised by troops from Ndongo and Matamba, who enveloped them and forced Serrão to retreat under heavy attack. He marched for 15 days to reach Massangano, suffering substantial losses. Besides losing many men, he also lost a great amount of merchandise and watched a massive desertion of supporting sobas. The response of the Iberian crown to this major defeat was to revoke Novais's private charter and replace the captain with an appointed governor."
A Military History of Africa, Volume 1 by Timothy J. Stapleton, 2013, p.166

Other sources just briefly mention the defeat of Serrão, many labeling it as the "Battle of Lukala", for example in "The Portuguese conquest of Angola" by David Birmingham, 1965, p.19. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is laudable. If there is one real source and the rest are passing mentions then that is not notable. The first source isn't in-depth. Its a single sentence, essentially backing up several passing mention. The whole thing is a complete failure of WP:V. It really is. The core of writing a historical aticle on WO to have to have 2 or 3 of the best authors who write the standard works on the subject. Once have that then you have enought to pass WP:V] and more so, to prove its actually notable, then you go ahead and write. A single sentence like this and other passing isn't confirming notability. Its just notable. Its unfortunate in this situation that the battle was considered notable to recorded in any kind of details, even though it supposedly had 15000 archers. The whole lot is in doubt and entirely unsuitable for Wikipedia. You taken something should never been a articles, and puffed it right up to give a level of importance that doesn't exist and broken WP:NPOV. scope_creep^Talk 21:08, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There does seem to be a large number of gbook sources, but they are all close to pass mentions. It does name it as a battle, but the details are so tenuous, virtually nothing beyond when it took place, and the numbers involved. See what other folk say. scope_creep^Talk 21:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait There may be other sources for the existence of the battle.

Sr. Blud (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV.WP:OR. Javext (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This editor was blocked as a sockpuppet Doug Weller talk 11:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hate reply, I meant Sr.Blud Doug Weller talk 11:31, 18 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!} 22:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2015 in Scandinavian music

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

We have individual pages for 2015 in Danish music and the other 4 Scandinavian countries, there is no reason to have another page grouping these 5 as well, "Scandinavian music" is not some monolithic block or typical genre.

The same applies to these other years as well:

Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree that the concept of "Scandinavian music" is a nonstarter. Though there are only 3 countries in Scandinavia and not 5, there is not that much overlap between the music scenes as to constitute a common sphere. The information about individual concerts and even festivals is not encyclopedically relevant and should be burnt with fire. Relevant albums should be mentioned in country-specific pages where applicable (i.e. 2015 in Swedish music – the albums might already be mentioned there, though). Since there is no one target to redirect to, delete all. Geschichte (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all The creation of such articles should be purely country-based. Orientls (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. The suggestion that we have articles on music for these individual countries is erroneous. Where are 2024 in Danish music, 2024 in Norwegian music, 2024 in Finnish music, 2024 in Swedish music? Scandinavia is as clear-cut a region as is Ireland. Why remove useful information with nothing to replace it? I'm baffled as to the reason for this nomination. Deb (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- 2024 in Scandinavian music is not up for deletion. For the nominated years, we do have individual articles for Norway, Denmark, ... Fram (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  So why would you delete a range of articles in the middle of a range of articles that are being kept up to date, in order to replace it with a range of incomplete articles whose creator was blocked years ago and hasn't returned? Deb (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The other Scandinavia ones should later be deleted after the necessary country articles have been made, and no new Scandinavia ones should be created. Funny, by the way, that the original creator was blocked for copyvio, while you created e.g. the 2015 in Scandinavia page by an unattributed copy of all his work at the 2015 in Norway page. Fram (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut it out, right now. You haven't achieved consensus as yet. Deb (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "should later be deleted" =/= now. Fram (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - These are lists that appear to fail the WP:NLIST criteria as a notable grouping discussed by reliable sources. Scandinavian Music is not a defined genre of music. Even the term Scandinavia is ill-defined - it may or may not include various territories depending upon the context. It seems these lists would be better if they followed the individual territories and can align with the current Wikipedia articles separated into territories such as Music of Iceland, Music of Finland, Music of Sweden, etc. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fram, this AFD is not formatted as a bundled nomination and so our closing editing tool, XFDcloser, will not recognize the closure decision as relevant to any articles but the one in the page title. Please look over the instructions at WP:AFD for formatting multiple article nominations so that this process is smooth for the admin who closes this discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done, I hope. Fram (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deb. As far as I can tell from what I found in Google Books, "Scandinavian music" is a thing. You'll find books on "Scandinavian music" generally, and comments such as "Scandinavian music as a whole" [3] and "Scandinavian music . . . is distinctive" and is "a school": [4]. You will find, even in English, Billboard spotlight "review of the year" articles on Scandanavian music in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1979, 1981 and probably every other year, though I can't search the entire run. And Scandanavia has had music periodicals since at least the 18th century: [5]. And I think that indicates that most years in Scandanavian music are likely notable. James500 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- But what's the point of just repeating the information on the standard by country pages into a grouped page? We are just increasing the maintenance cost for no good reason, it's not as if the entries in the Scandinavia pages are about some cross-Scandinavian things. The 2015 page Is an 80% copy of the Norway page, with some other stuff copied from the other country pages. It adds no value at all. Fram (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- @James500:, I appreciate you finding those sources. Unfortunately, reading through them only seems to confirm that "Scandinavian Music" is an ambiguous lumping and the music articles are still written on a national basis instead. For example. the 1924 Herbert Westerby book that you cite has a brief page attempting to describe a few similar elements among Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian music -- and then spends the next 35 pages describing the pianoforte music broken down by each individual country. (Westerly does the same with his chapters combining Spain & Portugal and Austria & Germany.) I also read the 1973 Billboard Magazine and see it lumps the countries into a general section -- but all the articles and data are written about individual nations with Billboard using individual editors from each country. Unless Scandinavian Music can be defined as a unambiguous genre, it still seems to me that listing by individual country makes more sense. And removes the duplication that occurs in 2015 in European music. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - If sources say in express words that "Scandanavian music" is a thing, we may getting into the realms of original research if we try to dispute that. Our article on Nordic folk music says it is Scandanavian, and a search for "Scandanavian folk music" in GNews indicates that it still exists, see for example, this Scandinavian folk music festival in 2017: [6]. The 1981 Billboard article, for example, does contain comments about Scandanavia as a whole, such as those in the article "Copryrights gain value". That information could not be placed in the national articles. Music does not necessarily confine itself to national boundaries. The present Sovereign states did not always exist, their boundaries have repeatedly changed, and they use each others languages (eg Swedish is an official language of Finland, and is spoken in Denmark, and Finnish is spoken in Sweden). One can find, for example, articles on Swedish music in Finland, and Finnish musicians in Sweden: [7] (and that article says that a purely national perspective of music is not sufficient to address certain topics). I could argue that our national articles are "ambiguous lumpings". If, for the sake of argument, the quantity of cross-Scandanavian material were felt to be too small to support a separate article, then this page could be redirected without prejudice to 2015 in European music#Scandanavia, and the cross-Scandanavian material added there. That would not require either deletion or an AfD. I was not aware that we had articles on European music. Alternatively, one could merge into decades in Scandanavian music. James500 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - I agree with you about music crossing national boundaries. That's my point. Your link to Nordic folk music is a good example because it also includes all the Baltic nations and Russia in a discussion of "Scandinavian folk music." Should Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia be included in the 2015 in Scandinavian music list because Finland is? Is Greenland included or excluded because it has a separate music tradition? We agree that music can be a mosh pit across national borders throughout the world. That is exactly what I mean by an "ill-defined lumping." The above lists in this AFD seem to require some WP:OR to determine what is or isn't included. It is better for these music lists -- which are only about dates & events -- to be grouped by well-defined national boundaries as individual nation lists (e.g. 2015 in Norwegian music, 2015 in Swedish music, etc.). That better meets the selection guideline in WP:SELCRIT and the grouping guideline in WP:NLIST. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:29, 18 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!} 22:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shree Tribhuvan Secondary School

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

Fails WP:SCHOOLOUTCOME or WP:NSCHOOL, sources are not independent and don’t provide SIGCOV coverage. GrabUp - Talk 17:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Nepal. GrabUp - Talk 17:10, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:44, 4 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!} 20:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A very old government school serving rural part of Nepal. Such institutions hardly have good media coverage. Rahmatula786 (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if reliable sourcing can be found to support Keep argument. If they are too difficult to find or do not exist, this article is likely to be deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:57, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P. Shanmugam (CPIM)

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

Becoming the president of a political party’s state or national unit does not inherently confer notability. The subject fails WP:GNG as no significant coverage has been found beyond the news of their appointment as the state unit president, making it a case of WP:BIO1E. Additionally, the subject fails WP:NPOL as they are not an MLA or MP. GrabUp - Talk 18:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, India, and Tamil Nadu. Shellwood (talk) 19:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Multiple reliable sources have covered P. Shanmugam. Hence this article definitely meets notability criteria. It meets WP:GNG and hence it can be added by WP:NPOL as Wikipedia writes : "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides P. Shanmugam is the secretary of the Tamil Nadu Unit and member of Central Committee of CPIM which is one of the only six national parties of India (which can soon be one of the only six as BSP can soon lose the status). XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides this article includes citations on his student activism, farmers's movement leadership including the historic 2020-21 Farmers protest in India, struggles for upliftment of Dalits and tribals and the event of getting Ambedkar Award. This article also includes citation on formation of a panel including him. He is often called the hero for the justice for the victims of Vachathi case. XYZ 250706 (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 21:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Secretary of a political party is not covered by NPOL. The only reliable coverage is the first source, that's not enough for our purposes to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 23:59, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, secretary in this case is the highest level of the state-level party hierarchy. Without resorting to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I think it's worth noting the amount of blue-links at Template:Democratic_State_Chairs, even though state party chairs are generally less important that state-level heads of parties in India. And independently of whether secretaryship carries inherent notability or not, P. Shanmugan is covered across multiple sources in his role of leading popular protest movements. --Soman (talk) 20:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This subject could only pass POL by meeting the second criteria, Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage. But, unfortunately, there has been little discussion here about the sources. Could we get a solid source analysis? And, as always, an editor's own opinion on whether or not someone is notable in their own eyes is not a compelling argument.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz I will try to add an assessment table after 16:00 IST. Besides the subject here is not only a local political figure but also member of Central Committee of CPIM — a national party. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides being the state secretary of a sufficiently large state Tamil Nadu should not be called just local. By area, Tamil Nadu is almost equal to England. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Liz Besides I have added the important facts covered in various sources about the subject at the end of my opinion on the article. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:42, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Kostyuk

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

Fails WP:NACTOR due to lack of "significant roles in multiple, notable" productions. Most of the credits are unnamed, one-off supporting characters (e.g. "Thug #1" in an episode of Andromeda). All external links except IMDb are dead. It's difficult to find out much at all about this actor, because reliable sources with significant coverage don't appear to exist. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Ukraine, and Canada. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much non-notable actor. "Security Man" and "Another Guard" are just not what we need. I can't find any sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrolean Music Station

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

I am not sure to what extent this topic is real or WP:HOAX; it is based on a photocopy of a purported 1975 French magazine article that in turn is hosted on a user-generated shortwave radio conspiracy site. The only discussion I could find of this topic is on said conspiracy site and another self-published newsletter. Recordings purported to be from this station also appeared on a CD, but that's a primary source. Not finding any secondary, independent, reliable sources to show this subject passes WP:GNG. But any time an article has to have "(speculated)" in an infobox, we're out of WP:V territory. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and France. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Interférences [fr] does appear to have been a real magazine covering French radio of the 1970s, but it's far too flimsy of a source to support this article, and the other sources are outright unreliable. Jfire (talk) 02:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Flying Service Flight 209

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

Based on run-of-the-mill aviation accidents, general aviation accidents that resulted in fatalities became common in aviation. While this resulted in nine fatalities and no survivors, though tragic, the accident relates to general aviation. The article doesn't meet the notability for events. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mathieu Ostiguy

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

Non-notable figure skater; absolutely does not meet the criteria of WP:NSKATE, with zero senior-level competition and zero junior-level international medal placements. Despite the volume of provided sources, most of those are competition results and databases, and what isn't appears to mostly be skating blogs. I'll let the community decide whether what's there qualifies as "significant coverage." Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Canada. Bgsu98 (Talk) 18:45, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A fair bit found on this one such as in the Granby Express [8], the QuinteNews [9] and [10] and also in the Journal deChambly [11] and [12]. Canary757 (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Of the sources uncovered in this discussion, I don't think the first three sources are WP:SIGCOV as they are all routine announcements and/or just a few sentences. The Journal deChambly articles look good, but I'd like to see at least one more source from another outlet before voting keep. Let'srun (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is some more at [13] from Le Monteregion.com. It's not perfect and focuses on him and his skating partner and its got quite a bit of interview in it, but there are details too about their career etc.Canary757 (talk) 07:40, 12 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!} 20:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist; @Let'srun: did you manage to see the source Canary757 pointed out, can you judge based on that and the initial one?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paddy Scott

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

Cannot see or find anything to suggest notability. TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message TheLongTone. My thoughts on notability had been that it adds context to the Willis Resilience Expedition article as well as the family information of Bladen Hawke and Sir Nicholas Scott JaneBotha94 (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have also added the appropriate incoming links so it is no longer an orphan article JaneBotha94 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing gets this photographer close to notability for an entry into Wikipedia per the sources cited in the article and WP:BEFORE search conducted. Mekomo (talk) 15:31, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Photography, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Keep. See Category:Fellows of the Royal Geographical Society, while his FRGS status alone does not constitute notability, if a fair amount of well-sourced information can be found, the article should remain. The article has just been created today, see WP:BEFORE C.2 - the article likely requires time to develop. TheOilSpillExpert (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For work relating to Willis Resilience Expedition, live interviews from the Antarctic Interior are rare, and were even rarer (if not a first) in 2013/24 Mary.Cunliffe66 (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel his work raising awareness of cancer in younger men, as well as the added context to the page Sir Nicholas Scott gives a level of notability. I agree that the article will develop further with time. JaneBotha94 (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The strength of an argument is usually when it's backed by relevant policies and not just mere opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. See the following source assessment. Jfire (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Burke's Peerage			✘ No
Conde Nast Traveller	Written by Scott		✘ No
Paddy Scott - Expeditions	Scott's personal website		✘ No
"19-year-old explorer leads expedition to South Pole for Willis"		Does not mention Scott	✘ No
"Armed Men Confiscate AP Equipment in Crimea"		Does not mention Scott	✘ No
"The Unstoppable Force"		Short description of a photograph by Scott	✘ No
Humanity's Effect on our Planet's "Permanent" Landscapes	Talk by Scott		✘ No
Behind the Lens	Talk by Scott		✘ No
(same as #6)			✘ No
"Wildlife Photographer of the Year"	Scott's personal website		✘ No
"Wildlife Photographer of the Year" (Press London)	Interview		✘ No
"How This Intrepid adventurer faced his battle with cancer"		~ Primarily sourced to interview with Scott	~ Partial
"The Unexpected rise of cancer among Millenials"		Scott is not primary subject	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Tornado Damage Investigation, Greensburg, Kansas, 1699 DR-KS

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

Fails GNG and no other indications of notability. It appears it's most notable for being released via FOIA request by an influencer who makes tornado documentaries on YouTube (mention in the article has since been removed) but is otherwise routine and unremarkable as a report (no comment on its contents). Other than that, all citations are towards scientific journals that themselves likely wouldn't warrant an article. Departure– (talk) 20:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This has to be one of the fastest AfDs ever. Mainspace published and at AFD 12 minutes later. Wow. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to say Keep and Draftify – Specifically on technicality grounds. Extremely rushed AfD. Per WP:DOUBT, "If you are uncertain whether or not an article should be deleted, it is best not to rush to have it deleted. Alternatives should be considered." Given this is WP:RUSHED (part of WP:OZD), it is presumed that Departure– believes this has no chance to ever be an article and there is no doubt in their mind. I have the belief it may be notable with more research and work done to the article. So, on the absolute speedy AfD grounds (maybe even a violation of WP:BEFORE), I say keep and draftify it. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:42, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – I have formally changed my !vote to delete. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: (or draftify) - No AfD can be made "too fast" if an external search for sources was made. I see no WP:SIGCOV. E_F⁵ 20:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@EF5: Technically that is true. However, before starting an AFD (actually per the steps at WP:AFD), it should be checked if (1) the article can be improved at all, (2) communication maybe needs to occur with the creator for newly created articles, and (3) any alternatives should be assessed. Given this is such a fast AfD, it is presumed with the nomination that there is absolutely no place (no possible merges even) on Wikipedia for this topic and that the topic cannot possibly be improved to have notability. My Keep/Draftify is because I do believe content regarding this may be suitable for Wikipedia; maybe not in a stand-alone article. However, Departure–'s fast AfD means all of those were checked by them and they believe it is 100% unsuitable for Wikipedia. I would also presume you have done the same checks as well, given your !vote is delete within 1 hour of the article's creation. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 20:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have, and have found nothing proving its notability. I watch Alferia myself, they make absolutely amazing weather content, but they just aren't a subject expert. If a search is made on a topic and nothing is found, then I think "timing" is a concept that can be thrown out the window, even if that's in conflict with an essay. E_F⁵ 21:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an academic paper which does not just cite the report but actually explains this specific report some: "A postevent damage survey was published by URS Group (2007) under FEMA. In this report, they reviewed 46 residential buildings as well as other buildings in the town that were spread out in the impacted area, such as a school, a church, a hospital, and a John Deere building, and assessed the degree of damage for each building to determine localized damage and tornado ratings throughout the event area. From their assessments, they found that most of the damaged residential buildings were not built to modern code standards. For the buildings that were built closer to standard, which were the newer buildings, they found that failure of the connection between the roof and walls resulted in ultimate loss of the roof and failure of the overall structure." This from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory specifically discussions the findings of the report. The Department of Homeland Security actually explains the FEMA "case study" (as they call it). How is that not coverage on the specific report that is not just citing it? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the first report, but there is zero mention of this report in the abstract. The second one (PNNL) is just citing the main paper, which is highly common within fields and doesn't demonstrate notability (99% of research papers that have been cited aren't notable despite being cited at least once). The last one does indeed demonstrate academic coverage, but I'd like to see a secondary source (a source other than the United States government) discussing it in depth. I still retain my vote. E_F⁵ 21:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hopefully others see that there is some value for this content anywhere on Wikipedia; even if in another article.The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What sucks the most is that if Departure– had even messages me or done a PROD or literally done any communication to express notability concerns, before starting the formal, 7-day AFD, I would have moved it to draftspace. But nope, we have to go through this whole damn process now because of, what I will continue to call a violation/failure of WP:BEFORE. RIP. I know this content is suitable for Wikipedia, even if not a standalone article, but a stupid BEFORE AFD is going to make it a miserable process to show that. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mate, I just didn't think it was notable. Moving it to draftspace wouldn't fix what I perceive as an acute case of triviality / routine-ness. This was put right into mainspace from nothing and I'm really not a fan of having things in mainspace before moving them to draftspace. I apologize if I've upset anyone because I agree, this report does contribute to the sum of human knowledge - that's why the PDF of the report is already linked on the Greensburg article (I think it's also on WikiSource). Having an article just isn't the move for this report, unless something big happens in the future that brings actual coverage or other significance. Departure– (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't really upset me. I'm just more or less annoyed that I had an incomplete article and before I got told anything, or before I could add more information, it was nominated for deletion. No other communication besides, basically, "Delete now" through the AFD nomination. The article has been improved and updated even post-AFD. The problem is, this is a seven-day process, so you can't even withdraw it even if you wanted to. That's what more or less annoyed me. 12-minutes from start of article (which wasn't even completed yet under WP:WIP), to "this needs to be deleted" via a 7-day AFD. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 21:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to say it, but no amount of improving will "notabilitize" a subject if nothing substantial exists on it. I truly think this is non-notable, and outside of the Wx community, will always be that way. An AfD can very much be withdrawn, but I personally see no reason why that needed to be brought up. E_F⁵ 00:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So, they investigated a tornado, and found stuff related to building construction? That's rather routine to be honest. "People studying things come to a conclusion about the thing studied", isn't notable. Why was this study more important than the hundreds of others? Oaktree b (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: – Does this qualify for a WP:SNOW deletion? Four editors, including the creator and main editor, are all in support of deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Since the primary author and all other contributing editors prefer deletion and nobody else is challenging that, it can go via criteria G7 of speedy deletion. Departure– (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
G7 added. Also, just a head's up Departure–: Earlier you mentioned "that's why the PDF of the report is already linked on the Greensburg article". It actually is no longer linked on the article after EF5 removed it. Once this article is deleted, the 2007 Greensburg tornado article will have no active references or links to the FEMA survey. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Espresso Addict: Since you declined the G7 request, can you close this as a SNOW closure for delete? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm in leaving it open for the full week. The opinion in the first day of an AfD is often different from that after a week and snow closes usually have six or more opinions. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oruru-Parapara

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

Fails WP:NGEO Statistical areas aren't legally recognised places. The legally recognised places would be Oruru and Parapara. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest moving the article to Oruru Valley.-Gadfium (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is willing to create an article on it I'm fine with a merge. None of the potential merge targets such as Oruru, Parapara, or Aurere exist as articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Marlowe (Irish republican)

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

IRA member who was killed in 1976 when his bomb exploded prematurely. There is some coverage on Google Books but probably not enough to clear the bar of WP:N. Prezbo (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's a fair bit of stuff on him. I'll probably rewrite the article tomorrow, with decent sourcing. That "Tommy Socialist" guy wouldn't know a decent source if it doused his chips. Serial (speculates here) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Military, England, and Northern Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage in Lost Lives (p. 682) and Out of the Ashes, and it would appear from skimming gbooks, several other books. Jfire (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William James Carson

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

IRA member who was killed in a shocking and sad way in 1979. I can see why someone felt this deserved an article but I'm not seeing many reliable sources. Prezbo (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Prezbo (talk) 20:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not appear to meet WP:BLP1E or WP:NVICTIM. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Northern Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. He has an entry in Lost Lives (p. 783), and I would hazard a guess that there are offline sources. If not kept, merge to List of people killed during The Troubles (1969–1998) as WP:ATD. Jfire (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t think Wikipedia should try to have an article on every individual listed in Lost Lives, that feels off to me. Prezbo (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's debatable. WP:5P1 says Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias. Lost Lives is such a specialized encyclopedia, so content with its features is arguably in scope for Wikipedia, providing it meets other guidelines and policies. Jfire (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swinging Bridge

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

Does not seem notable enough, the only sources I could find are either tourist guides or official park websites. The article is also written like an advertisement. Protobowladdictuwu (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Yosemite Valley Bridges. I don't see why it should be disqualifying that most of the available sources are travel guides – those can be reliable sources. However, the coverage is thin enough that I don't see this bridge being notable enough for its own article. I do have to say that I don't think much of the article's current contents, except for the title and image, are WP:DUE, but it'll be easy enough to clean up after a merge. Tserton (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

comment "Swinging Bridge" is the name of a lot of bridges, e.g., this one in Patapsco State Park. Most likely this needs to be a disambiguation. Mangoe (talk) 00:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Black (Irish republican)

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

IRA member who was killed when her bomb exploded prematurely. This person has been commemorated by the Irish Republican movement, resulting in some controversy, so there is some press coverage on Google news (search for "Patricia Black" + Belfast). But I don't think it clears the bar of WP:N -- " significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." And the article does have the feel of a memorial/apologia, even though all of the explicitly POV content has been removed over the years. Prezbo (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Prezbo (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Lost Lives entry (pp. 1259–1260) plus 2011 coverage of the memorial ([14], [15], [16], [17] and others) and brief coverage in Feminist Identity Development and Activism in Revolutionary Movements I think just meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. If not, merge to List of people killed during The Troubles (1969–1998) as WP:ATD. Jfire (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Spiegel

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

My WP:BEFORE turned up no decent sources with significant independent coverage - it seems to be almost entirely recycled press releases, passing mentions, interviews or items that the subject has written themselves. I therefore submit that notability is not established under WP:GNG and I don't think that any of the WP:SNG pertain in this case. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, Germany, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog. Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the article. To address the concerns raised in the nomination, I am actively improving the article by removing sources that lack sufficient independence or reliability. Additionally, I am researching and incorporating high-quality references that offer significant coverage of the subject from third-party, independent sources. To ensure the article adheres to a neutral point of view and complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, I have already removed content that appeared promotional. Based on these ongoing improvements, I kindly request that you consider the revisions before making a final decision regarding the deletion of the article. Thank you.

Sergiomarcus (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergiomarcus great stuff, please do add them to the article, and they can be taken into account. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog Thank you. Sergiomarcus (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apna Jobs

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable company; WP:PROMO article refunded after soft deletion. Still fails WP:NCORP; sources in article and BEFORE search are a mix of WP:ORGTRIV on capital raises and financial results; and unreliable, promotional and unbylined WP:NEWSORGINDIA sources. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and Karnataka. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masam Project

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

The entire page is highly promotional - with potential WP:COI issues - and most sources used are not neutral WP:RS. Amigao (talk) 19:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Sources 10 and 13 talk about this organization; listed as marginally reliable sources per Source highlither, but I see no reason not to use them (I can't think of a reason to make things up about clearing landmines). There's another project with the same name [18] that makes it hard to find sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a Horrible Night to Have a Curse

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

No WP:RS and does not meet WP:NMUSIC AVG555 (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft deletion as it was deleted via WP:PROD in 2008.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Raza (actor)

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

Disputed draftification. I do not believe redraftifying would allow this to be accepted because no amount of editing can conjure notability from nowhere. Fails WP:NACTOR. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with at least two main/lead roles in notable productions + other significant roles. Can be expanded through sources like https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/you/1063549-ali-raza (containing an interview; bylined presentation). Declining creation because iit needs improvement could have been OK but not because it does not meet WP:NACTOR. Because it does. -Mushy Yank. 12:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that interview means means much for to WP:Notability, see WP:INTERVIEW. And declining wasn't an option for the nominator, as they said in the nom, this is a disputed draftification; this is an procedurally correct nomination. Follow up @Mushy Yank, I'm just going through the filmography on the article, which two are you considering main/lead roles in notable productions? I'm not sure I'm totally convinced but I could be persuaded to agree. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobby CohnOh, no the interview is not to prove notability directly, just an exemple of what can be used to improve the page and verify the importance of the roles. Regarding procedure; I did not say this could not be AfDed (everything can), just commenting on the fact that the nomination's rationale is based on NACTOR, just like the reason to decline the creation at AfC was. Lead/main cast roles in Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri, & Noor Jahan (2024 TV series) ; significant roles (not minor) in Duniyapur (TV series) & Gunah (TV series). I'm leaving it at that. Best, -Mushy Yank. 20:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)EDIT: +lead role in Iqtidar (see page)-Mushy Yank. 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 14:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having lead roles does not make someone inherently notable. They need the significant coverage to support. The references are interviews, puff pieces, or otherwise unreliable. On a side note, this was more than just draftification. It was draftified, then declined, then still moved to the mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Echoing the nom, fails NACTOR and GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon me, but "fail[ing] WP:NACTOR", how, please? -Mushy Yank. 12:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How is it otherwise? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just read the guideline and read the page. It is obviously a pass of WP: NACTOR. See my comment above. -Mushy Yank. 21:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the guidelines and read the page. In my opinion, he did not have any significant roles, in fact filmography section is devoid of any reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No significant roles????? REALLY? I will assume good faith then.... if you honestly want to check, just click on the links about the series.....I’m leaving it at that. -Mushy Yank. 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does a mention in a Wikipedia article confer notability? Almost, none of those articles has his role supported by a reliable source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Almost? Meaning, you find a few that confirm them, after all? :D Again, I am assuming good faith. -Mushy Yank. 22:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the content covered in other Wikipedia articles about the subject does not establish notability. Almost meaning the ones I checked lack reliable sources amounting to WP:SIGCOV. He is a young emerging actor but does not have coverage at the level of establishing notability. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NACTOR is not about SIGCOV (just read it, it's not long), NACTOR is about significance of roles in notable productions. 2 sources in English almost at random to confirm 2 different significant roles in 2 notable productions: https://www.dawn.com/news/1773436 ; https://images.dawn.com/news/1192720. Again, read my comments above. Thank you. (NB- I never said that mentions in WP confer notability, please read me carefully.) -Mushy Yank. 23:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is 100% about significant coverage. Again, it is under additional criteria (a subsection of WP:BIO which is the actual guideline) and says "may" which is only an indication a person could meet the overall WP:BIO guideline. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. See below and read the guideline. -Mushy Yank. 00:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

He is barely mentioned in those two sources. In my opinion, both of these roles do not fulfill the merits of WP:NACTOR. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But mentioned, right, with his roles? That are significant (not minor), and in notable productions? Correct? So, well, NACTOR applies.. -Mushy Yank. 00:06, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

significant roles in multiple productions, in my opinion, a role is only significant if it is thoroughly discussed in reliable sources. Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Merely the role being mentioned does not make it significant", sure, absolutely, but again, that is not what I said; it depends on what is said about it. Significant roles in the production (lead/main/recurring/etc) make a NACTOR pass; just like a director plays a significant role in the making of a film. A noted part in/of a noted film can be considered notable enough and that is why such guidelines exist. If coverage allows to verify it, it can/may be considered enough. By the same token, it may be considered insufficient and I understand that is your take but that does not change the fact that it's a NACTOR pass. Really no further comment from me here. Thanks. -Mushy Yank. 01:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline reads "may be considered notable" (as pointed out in other AfD's), not "is considered notable." The person could have 20 significant roles and not be notable unless there is significant coverage to support. Here, the coverage falls short.--CNMall41 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even GNG uses ”may”. WP: NACTOR is a solid reason to keep a page. You can judge it’s not enough if you want but still it’s a perfectly acceptable reason to consider a person notable. This is a NACTOR pass and that is that and that is the applicable guideline. -Mushy Yank. 21:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NACTOR is not a pass/fail, it is only an indicator of WP:BASIC which requires significant coverage. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is simply. not. true. NACTOR is a specific notability guideline for people. You may not like it, you may want to change it or to get rid of it, and you still may !vote to delete or to redirect a page when a subject passes its requirements but it is a notability guideline and the applicable one in the present case. Thank you for your time. -Mushy Yank. 22:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not. It is only part of a guideline that says "may" (meaning "could be" or "possibly"). If you look at the entire guideline (not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria"), you will see that a person must still meet WP:BASIC. It is not what I like or don't. It is literally what the guidelines says. I do not see anything that says a person "is" notable if they have had significant roles. If I missed that part, please point it out. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you but again, I am very sorry but what you are saying is not true. Again, even GNG does not say something like "Subjects Meeting GNG "ARE" notable and this cannot be discussed and their notability cannot be challenged".

The page WP:Notability (people) says: "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards...."(=additional criteria [including NACTOR] ). Not "if they meet any of the following standards AND the basic criteria".

Again, one can perfectly judge that a WP:NACTOR pass (or a GNG pass, or a NDIRECTOR pass, or a BASIC pass) is not sufficient but one can also think it's enough; and that is one reason why AfDs exist. I will rephrase: a simple WP:NACTOR pass CAN be (and often is) considered enough for notability (and that is because it is a (specific) notability guideline); it does not guarantee inclusion, that's all.

You may not like it, you may call that specific guideline tiny and want to change it but that is the way it (currently) is. See Cavarrone's comment on the thread you yourself initiated there, please......I really have no further comment. -Mushy Yank. 00:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy by assertion. I also never called something tiny. Again, please show me where it says someone "IS" notable for having significant roles. I will not hold my breath here. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fallacy by assertion?? :D Sure, if you say so. "I also never called something tiny." But of course you did. "(not just the tiny carve out under "additional criteria")" No further comment.... -Mushy Yank. 00:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't twist my words to support your assertion. "Tiny" referred to the size, not the significance. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't twist your words (let alone to support any assertion of mine, mind you). I just quoted one word you wrote. And you denied having used it. That's all. -Mushy Yank. 00:20, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Final question which still hasn't been answered. Is there anywhere in NACTOR that says an actor "is" notable for having significant roles?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 11:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Meeting WP:NACTOR is a valid reason to keep an article, but the discussion so far has focused on GNG and on meta disputes about the wording of NACTOR - evaluating whether this person's roles are sufficient to count toward that guideline is necessary to establish consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Question - @Vanamonde93:, for clarification, are you saying that someone would meet NACTOR for significant roles despite not having the significant coverage to support? Meaning, as long as we verify those are significant roles then NACTOR is met? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Meeting NACTOR is usually enough to keep a standalone article, so long as there is enough reliably-sourced material to write a BLP-compliant article. All of our notability guidelines - including GNG - are written with some degree of qualification, because they are meant to be interpreted with common sense and allowing for exceptions. You need to look at the entire documentation, and the history of applicability, to determine whether a notability guideline is treated independently from GNG or not. NACTOR, alongside NPOL, WP:PROF, NAUTHOR, and a few others, is typically treated as an alternative to GNG. I am explicitly not stating that this individual is notable, only that their roles require evaluation with respect to NACTOR. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I agree with that assessment. I believe some arguments in this and other discussions is that NACTOR is in itself enough despite NACTOR saying "may be notable." It is also a subsection of WP:BIO which still requires people to meet WP:BASIC which is where I think there is confusion. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Isabelle of Salm-Salm

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

Nominated on behalf of 46.132.74.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I contested this editor's WP:PROD nomination, and they then asked on my talk page how, as an unregistered user, they could start an AfD nomination. Their PROD rationale was The article was already deleted once over concerns of notability, and although this version is longer, it is still mostly unsourced and includes nothing that would make the topic obviously notable. I will give my own opinion separately. Jfire (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Royalty and nobility, and Germany. Jfire (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article appears to be a translation of de:Isabelle Gräfin von Loë. The best sources I have located appear to be:

Gies, Gabi (2009-01-14). "Ein bewegtes Leben". Neue Ruhr Zeitung (in German). Retrieved 2025-01-20.
"Gräfin Isabelle von Loe - Schloss Wissen". Blattus Martini - Kevelaerer Enzyclopädie. Retrieved 2025-01-20.

The first is a biography in a regional newspaper. The second appears to be a reprint from a biographical dictionary (Kevelaerer Persönlichkeiten by Evers and Willing). This is somewhat suggestive that a more thorough search could locate enough RS coverage to meet WP:GNG/WP:BASIC, although I'm not sure it's enough on its own. I mainly contested the PROD because the tag had previously been removed by another user, and because the article had been recreated after a prior PROD deletion. Jfire (talk) 18:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can see why someone might think Wikipedia should have an article on this person, since she lived a pretty impressive life. However, I can't find any sources (aside from a few passing mentions) other than the two Jfire has already identified, and I would say they are definitely not sufficient to establish notability. Tserton (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Hamilton Brookes

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

A7 was declined here, but I see no claim of notability. According to this article, he was a vice air-marshal (a high rank, but simply having a high-rank does not make a person notable), and he held some miscellaneous non-notable command positions. The only sources given are Who's Who (which is considered generally unreliable), and a page from The London Gazette that confirms that he retired in 1958, but it tells us nothing further about him. Since this is now an AfD rather than a speedy deletion, I went ahead and carefully looked through the Wikipedia Library (in case he is perhaps notable after all), but I see no results for any British officer by this name. — Anonymous 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United Kingdom. — Anonymous 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A CBE appointment is usually a reliable indicator of notability per WP:ANYBIO#1; some editors regard it as definitive. Obituaries in 1988 were published in The Daily Telegraph and The Times. Jfire (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for these impressive sources. I'm a little surprised these didn't come up when I searched earlier; perhaps I should've included "vice air-marshal" in my searches. I'm inclined to withdraw my nomination and perhaps improve the article myself. — Anonymous 04:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hohenfeld family tree

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

Depends on a single source- and is literally a family tree without a single notable member. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There must be a substantial number of notable people on the family tree and coverage about these family relations to justify an article about not only the individual people but also about the family itself. Article was created by User:Hohenfeld who also edits other articles while having a clear WP:COI. When deleting this article maybe also delete User:Hohenfeld/sandbox as CSD U5 which is a duplicate of the article. User created and edits other articles too like Hohenfeld (surname) without declaring their conflict of interest. @Hohenfeld: I recommend reading WP:COI before continuing to edit articles about you or your family and make WP:Edit requests instead. Killarnee (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear colleague, please note Hohenfeld's response at User talk:Hohenfeld#Managing a conflict of interest. Our fellow editor had explicitly denied any link between their username and their real life connections. Do you have any additional information? If not, WP:AGF should apply here, IMHO. Note that if the information in the article is correct, it is physically impossible for any editor to be a Hohenfeld family descendant: the line had apparently died out in the early 19th century. Викидим (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If so I recommend choosing another username to prevent misunderstandings. Killarnee (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I’m happy for this article to be deleted for lack of “notable people” (although I disagree), and I am happy to choose another username if this causes any confusion.

But I vehemently oppose your points about a conflict of interest, and I protest your accusations, @Killarnee. In fact, you are killing my wish to further contribute my knowledge on this and other related topics, giving me the impression that my work is wasted. Hohenfeld (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Hohenfeld family (currently called Hohenfeld (surname) but shall be moved. There appears to be no lack of sources and notable family members, they are just all listed in this other article. This one is a WP:CFORK and does not have to exist on its own. --Викидим (talk) 03:41, 21 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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 20:40, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Rutuparna Pradhan

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

I could not find significant coverage about this person. Fails WP:GNG. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, and India. Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Odisha-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet notability guidelines. TheOilSpillExpert (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are sufficient sources available online, many of which are cited within the article, with WP:SIGCOV that meets WP:GNG. I suggest, before nomination, do conduct a thorough WP:BEFORE, as even a simple Google search reveals extensive coverage of the subject. Strong sources within the article include NDTV, IndiaTimes, TOI, and Better India. Additionally, outlets like Indian Express, The Hans India, The Hindu and SheThePeople provide enough depth to satisfy GNG. There are likely even more sources in Odisha-language media.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:32, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per MimsMENTOR. The sources he found include significant coverage up to 2024, so it is also WP:NSUSTAINED. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of sources on the subject and most seem reliable (although I'm not very familiar with Indian news outlets). Tserton (talk) 19:27, 20 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.

Nowa Aleksandria

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

Fails WP:NALBUM DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Music, and Poland. DonaldD23 talk to me 13:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The album is ranked #75 with an average user score of 79/100 (scored by 204 users of that page) among the best albums of 1986 on the independent website (no critic score, though).

https://www.albumoftheyear.org/album/36261-siekiera-nowa-aleksandria.php

The album has an article describing its history on the official webpage of the National Polish Radio Channel 4 (Czwórka) starting with the following words (in Polish): "It took less than two weeks to record one of the most important albums in the history of Polish music." https://www.polskieradio.pl/10/3966/Artykul/2641692%2CNowa-Aleksandria-Plyta-Siekiery-to-nie-tylko-krazek-ale-zjawisko
- ^ User ratings are not used on Wikipedia for notability. So, even if it was ranked #1, that would be meaningless. DonaldD23 talk to me 20:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You people make me sick here. Go ahead and delete it. Verwolff (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was this comment really necessary? DonaldD23 talk to me 21:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's a Polish band from the 1980s; many sources are likely to be offline. We do have the aforementioned Polskie Radio article, a review from KFJC, capsule reviews in a Polish Hifi magazine and The Rough Guide to Poland, and pl:Nowa Aleksandria (album) cites a five-star review in Tylko Rock issue 54 from 2000. The title song is discussed in Outside the "Comfort Zone": Performances and Discourses of Privacy in Late Socialist Europe pp. 184–185. I think that's enough to meet WP:NALBUM, but if not, redirect to Siekiera as WP:ATD, preserving the article history should someone locate coverage in Polish-language offline sources. Jfire (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baku Dialogues

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

Article PRODded with reason "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective databases, no independent sources. Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." Article de-PRODded by creator after adding multiple sources. Some of those are trivial (ISSN, Columbia University Library), are not independent (The International Information & Library Review), or are simple press releases. PROD reason therefore still stands, hence: Delete. Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Politics, and Azerbaijan. Randykitty (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the author of the article, I want to emphasize that Baku Dialogues is a legitimate, peer-reviewed journal with significant academic value. It is published by ADA University, a reputable institution, and includes notable articles by respected authors like Svante Cornell, a recognized scholar in geopolitics.

The PROD reason for deletion overlooks key factors that demonstrate the journal's credibility. Baku Dialogues is included in the Columbia University Library, which has a rigorous selection process, making its inclusion an important indicator of academic relevance. Dismissing this as "trivial" undermines the value of academic libraries, which play a crucial role in scholarly work. It’s important to note that Columbia University Press is an established academic publisher, and its inclusion of Baku Dialogues reflects the journal's academic credibility. The issue of "independence" does not apply here, as the journal’s value should be assessed based on its academic recognition, citations, and inclusion in respected institutions, not on political or biased grounds.

While the journal may not yet be indexed in selective databases like Scopus or Google Scholar, it is listed in essential academic sources, such as the ISSN database and WorldCat. These global databases show the journal's recognition in the academic community. The journal's content has also been referenced by respected institutions like the Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Silk Road Studies Program.

Independent news sources like 1news.az, Azerbaijan-news.az, and the AZERTAC provide objective coverage of the journal and contribute to its notability. Additionally, works like S.E. Cornell’s article cite Baku Dialogues, further proving its academic impact. Keep Wiseuseraze (talk) 16:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Education Channel

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

Does not meet notability guidelines, sources not independent of the subject Protobowladdictuwu (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) ~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Education, and Maryland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A name that generic for a local educational channel (as opposed to a major national service), in this case Baltimore County, Maryland, pretty much tells you that this is run-of-the-mill and that GNG sourcing is going to be impossible to find (this probably isn't even the only such channel to simply be called "The Education Channel"). I doubt there's much independent or significant coverage under its other (and less ambiguous) "BCPS TV" name, either. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Black Opium (perfume)

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

The perfume looks like non-notable and I did not locate any outstanding or independent reliable sources. BoraVoro (talk) 08:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

as an alternative it could be redirected here Opium (perfume) BoraVoro (talk) 08:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't know a lot about perfume or about the reliability of fashion sources so am happy to be corrected by those who know more about this area, but I think there's enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Excluding the dozens and dozens of "top 10 perfume" lists and "this is the perfect Black Opium dupe" junk articles, there seem to be a good number of reviews and product announcements in reliable sources. Some of these are a little shallow, but these are some examples of what I could find: [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]. And that's not to mention the many, many articles about the advertising controversies, which aren't enough to show notability on their own but probably do contribute a little to notability. There were also quite a few scholarly sources in fields like marketing and fashion history that provide mentions of Black Opium. MCE89 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been looking a lot into fragrances lately, which is also the reason why I came across this page and noticed the deletion template. But I can tell this is an extremely popular fragrance which is here to stay for many years to come and there are lots of sources for it. It also has many variants made because of its popularity. Coldbolt (talk) 21:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's imperative I mention that an "extremely popular fragrance" isn't an "extremely notable fragrance".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JeriQ

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

Fails all ramifications of WP:COMPOSER or WP:NMUSICIAN. The nominations are not exclusive and so do not inherently confer both guidelines I just mentioned.

Citation 1 from marginally reliable Vanguard with no substantial coverage.

Citation 2 from the same marginally reliable source is utterly unreliable as it lacks a byline and does not provide any useful information.

Citation 3 lacks a byline and is only 104 words, no substantial coverage.

Citation 4 does not only lack a byline, it is definitely a sponsored piece.

Citations 5, 6, and 14 are the usual nomination lists.

Citations 7 and 8 has nothing to offer to this subject's passing of WP:GNG.

Citations 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 provide no substantial coverage about this subject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that this article fails all ramifications of WP:NMUSICIAN, as subject has:
1. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". | "the highest new entry this week on Top Albums at #4. BILLION DOLLAR DREAM by Jeriq is the biggest winner, moving up by 57 slots to #21."[26][27]
The Subject's notoriety can be supported by [28], from a notable magazine with a byline, and is named in some Wikipedia articles including Igbo music where he is referenced as one of the "Notable Igbo musicians."
2. "Has won or been nominated for a major music award". The Headies being a major music award in Nigeria and Africa has nominated the subject twice, as the links to the nominations has tried to prove. These nominations are seen in The Headies 2023 and the award's website [29] Chukwukadibia1 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep
Chukwukadibia1 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find I cannot agree with this nomination; subject appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Further to the verified notable award nominations (it is not clear from the nom why they do not count), and the several above citations (which include a secondary analysis in a reliable source the subject "has been making waves in the Nigerian music scene with his hit singles and collaborations" [30]), there is further coverage including Billboard charting, Billboard critical coverage, concert review in an WP:RSNG source, and the subject had a cover feature on the WP:RSNG TurnTableCharts magazine with a sigcov bylined intro. ResonantDis_tortion

Gehlee

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

Failed WP:GNG, WP:SINGER, WP:BANDMEMBER with no WP:SIGCOV for individual notability other than passing mentions from Universe Ticket-related reportings (the competition show that determines the lineup for Unis) and in turn Unis-related reportings including but not limited to her "about"-type reporting as part of Unis's debut-related promotional reportings from WP:BEFORE. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Unis (group) per WP:BANDMEMBER.⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash

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

Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT. Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". From what I've been able to find, none of the sources were secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself. The event does not have significant, in-depth, nor sustained continued coverage of the event itself other than, "After touching down, the plane crashed with X casualties", with coverage only briefly occurring in the aftermath of the accident. WP:EVENTCRIT#4 states that routine kinds of news events including most accidents – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance, which this event lacks. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Transportation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A scheduled passenger flight which ended in fatalities and safety recommendations. The requirement for sourcing here is difficult because this occurred in a very remote part of the world - deleting this would further WP:BIAS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that the article is currently adequately sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with SportingFlyer. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Becraft

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

Lacking significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Doesn't meet WP:NBASIC. Frost 15:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Dance, Internet, and South Carolina. ミラP@Miraclepine 17:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Ado Muhammad

AfDs for this article:

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

Absolutely nothing makes this subject pass WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Great philanthropist, yeah, but no evidence of notability. And something off... first, a cosmetic manufacturing company... and then a lubricant manufacturing company, an oversight, probably, but definitely an expensive oversight for a WP:BLP. Let's delve into the sources in question:

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://businessday.ng/news/article/sons-dg-visits-ammasco-manufacturing-plants-in-kano/	This is a regular routine news piece.		Provide literally no substantial coverage about the subject.	✘ No
https://thesun.ng/the-sun-award-winners-2020-mustapha-ado-muhammad-industrialist-of-our-time/	We will soon also commence..., He said..., etc. Clearly a primary source and nothing notable about The Sun Award.	~ Ditto	Ditto	✘ No
https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/09/15/oil-firm-to-empower-3000-technicians/	The Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, AMMASCO International Plc, Alhaji Mustapha Ado Mohammed has disclosed that he is targeting..., and so on.	~ Ditto	Provide literally no substantial coverage about the subject.	✘ No
https://www.thecable.ng/mustapha-ado-mohammed-using-wealth-for-good/	~ This is clearly a guest post. Definitely a PR, piece is super promotional and gives nothing but paid sponsorship...	...and Views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of TheCable.	Ditto + this is most likely yellow journalism.	✘ No
https://leadership.ng/lupan-partners-son-against-fake-substandard-lubricants/	~ I hope you know what Chairman of LUPAN, Alhaji Mustapha Ado Muhammad, who disclosed this to LEADERSHIP in Abuja... means.		Regular WP:DOGBITESMAN.	✘ No
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/news/232611-osinbajo-gives-dangote-peterside-34-others-new-appointments-full-list.html and https://hausa.legit.ng/1107551-osinbajo-ya-nada-dangote-alhaji-ado-mustapha-da-wasu-34-a-majalisar-bayar-da.html	This is a routine coverage.	Ditto	Regular WP:DOGBITESMAN. Also, even the chief executive officer of National Competitiveness Council of Nigeria is not inherently notable and has to pass WP:GNG to be considered for a standalone entry.	✘ No
https://guardian.ng/news/ammasco-founder-mustapha-ado-muhammad-appointed-non-executive-director-of-lotus-bank/	Firstly, lacks a proper byline, and In addition to his success in manufacturing, Mustapha has diversified his portfolio through AMMASCO Communication Limited, which was granted a license by the National Broadcasting Commission... wow, that's great, but it isn't Wikipedia's business. ...he has partnered with the Nigerian Automobile Technicians Association (NATA) to donate technical tools to thousands of technicians nationwide great philanthropy there, but again... doesn't add a pinch of salt to WP:GNG.	Ditto + highly promotional.		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the table above shows, this isn't a notable individual. I don't see much beyond confirmation of employment. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. He is a successful businessman but he is not notable to have a Wikipedia page. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Chitramandir

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

Contested redirect – I think this is a case of WP:NOPAGE. The information here can be presented over on Zee Marathi#Zee Chitramandir, and this television channel itself doesn't have the non-routine, secondary coverage we want to establish notability of it. ~ Tails Wx 14:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Belarus–Spain relations

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

Article is based primarily on primary sources. 4 of the 6 sources are the Spanish Foreign Affairs, the 1st source is an embassy website. There is no third party significant coverage of these relations. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bilateral relations, Belarus, and Spain. LibStar (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. On a cursory google search, some content can be found in third-party sources.--Asqueladd (talk) 10:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, subject does have some notability. Codonified (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meralco Theater

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage on the theater itself save for the 40th anniversary Philippine Star article. Other citations are an OpEd, a tag page for Rappler only filled with press release articles of events happening. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and move relevant details (seating capacity, opening/inauguration date and so on) to the Meralco Building article. -Ian Lopez @ 15:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A WP:BEFORE search shows this is a clearly notable theatre. [31] and mentions in The Palgrave Handbook of Musical Theatre Producers, The Encyclopedia of World Ballet, Encyclopedia of Asian Theatre: O-Z, [32], has its own tag on Philstar for news about it [33]... should be easily notable, even if the article needs work. Notability isn't just about the citations in the article... SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that this is a notable theatre. Bduke (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago França

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. C 679 10:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 10:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Bhatt

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers. -Mushy Yank. 13:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She might pass WP:NACTOR for her roles in Sunflower and The Family Man for example, as the bylined presentation of this interview in The Hindustan Times states. A lot of interviews in more or less reliable media outlets are an indication that she could be considered a notable person. If NEWSORGINDIA applies (and how exactly please and to which sources precisely?) to sources on the page, the very general recommendations in that paragraph in an information page do not apply to all sources and should not prevail over the specific notability guideline. So (weak) Keep; Draftify if judged insufficient, please.-Mushy Yank. 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal 3

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

Cited with only two sources, the one is more like an open sourced blogspot [34] in which the sources attached are full of dead links. The other [35] seems dubious to me. In any case there's not much of independent significant coverage to warrant this standalone article. Garuda ^Talk! 10:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of wars involving North Yemen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled The Exorcist Film

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

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

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

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

With unreleased films, they are only considered notable if two elements are met: filming has begun and there is substantial coverage of the production process, particularly of the filming. I don't see where filming has begun. As far as coverage goes, so far it's just announcements that the movie will be made. The thing with movies is that there's no guarantee that something will come to fruition. It can have backing, a cast, and a great crew, but still never get made. Big budget horror films are sometimes particularly prone to setbacks and being scrapped, as was the case with an earlier attempt to reboot/remake the first film and the franchise as a whole.

In the meantime, this could probably redirect to the main franchise page, where it's already mentioned here. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:47, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The_Exorcist_(franchise)#Untitled_The_Exorcist_reboot_(2026) per my comment above. Filming hasn't yet started, so it's premature to have an article at this point in time. I have no objection to anyone wanting to draftify this, but I would recommend that this title get turned into a redirect since it's a plausible enough search term. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: as above to the 2026 film link is fine. This isn't quite ready for an article yet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Añjana

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

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

Delete. The only source, the website https://mandalas.life, is definitely not reliable for this. Bishonen | tålk 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Nepal, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a reliable source and i'm not keen on these single referenced article. They are cack. It fails WP:V, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hari Naoomal

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

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

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

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

Lakshmi Machine Works

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tim Brunero

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

I can't speak on behalf of LibStar, but I think it was fairly obvious that their intention was a redirect to Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 5; I would support such a redirect as well, most of his coverage is related solely to his status as runner up that season (which was almost 20 years ago!). The previous Afd was in 2006, when notability requirements were looser, the aforementioned TV appearance was fresher in the minds, and we didn't really have an assessment of what he would do in the future; but we know now he hasn't really done anything of note since. The odd jobs he's done at local radio and journalism aren't enough here. 2A02:C7C:2DCE:1F00:20BC:5415:7424:8B2A (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

yes I meant Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 5. Thank you. LibStar (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Beyblade X season 1

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

WP:REDUNFORK of List of Beyblade X episodes

Also nominating the second season for the same reason:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tanner, Indiana

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

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

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

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

Siam-Patani War (1638)

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

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

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

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

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

Arpad Furka

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wilbert Fernandez

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Venezuela. C 679 07:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C 679 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Swan River Seaplanes Cessna 208 crash

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Australia. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasons stated by nominator. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and no expectation of lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Not notable per Wikipedia:NEVENT. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 12:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 12:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Antioquia Cessna 402C crash

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Colombia. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above. No sign of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and no lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – As per what the multiple issues template said in the article, it doesn't meet the notability for events. The article also contains close paraphrasing of aviacionline.com/fatal-cessna-402-accident-details-of-the-crash-in-urrao-colombia?utm_source=chatgpt.com, and most importantly, the accident relates to general aviation, of which general aviation accidents are run-of-the-mill. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 12:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 12:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Given the existence of the "?utm_source=chatgpt.com" it suggests the article may have been written using AI. Allan Nonymous (talk) 16:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Maybe I do not have enough experience yet, but both the general notability guideline and the one specific to events seem too vague for me to be able to reach a conclusion. What does the duration of coverage mean? On the article about Turkish Airlines Flight 981 (which I think every one would agree is notable) all the sources are either created shortly after the accident or are parts of the databases that mention every incident/accident including the 2025 Cessna. Some no-survivor crashes of similar-sized aircraft are labelled with lack of notability templates (see Thai Flying Service Flight 209 or 2024 Orbic Air Eurocopter EC130 crash) while others enjoy a free life on Wikipedia (see 2024 Gillette Pilatus PC-12 crash or 2023 Rio Branco Cessna Grand Caravan crash). I know that I should not mention other articles in this discussion but it seems to me that as long as there is no rule to call a crash notable iff there are at least N (let us say, 15) fatalities (or other extraordinary reason), we will be stuck in these discussions forever.212.221.45.21 (talk) 19:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Feldman

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

Acid green

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

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

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

MaxPlay Classic Games Volume 1

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

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

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

From talk page

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

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

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

References

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

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

Larry Harris (U.S. Marine)

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

World Baseball Classic Rules

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

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

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Clearly there is consensus to merge. A little more discussion regarding the nature of the merge would be helpful. Importantly, will it merge and redirect to Baseball rules or World Baseball Classic#Rules? While you're at it, how selective should the merge be? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 05:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems like we all agreed on a selective merge that summarizes the rules but does not duplicate the entirety of the current content, which is a too-close paraphrase of the copyrighted WBC rules, and three of the four !voters agreed on a redirect to World Baseball Classic#Rules upon completion of the merger. As to how much to merge, I don't think we need to be too entirely prescriptive and Barkeep49, who has offered to execute the merger, is an experienced editor with good judgment on what would be appropriate to merge. Pinging Conyo14 and Frank Anchor since the closer apparently wants us all to be more specific than we've already been. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, I am in favor of the merge by Frank, I just didn't feel a delete was necessary. I was as confused as others were about this relisting. Conyo14 (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Doczilla I don't think the level of consensus you're seeking is necessary at AfD. If there are content issues to work out later they can be worked out through normal editorial processes, which crucially may involve editors not present at this AfD (and thus any consensus at this AfD wouldn't necessarily stop future issues). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Won Jang

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime and Connecticut. PARAKANYAA (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect: is fine, not every death is notable. This was sadly just another hazing that went wrong, not the first or the last such event. Oaktree b (talk) 22:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What sets this apart from other hazing deaths is that the police actually decided to press charges in this case, which doesn't always happen. Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 12:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article has ample sources that provide significant coverage. The most recent article is in The New York Times, providing significant coverage on a national level. This event was also covered in USA Today and The Guardian and People, again providing significant coverage in the US and internationally. Furthermore, this death just happened last year. It is premature to say that there is no ongoing coverage, as there has been a steady number of articles and coverage throughout 2024. I searched Newspapers.com and found 58 hits in 2024, in newspapers across the country. These articles were published in July, August, September, and November. That is coverage in four of the six months since the event happened. That seems like ongoing coverage to me. Rublamb (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such early coverage is WP:PRIMARYNEWS. For a notable case, the coverage might drop off in the interim, but there would be something, or a piece that analyzed it in relation to a broader topic. This does not have that. All the later coverage is press releases/basic announcements which do not count. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Institute for Educational Advancement

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

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

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

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

Living Textbook of Hand Surgery

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roanoke-Chowan Pork-Fest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations of manipulated economic data in the Islamic Republic of Iran

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Economics and Iran. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 14:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably draftify. I think this is almost certainly a notable topic, but agree that in its current form it is unacceptably full of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There's enough there that I think it's worth draftifying rather than deleting, but would not be opposed to deletion per WP:TNT. MCE89 (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per nom and User:MCE89. Notable topic, should not have been moved from draftspace in its current form. --Richard Yin (talk) 03:04, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 1) Due to lack of experience in working with drafts I first worked with a draft and than submitted the article for publication. If not for the lack of experience I would have worked on the draft using WORD and then publish it, as I did in previous articles. Sorry. 2) This is not an original research. I added three citations [1][2][3]) that claim fabrication of data. 3) I was strict in not adding numbers. I only cited references that show a deviation from official data. I thank the members of community for their helpful comments.^[1]^[2]^[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razgura (talk • contribs) 13:40, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I added another claim on fabrication of data [36]https://irannewsupdate.com/economy-2/iran-s-false-economic-statistics/

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

References

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

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

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

Death of Elianne Andam

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

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

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

The trial has only started recently. Also, there has been significant coverage already. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 18:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and so this presents BLPCRIME issues. Just because something goes to trial or makes the news does not make it notable, since those kinds of news sources are WP:PRIMARY and do not count for notability (unlike reflective or analytical ones). It may be significant, but is not secondary. Please read WP:NEVENT. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been sustained and in-depth coverage on the BBC News website,[37] among other, more local news outlets. So I find your above statements not entirely fitting. --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 18:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is a recounting of a trial - neither sustained nor in depth. Of course it will get covered when it goes to trial, as every publicized crime does. PARAKANYAA (talk) 18:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true. The stabbing has received wide coverage by the BBC (and other national news outlets) since 2023. How about we wait for other opinions? --Lyndis Parlour (talk) 19:00, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If true (it is not “wide coverage” by any means) that is not sufficient for event notability - the relevant guideline here is WP:NEVENT, which this does not pass. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:04, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: One of 20 people getting stabbed isn't notable... Could be named in a list about the crime spree, if that's deemed to be notable. We don't need an article for every person that is the victim of a crime, everywhere on the planet. This is not more notable than the other 19 victims, nor any of the other hundreds of such events that happen daily on the planet. Oaktree b (talk) 22:13, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete per nom and WP:NOTNEWS. All the sources (both in the article and through looking through Google) are just routine reporting, there's no claim that this will have lasting or particularly wide-reaching impact. I can find no indication this passes NEVENT. However, I have no objection if anybody wants this restored to their userspace/draftspace in future to improve should more coverage emerge. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Kiaya Campbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ivan Kinčík

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jacqueline Leo

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

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

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

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

Robinhood (2025 film)

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

Robinhood (2025 film)

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

The guideline on future films says:

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

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

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

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

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

Antoine Rostand

AfDs for this article:

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think that the sources are from Energy sector and the positions etc. sounds notable in the energy sector. The page exists in 3 more languages and on French Google there's a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Statements in WP:NBIO aligns with the content and sources.NatalieTT (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point to any WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources? Cause I haven't really seen it in my WP:BEFORE search. BilletsMauves^€500 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kayrros. He does not appear to be independently notable. In particular there is a dearth of independent, reliable sources about him as opposed to written by him, quoting him, or mentioning him. The best I found were [39], [40], and [41] which isn't enough for a BLP even when you add a couple more interviews and plenty of business networking profiles. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

William Parente

AfDs for this article:

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

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

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

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

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

Jonas Torsvik

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

Cannot find any independent WP:SIGCOV for this Norwegian footballer, just trivial mentions in routine game coverage and brief transfer coverage. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Update: withdrawn. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Norway. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify – WP:TOOSOON. Svartner (talk) 06:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I draftified it earlier. Not much was done with the page before it was reintroduced. There is a time and place for everything, and ultra-quick stubs about footballers are probably not the best idea for Wikipedia going forward. Here is coverage from one of Bergen's newspapers: [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] They are paywalled, but it should be clear that the coverage is about him and not match reports. From those alone, it should be possible to write something decent-sized. (Greater Bergen) also has other press outlets.) I believe deletion is out of the question; the options would be another draftification or taking a stab at the Heymann standard. Geschichte (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Geschichte That Bergen newspaper's paywall is so strict, at least in my country, that I can't even see the headline without a subscription, so I have literally no way of verifying what these might say about Torsvik. All content on the page is obscured until logged in. If you believe these are SIGCOV, however, I'm willing to withdraw the nomination per WP:NEXIST. I agree it should not be draftified. Speedy keep Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geschichte's sources above which (apparently) show notability. Happy to AGF here. Giant Snowman 19:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dyson (operating system)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starchess

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

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

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

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

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

Sport City station

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

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

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

Oqba Ibn Nafie station

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

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

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

Umm Ghuwailina station

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

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

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

Mohammad Karaki

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

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

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

Sepulveda Rose

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

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

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

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

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

Silex Microsystems

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

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

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

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

Richard Hills (politician)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete Richard Hill: only SIGCOV I found is this: [51]
Delete Chris Darby: did not find any SIGCOV
Delete Shane Henderson: only SIGCOV I found is this: [52]
Delete Ken Turner: only SIGCOV I found is this: [53]
Delete Kerrin Leoni: only SIGCO I found is this: [54] [55]
Redirect Julie Fairey to Michael Wood (politician) (her husband) as an ATD. The coverage of her relates to Michael Wood and the airport shares issues.
Keep Josephine Bartley: there is SIGCOV that isn't just related to the election: [56] [57] [58] Traumnovelle (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) (indented these "votes" to show that they are all arguments by Traumnovelle)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep Richard Hills (politician) - plenty of additional sources available (e.g. [59][60][61][62]), many others have extensive additional coverage as well (e.g. Chris Darby [63][64] [65][66]). I'll integrate any additional sources I can for the pages shortly, hopefully to the point where the pages will meet GNG (and/or I'll update my comment if I don't feel that there is enough published about these figures). --Prosperosity (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I do not think local councillors meet NPOL and should by-and-large not have articles. So my views are:

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

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

The provincial requirement for NPOL requires a country with a system of provincial governance - not to do with scale but the importance it plays in contrast to a federal/central government. Traumnovelle (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

[1]

[2]

[1]

[2]

[3]