Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< February 02	February 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Overpackaging

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

This is essentially a POV fork of packaging waste, which itself can be seen as a POV fork of Packaging. Qwirkle (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Overpackaging is a legitimate article. First discussion was in Packaging waste but it became clear that there was sufficient material for a separate article.

Both the Packaging and the Technology wikiprojsects have rated this as a C.

The article has many excellent citations, indicating that this is an important subject. Some citations are highly technical.

Constructive input from other editors is welcome. Pkgx (talk) 01:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Environment, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is significant coverage of overpackaging as a concept. Packaging waste is not the same thing: it results from any packaging, even minimal, and is also a topic that is addressed in many sources. For coverage about overpackaging, for example - here's an article about Korea penalising department stores and large supermarkets that overpackage goods: [1], and another about penalising excessive packaging for parcels: [2]. Here's an article about calls to cut back overpackaging in Taiwan: [3]. A couple of other articles about excessive packaging of parcels by online sellers: [4], [5]. This US Senate hearing from 1961 on Packaging and Labeling Practices (page 204) [6] explains that one reason for overpackaging is to stop goods being stolen. The Proceedings of the 2016 Academy of Marketing Science (AMS) World Marketing Congress has an article "Is it really worthwhile for a brand to eliminate overpackaging?" [7]. It certainly meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in reliable sources over a long period of time. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Wrong venue‎. If you meant to nominate the main Overpackaging page, please do so, rather than solely the talk page. (non-admin closure) Nate • (chatter) 23:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Overpackaging

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

This is essentially a POV fork of packaging waste, which itself can be seen as a POV fork of Packaging. Qwirkle (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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]
- To clarify, that's a Keep, but under a better title.-Gadfium (talk) 04:09, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  I think the page as is could be moved to Oruru and then cleaned up to remove the references to the other localities. SportingFlyer T·C 08:24, 28 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]
Split Completely agree census tracts are not notable, but this is a unique situation where the census tract covers four places which are eligible for WP:NGEO articles, but those articles don't appear to exist yet. It may be better editorially to actually keep this until those articles exist. Oruru certainly needs its own article based on a WP:BEFORE search. Oruru was listed as a town in Wise's New Zealand 1905, Aurere as a station, Parapara as "see Mangonui," and Paranui as a bit harder to find. Aurere now looks like a hamlet and there's a tourist centre there, Paranui is clearly a hamlet as well, Parapara is a "locality" with several houses. All are clearly defined by the census and as such would all pass WP:NGEO on their own, so we shouldn't lose any of the information at this article. SportingFlyer T·C 06:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Oruru which seems to be the most significant of the localities mentioned after checking maps and Google Street View. More information about the area and its history can be found easily - just search for "Oruru Hall" which was once (reputedly) the northernmost cinema in New Zealand. The existing text can be kept as its demographic information e.g. "The Oruru-Parapara statistical area, which includes Oruru..." Daveosaurus (talk) 19:50, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maple Valley, Indiana

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

I've found one person born there, but best evidence is that this was just a 4th class post office. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reference 2 plainly states it was a post office. Nothing there today, just a crossroad with a couple of houses. Fails WP:NGEO. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Reference 2 also plainly has the heading Elizabeth City. This appears to be an inside-out article with the city's post office being treated as the main subject when the only decent source in the article is more about the city, and how it collapsed, itself. The city does get a namecheck in the 1884 Inter-State History of Henry County, Indiana, so that is 2 separate history books, and the Hazzard one is fairly detailed even if it is mostly about how the city stopped existing. Really, this should be Elizabeth City, Indiana without the "unincorporated community" falsehoods. It's a genuine settlement that's recorded by history, albeit that Hazzard in its first sentence clarifies that this "City" was actually a village. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I feel like this last comment is worth further investigation/commentary.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Giuseppe Vinci

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

Fails WP:GNG. The article was recently created (not through AfC) by a new editor whose userpage says they know the subject. Vinci's "career" consists of material about one case that is more about the defendant than about Vinci, his lawyer. The sources supporting the material, including a blog (unreliable), have no significant coverage of Vinci. Bbb23 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The "blog" source was removed. Yuriupdates (talk) 18:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A new source was added proving the international relevance of the "Marijuana Express" operation. Yuriupdates (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming everything is true, the one criminal case that got into the news seems like a classic case of WP:BLP1E. Many years ago, I represented the Shrimp Lady – the case got widespread coverage and now it's not even on Google News. Every lawyer gets at least one case that gets brief media attention. Bearian (talk) 09:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What I kindly ask is—why cut short the biographical profile of a lawyer who, at such a young age, has already been involved in nationally significant trials, working tirelessly and entirely on his own? He became a lawyer in the minimum time required by law in Italy. Now, imagine for a moment that this was you, many years ago, as a young, ambitious lawyer.

I say—at this point, the page exists. Trust the process and allow a little time. If things don’t turn out as you wish, then let it be removed. But for now, let’s give it a fair chance, with a bit of common sense.

Thank you. Yuriupdates (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, I saw the recent edit in the bio—so, besides the page itself, why are we questioning whether he's even Italian now? Yuriupdates (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, the nationality parameter in the infobox is only needed if it is different from the subject's birthplace.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. In any case, this news is spreading rapidly in Italy right now. Several interviews will be released by the lawyer, both about this high-profile case (in Italy) and others. The process is taking longer because, in Italy, there are mandatory waiting periods for the reasoning behind court rulings, which restrict lawyers' ability to give interviews. If the page remains, I will personally ensure it is updated accurately, day by day. Yuriupdates (talk) 19:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good evening (to be precise, it's evening in Italy). I have added new details to the lawyer's career regarding an operation involving the Direzione Investigativa Antimafia. Yuriupdates (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article meets the notability criteria because the subject has received significant coverage from independent and reliable sources, such as La Gazzetta del Mezzogiorno and Il Quotidiano del Sud. Furthermore, the subject has had a recognized impact in the legal sector, as demonstrated by specific achievements. Additionally, there are numerous other high-impact legal cases still ongoing, which will be published as soon as it becomes legally possible to do so. The notability of the subject lie precisely in the fact that it is extremely rare in Italy for such results to be achieved at such a young age. Given these factors, I believe the article should be retained. Yuriupdates (talk) 21:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:20, 3 February 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]
I see that the stub is still expanding. Let's wait another few days. Ping me if you think this passes WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sources found about this topic are PRs about their appointment as a CEO and some other routine interviews. I would be willing to change my !vote if sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:GNG. AgusTates (talk) 01:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Per above. Svartner (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify and move to user space. This is a first-time editor trying to lean how to create an article. Rather than delete their first effort at an article, it would be better to move this to their user space, so they could take their time and learn the process. — Maile (talk) 03:34, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Practitioners Network

AfDs for this article:

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

Previously deleted. Created by a single purpose editor, no inline citations and surprisingly not 1 hit in google news, which is very unusual for a UK based org. Fails WP:ORG. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Psychology, and United Kingdom. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, some WP:PROMO language and failure of WP:ORG -Samoht27 (talk) 16:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

M. Tri Hamdani

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

Article on a lesser known Indonesian rapper. Coverage from reliable sources is clearly lacking, and a WP:BEFORE search mostly shows results from social media sites. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Indonesia. CycloneYoris ^talk! 22:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Liputani 6 source in the article is trivial, the other one looks better. This [8], but both are rather short and read as PROMO when I translate them. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable person. Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:GNG and WP:RS. Deleted on idwiki. Thanks. Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 11:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep‎. Speedy keep #1 - the nominator does not advance a rationale for deletion (indeed explicitly suggesting merge). Discussion on merging or expansion should take place on the article talk page. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

U.S. Route 10 in North Dakota

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

U.S. Highway 10 is only 8 miles long in North Dakota, and I feel that 8 miles is not long enough to have a state-specific article. I feel that this can be discussed within the Minnesota article. Also, the segment of US Highway 8 in Minnesota is more than twice as long as the North Dakota segment of US 10, yet it doesn't have a standalone article. Cyber the tiger🐯 (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reason U.S. Route 8 doesn't have a Minnesota-specific article is because the entire route is short enough to not have any state-specific articles at all. It doesn't have much to do with the Minnesota segment itself.MattEditor02 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and North Dakota. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should have been a merge discussion, not an AfD. There's no reason to delete anything here. SportingFlyer T·C 22:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
US 10 was once much longer in the state of North Dakota, spanning the width of the state and crossing into Montana. There's a lot of history there to cover that doesn't belong in the Minnesota article. The better comparison would be something more like U.S. Route 33 in Michigan, not US 8.
As for US 8, it doesn't have sub articles for one reason. The length of the Michigan section is an order of magnitude smaller than the Minnesota segment, and in turn, the Minnesota segment is an order of magnitude smaller than the Wisconsin segment. If I were to create three separate articles and then summarize them into a parent article, that parent article would basically duplicate the hypothetical Wisconsin article.
In short, oppose deletion and any merger. This article needs to be developed properly. Imzadi 1979 → 23:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All of you (sans SportingFlyer) are missing the point if you think that our encyclopaedia criteria are based in any way upon how long the road is. How good is the sourcing? How much sourcing is there? There's not a mention of that from any of you, even in the nomination rationale. None of you have provided any grounding in deletion policy at all. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mahmid

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

Geonet is not a reliable source for populated places (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 362#GEOnet Names Server (GNS) for discussion) and the Census of Iran has been known to count people according to locations that are not necessarily villages/towns but can be shops, pumps, bridges, farms etc. Fails WP:V. – PharyngealImplosive7 (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NPLACE @PharyngealImplosive7: Looking at it on Google Maps you can see there are a bunch of houses on Mahmid Road. So to think that that cluster of houses is called Mahmid makes sense to me. A large majority of tiny villages on this planet technically fail WP:V, because reliable sources (or at least the ones I have access to) do not cover every single tiny village on this planet. This is way way bigger than Achnabat. Polygnotus (talk) 03:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a wide gulf between "makes sense to me" and verifiability. Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Statistical Center of Iran verified that it exists. Polygnotus (talk) 16:15, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it hasn't. Read the nomination. Uncle G (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - two simple searches, one on Google maps and Open Map, shows this exists and is big enough to allow for sourcing. Bearian (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- What sources turn up when you search for the name in Arabic that Google Maps says: محیمد? Uncle G (talk) 12:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - Shouldn't you use the Persian name? Anyway, the SNG for geographic features operate according to principles that differ from the GNG -- WP:SNG Polygnotus (talk) 17:16, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    - So what sources turn up that satisfy those principles? You seem to be unwilling to provide a single one and instead argue that we should build an encyclopaedia because it "makes sense to me" that we should have things that by your own admission fail even basic verifiability. We've had a massive problem with mass-created places from databases that fail verifiability because the databases aren't constructed reliably, in Iran and elsewhere, and you're going to have to pull your finger out and actually show verifiability. "makes sense to me" is worthless in the face of what we know regarding the unreliability of these mass database imports by an editor that we had massive community discussions about and who is the article creator using a database here. Uncle G (talk) 02:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Palmieri

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

Badly written article about a footballer, with no significant coverage, and I found none either. Played once in the Serie B, never in the Serie A, and one season in the Serie C1 with Livorno as well as some games here and there. Note that there is a more notable outfield player of the same name. Geschichte (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Italy. Shellwood (talk) 22:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Svartner (talk) 01:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of WP:SIGCOV. C 679 12:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bright Machines

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

No reliable coverage meeting NCORP; only general news announcements; WP MILL, etc NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and California. Shellwood (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no significant coverages. Anktjha (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE ^Complex/_Rational 20:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:ORGCRIT ultimately. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ^Complex/_Rational 20:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Boussaïd (footballer)

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

Fails WP:GNG. I was unable to find significant coverage. He made two appearances in the Algerian first tier in 2015. The rest are amateur appearances. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Algeria. Paul Vaurie (talk) 19:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see any French news coverage for this person and can only find a few stat sites mentioning him. What's in the article isn't useful, I'm not seeing GNG. Oaktree b (talk) 00:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Butt of malmsey

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

Delete and merge with Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence. Respectfully disgree with the creator. It does not give burden to the second article, namely because a big portion of this is already in that article and the part which isn't is basically explaining what a butt is and what malmsey is. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also want it noted that I did merge and redirect the necessary information to the other page but that effort was reversed by the creator, and I understand why. But I still think its not necessary to create a seperate page for the method of execution - only used once - when its already went into detail in the second. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, minor historical trivia about the Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence that is better covered in that article. There's nothing left worth merging and the title is unlikely to serve a purpose as a redirect. --Aquillion (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously, albeit equally respectfully; my reasons for unaccepting the redirect were that it would constitute WP:UNDUEWEIGHT in other articles. My belief has not been altered. Serial (speculates here) 21:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find a range of coverage that is not already included in this article. Serious coverage includes Culinary Shakespeare: Staging Food and Drink in Early Modern England (2016) which has a chapter on "Fluid Mechanics: Shakespeare's Subversive Liquors" that consider the symbolism of the butt of malmsey; also The Living Age, Volume 53, (1857), Notes and Queries, page 623, which also considers why malmsey? how - was the butt open at the top? etc; and Nineteen Centuries of Drink in England (1884) also talks about how and why, and the origin of the name malmsey. The Comic History of England (1894) also considers how and why, and comments about Edward the IVth "The butt of Malmsey in which he caused his brother to be drowned was, it is believed, actually sold as a full fruity wine with "plenty of body in it," after poor Clarence had been in soak till death relieved him from his drenching." (This also appears in a joke in the Illustrated London News in 1847.) Hugh Ross Williamson used The Butt of Malmsey as a title for one of his books [9]. Elizabeth Peters' contemporary mystery novel The Murders of Richard III contains a beheading, a poisoning, and a butt of malmsey, according to a review in the Sunday Express. A comical article on "How to Write a Novel" in the People's Friend (1901) suggests that the plot should end with the hero under a locomotive or at the bottom of a butt of malmsey. Stratford-upon-Avon had (or has) a darts team and a pub called Butt of Malmsey (the pub also hosted folk clubs, discos and plays). A case in 1526 in which it was alleged that a carrier broke a butt of malmsey is discussed in The Oxford History of the Laws of England Volume VI. A History of Agriculture and Prices in England says that "malmsey is first entered by the butt in the Wardrobe account of 1500", and gives prices compared to other kinds and containers of wines, and lists statutes about volume, prices and duty.

In other words, there is plenty of other significant coverage, over a long period of time, of the various aspects covered in this article, and other cultural references, which could be added to this article, and which confirm that it certainly meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:39, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clearly a worthwhile and self-sufficient article in its own right. And agreeing with RebeccaGreen, by whose scholarship I am mightily impressed, that there's a lot more could well be added to the article. Tim riley talk 17:09, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I count thirty-seven sources. Is that not enough these days? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per RebeccaGreen, whose extensive list I find convincing. Even though it is a short measure of the full 126 separate items of coverage implied. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per RebeccaGreen. Obviously sufficient material for a standalone and separate article (we have numerous articles on people's deaths, and there's nothing that suggests this should be any different. - SchroCat (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Fall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence#Butt of malmsey. This seems like an unnecessary WP:CFORK of a pre-existing article on this topic. To those commenting we should keep this because we have many articles on the deaths of individuals, I think they missed the nominators point that we already have an article on Plantagenet's death (and the events leading up to it) and that this is a second competing article on the same topic. We don't need two separate articles on the same person's execution.4meter4 (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, only SchroCat has mentioned keeping an article "because we have many articles on the deaths of individuals"—which is not the baseless argument you suggest either—so you've ignored the arguments of several others. The current article is currently ~1390 words; the 'Fall of' article is at ~4440. You would nearly double the target article's size. And while you say "we already have an article on Plantagenet's death"; no, no we do not. It is, as you parenthesise, about "the events leading up to it". Only a few lines are (were, before the nom edit warred a chunk of duplicate material back in) on his actual execution, for the reason that Clarence's execution is not the pertinent academic topic; his fall, and what it teaches historians about 15th-century bastard feudal political relations, is. The current article, on the other hand, examines the historical and cultural impact of a 'butt of malmsey'. The in-depth discussion about Shakespeare would be absolutely WP:UNDUE in the 'Fall of' article, as is historical detail on tunnage and poundage, poems, Dickens views. Are you really suggesting that discussions vis a vis the history and technical specs of an ancient unit of measurement would be relevant to the 'Fall of' article? Or Lermontov's comparison to a Russian dragoon. Per WP:CFORK, spinoff articles become necessary ... when the expansion of a section creates an undue weight problem for the article, which is precisely the situation here. It's a notable standalone subtopic and by no no stretch f the imagination can it be termed "a second competing article on the same topic" as anything else on the project. Serial (speculates here) 10:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A better defined lead differentiating this article's scope from the other might sway my opinion, but as of now I disagree that this isn't a competing article. I also think most of the content would not be WP:UNDUE in the other article which I think is implied by my merge vote. A few details probably would need to be trimmed (or better yet preserved in a notes section), but they are rather esoteric and not necessarily essential for an encyclopedia. Please keep your comments non-personal by avoiding "you" statements. It comes off as hostile. I'm not planning on responding further unless some actual work is done on this article in article space to change my perception of the content area.4meter4 (talk) 16:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aix, Indiana

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

Rather a "got nuthin" case: searching produced no helpful county history, and other hits where chance juxtapositions of "Indiana" and one of the several French cities with "Aix" as part of the name. As to the uncited claim, the church closed in 2022 and stands in complete isolation; the vet is actually down the road south a ways and advertises itself as being in Rensselaer. So I'm not finding any testimony to this spot other than a post office. Mangoe (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is stated in newspapers as a location, e.g. [10][11]. This is technically a source on the town's name, though... not particularly useful. Likewise with this. Given the attestations of this as a place I'd prefer a redirect to Union Township, Jasper County, Indiana#Unincorporated towns. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It gets a tantalizing contextless mention in volume 2 of Hamilton's and Darroch's A standard history of Jasper and Newton counties, Indiana (A standard history of Jasper and Newton counties, Indiana at the Internet Archive). There is no clue from that what it is. The 19th century railway and shipping guides list Rensselaer as the nearest station, so it's not a railway station. But an 1896 USPS directory confirms Baker's statement that this was a post office. I ignored the AuthorHouse book. But Wood 1976, pp. 21–22 harvnb error: no target: CITEREFWood1976 (help) gives Aix it's own section, tracing what it calls the "tiny hamlet of Aix" to land records of Thomas Monnett in 1873–1875, and that seems to be a fairly decent source; better than what we often get. Uncle G (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Wood, Mary Elizabeth (1976). "Aix". French Imprint on the Heart of America: Historical Vignettes of 110 French-related Localities in Indiana and the Ohio Valley. Unigraphic.

The Kristin Brooks Hope Center

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

Can't find SIGCOV Jay Cubby 17:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Psychology. Jay Cubby 17:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Courtesy ping to Bearian @Bearian, who preferred I nominate this for deletion after Christmas, though I'm quite sure why prodding or XfDing a suicide crisis center on the holidays would be as controversial as he describes. Jay Cubby 17:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Self harm peaks in December and early January. Bearian (talk) 18:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, it's after Christmas and early January. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is some coverage and folks can discuss if that's significant or not. Bearian (talk) 18:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 16:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Muhydeen Okunlola Kayode

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

Subject fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Sources are either paid puff and advertorials, or they're talking about MOK Foundation directly (of course, promotionally) and not about him directly. Cannot find sufficient sources that satisfy reliability and independence and provide substantial coverage. The assessment below gives more details.

Source assessment table
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://thenationonlineng.net/muhydeen-kayode-i-am-driven-by-strong-belief-to-give-back/	Interview, fails WP:INDEPENDENCE.	Ditto		✘ No
https://punchng.com/foundation-advocates-govt-private-sector-partnership-on-food-production/	“My current priorities lie in the realm of philanthropy..., Okunlola insisted that grassroots philanthropy, voluntary contributions...		About the foundation and not the subject directly.	✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/entrepreneur-seeks-collaboration-between-govt-private-philanthropy-to-address-poverty/	This call was made by Muyideen Okunlola Kayode..., etc	Fails WP:INDEPENDENT already.	Ditto	✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2023/12/empowerment-the-inspiring-journey-of-muideen-okunlola-kayode/	~ Highly and ridiculously promotional; Muideen Okunlola (MOK) is a remarkable individual whose profound humility and selflessness are deeply rooted in his upbringing., In conclusion, Muhydeen Kayode Okunlola’s journey from humble beginnings to becoming a beacon of hope and progress...	Ditto		✘ No
https://thenationonlineng.net/muhydeen-kayodes-benevolence-continues-in-2024/	~ Alhaji Muhydeen Okunlola Kayode stands as a shining example of what can be achieved through dedication, hard work, and a commitment..., etc.	~ No evidence of where details about his "personal life" for that matter was gotten from.		~ Partial
https://thenationonlineng.net/house-developers-facing-challenges-in-abuja/#google_vignette		Lacks a proper byline.		✘ No
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2024/12/government-must-collaborate-with-private-philanthropists-to-effectively-tackle-poverty-amongnigerians-muyideen-okunlola/	Kayode emphasized the critical role of the media in bridging these gaps...	Ditto		✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/mok-foundation-procures-tractor-to-assist-farmers-in-offa-oyun-lgas/		Lacks a proper byline.	About MOK Foundation and not the subject.	✘ No
https://tribuneonlineng.com/kwara-ngo-installs-solar-powered-street-lights-in-offa-community-market/			About MOK Foundation and not the subject.	✘ No
https://von.gov.ng/foundation-donates-cash-to-persons-with-disability-in-kwara/			About MOK Foundation and not the subject.	✘ No
https://leadership.ng/foundation-supports-plwds-in-kwara/			About MOK Foundation and not the subject.	✘ No
https://thepapers.ng/2024/01/20/muhydeen-kayode-a-beacon-of-leadership-entrepreneurship-philanthropy/	Regurgitation of https://thenationonlineng.net/muhydeen-kayodes-benevolence-continues-in-2024/			? Unknown
https://tribuneonlineng.com/foundation-presents-waec-scholarships-to-130-kwara-indigent-students/				✘ No
https://leadership.ng/foundation-awards-scholarships-to-30-students-in-kwara/				✘ No
https://thenationonlineng.net/ancopss-hails-group-for-buying-jamb-forms-for-indigent-students/#google_vignette				✘ No
https://pmnewsnigeria.com/2019/04/20/greatness-the-story-of-a-nigeria-born-change-maker/	Highly and ridiculously promotional. FWIW, where were details this personal gotten from?			✘ 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) 16:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very much non-notable individual, the chart above explains it pretty well. PROMO, easily. Oaktree b (talk) 17:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fail WP:GNG the sources are puffy and aren't reliable both contents are promotional and the image source on wikicommon is suspicious like a proxy account for paid edits and going by the edit history of the duo accounts.Having affiliation with notable organisation(s) doesn't equate to automatic notability and besides both the subjects aren't notable enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Royalesignature (talk • contribs) 12:01, 5 February 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:10, 27 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, CR (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Piano Sketches

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NALBUM. Draftification and BLAR were contested, hence why I'm here now. Proposing redirect to Birdy (singer), the singer for the album. Currently the only sources are to Apple Music and Discogs and there does not appear to be enough based on a WP:BEFORE search to meet album notability guidelines. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and England. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Well, this review of the album from the Philippines, [12], helps, but one isn't enough. Oaktree b (talk) 15:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough coverage for an article, a few more critical reviews in RS would help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [13][14][15][16][17] Due to these reviews, this EP is worth to be kept. Also, there's no harm thing to keep this article separate.

Camilasdandelions (talk) 16:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source 2 is probably the best. Rest are blogs or review sites. Source 2 is a student magazine from what I read, I'd still like to see better sources before changing my !vote. Oaktree b (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second source – Based on the about us section of the first reference, that's a student blog, and would not contribute to notability.
Third – Wordpress blog of a student, no oversight or clarity of what makes them a subject matter expert of any kind
Fourth – It's unclear what would make this a valid source to contribute to notability. Their FAQ page provides no information and there's no about us page to view either
Fifth – The content at WP:RATEYOURMUSIC is user-generated and is considered a generally unreliable deprecated source which should not be used
Sixth – WP:ALLMUSIC sources do not contribute to notability, and there's not even any reviews at this source to make said argument with

Unfortunately, none of these sources contribute to establishing notability at all. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep: per those review above.~~ Anktjha (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC) sock Girth Summit _(blether) 12:24, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Anktjha to make them aware of the breakdown of sources above. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt they read the discussion at all. They were the sock of a banned user, commenting at random AfD discussions willy-nilly in an attempt to mask their contribution to the one they actually cared about. The closer should disregard this comment. Girth Summit _(blether) 12:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I figured something similar was the case, but I didn't want to make any accusations :P thanks! Hey man im josh (talk) 16:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 15:56, 3 February 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]
Just to note, this comment, "no expectation of lasting effects," is essentially a speculative comment since we don't know whether or not that will be the case. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're right. Noted. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We'd need a crystal ball to justify notability today. If any lasting effects or other grounds for notability come to light in the future, the article can always be recreated. In other words, usual caveats apply. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:39, 24 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]
Delete – No significant or in-depth coverage found that would demonstrate the event's notability, even if tragic. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or at least Draftify. How can you claim no lasting impact when the investigation hasn't been completed? Surely it's too soon to claim that. Plenty of WP:GNG coverage to date. Another article appeared today about maintenance issues. The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify as per User:The-Pope, it still has some coverage even if minor. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 15:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

draftify as twenty days is just not long enough to determine whether this accident is going to satisfy our notability standards. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Drafity or keep until a bit after it occurred or when the investigation is finished. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deserves a mention in 2025 in Australia though. Borgenland (talk) 04:30, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "No lasting impact"? Isn't it too soon to say that? Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 12:23, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I can here to see what is going on in the investigation. Telecine Guy (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It has some sources that could sustain the coverage so I don’t think this will be deleted, but I neither think it’s having an article like it is right now. Protoeus (talk) 21:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)`[reply]
KEEP! Please wait more'n two weeks before deciding whether something has lasting coverage. Jay Cubby 03:03, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A valid aviation incident that involves life lost. The reports are said to be out in March. So, it will have its further development.

Lowyat Slyder (talk) 05:36, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The reports are said to be out in March – and that will no doubt get at least passing mentions in local news – but unless you have a crystal ball there's no way of knowing if there will be any significant or in-depth coverage, or if the conclusions of the investigation will lead to any lasting effects. If they do, the article can always be recreated. In the meantime, notability criteria are not met, so we should delete (or draftify). Rosbif73 (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 15:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Draftify I think this should be drafted, and kefp, but have some more info added, as the investigations go across. This does not deserve to be deleted due to "low coverage" A plane accident is a plane accident, no matter how big or small. It is supposed to be in the news. Shaneapickle (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A plane accident is a plane accident, no matter how big or small – Indeed, but that doesn't necessarily make it notable as far as Wikipedia is concerned. To quote the event notability criteria, "Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, [...]) – whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time – are usually not notable".

It is supposed to be in the news – Indeed, but Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Rosbif73 (talk) 13:50, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Stating so soon that this event won't receive lasting coverage is just crystalballing. Cortador (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how WP:CRYSTALBALL works. The coverage has to come first, then the article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, if more info comes out we should keep the article but if nothing else happens about it I think it can be deleted. User:Chorchapu (talk|edits|commons|wiktionary|simple english) 17:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that should be wiped 173.245.254.78 (talk) 14:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International reputation management

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

Lack of notability. Two of the sources are not about this comany; the third seems to be a dead link. A search for 'International Reputation Management' threw up nothing to establish notability, altho I did find a list of the top ten companies in this field...which did not include the subject of this article. TheLongTone (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect, the links are active. The company is suitable for inclusion due to its numerous references in mainstream newspapers. It has 175 mentions in U.S. papers - Here is a link referencing them https://www.newspapers.com/search/results/?keyword=%22international+reputation+management%22 NYMediaGuy (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brief mentions are not what's required, we need stories about the company, not PR items or staff interviews. Oaktree b (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these mentions appear to be reprints of the same Washington Post story. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. However, I respectfully disagree with your assessment that the company lacks notability. The notability guideline states that a topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, not merely "brief mentions."

Multiple well-established, independent news organizations have written about the company. These sources meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliability and independence. A company is considered notable if it has "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the company itself." The company in question has been extensively covered by reputable media.

I strongly believe that outright deletion is unwarranted given the clear, independent coverage the company has received. NYMediaGuy (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These are brief mentions or interviews that the subject above mentions. None of these are acceptable. I can only find name drops, nothing we can use for sourcing... Many PR items, which don't show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my response below. NYMediaGuy (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This company is very similar - https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Reputation.com NYMediaGuy (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Internet. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It looks like the article creator, User:NYMediaGuy, created an article about founder Nino Kader a few years ago, which was deleted: [18]. @NYMediaGuy: can you disclose your relationship with this company, if you have one? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This company has been quoted and referenced in hundreds of mainstream press publications. Here are a 10 more links to international sources which illustrate notability.

1. https://adage.com/article/garfield-the-blog/online-gaming/119852

2. https://www.theage.com.au/technology/reputation-managers-step-in-against-internet-thugs-20080130-1p4w.html

3. https://harvardpolitics.com/golden-veils/

4. https://www.la-croix.com/Culture/Nouvelles-technologies/Plusieurs-pays-cherchent-des-ripostes-aux-cyber-diffamations-_NG_-2008-02-03-668003

5. https://www.nbcnews.com/id/wbna19544884

6. https://www.oe24.at/digital/kampf-dem-online-mobbing/245793

7. https://www.lapresse.ca/affaires/techno/internet/200801/30/01-8539-restaurer-une-image-ternie-sur-le-web.php

8. https://www.welt.de/welt_print/article1662141/Muellmaenner-im-Internet.html

9. https://wired.jp/2009/02/18/%E3%80%8Egoogle%E3%80%8F%E6%A4%9C%E7%B4%A2%E7%B5%90%E6%9E%9C%E3%81%AF%E5%B1%A5%E6%AD%B4%E6%9B%B8%EF%BC%9A%E6%B1%9A%E7%82%B9%E3%82%92%E6%B6%88%E3%81%97%E3%80%81%E5%8D%B0%E8%B1%A1%E3%82%92%E8%89%AF/

10. https://zuender.zeit.de/2007/41/online-reputation-management NYMediaGuy (talk) 09:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy. While the concept of this work is probably notable, I'm not sure any particular company is notable, based on lack of secondary sources. One problem I see is the confusing layout (no lead) and use of the definite article ("The company", rather than 'A company'.) Another is a lack of analysis; quoting or at least citing a secondary source would solve this issue. Finally, we need to see more than name dropping of an idea, person, or company. This isn't the author's fault, it's the annoying habit today of mainstream media to check off a list of ideas and then ... not get to a point. So userfication would allow the author to fine-tune the page, which isn't a bad idea. If it's a concept, that would be easy. If it's a company, it's harder, but not impossible. Bearian (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While notability is subjective to some extent, Wikipedia’s guidelines emphasize significant coverage in independent sources as a key determinant.

Given the range of reputable sources cited I think this article should remain and not be deleted. Blackandyellow412 (talk) 12:00, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of these sources, even the added sources, contain in-depth coverage to meet WP:CORPDEPTH. "International Reputation Management" is just a company name, not a concept. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is ridiculous. The company is indeed notable having been mentioned and discussed in numerous sources which have been supplied.

The initial claim that "Lack of notability. Two of the sources are not about this comany; the third seems to be a dead link." are not factually correct - they all mention the company and in fact the Washington Post highlighted the company in the cover photo.

If anything the entry needs to be improved and not deleted. NYMediaGuy (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 15:54, 3 February 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]

The two full-ride scholarships are well known in high school + gifted ed circles because there aren't any others like it; I'll look again for an external review of what exists -- it's mostly catalogs with limited discussion. There does seem to be less written about programs and scholarships for younger children. Summer camps get more visibility; and I think the founder came out of CTY, added a bit of context there. – SJ + 19:51, 27 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Bearian's arguments. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 00:00, 31 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, CR (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Karen S. Evans

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

Not every government official, even political appointees, is inherently notable. Evans is one of those. Coverage is WP:ROUTINE in the context of her official or professional duties, not about Evans as a notable person. There is not WP:SIGCOV to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBIO. Separately, article appears to have been created by a PR firm without WP:DISCLOSEPAY. Longhornsg (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Technology, and United States of America. Longhornsg (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Who??? And she served Who??? This reads like a low-level political appointee for multiple Republican Party administrations. Honorary doctorates are not the same as having a doctoral degree. If she served multiple administrations, even as a press secretary, we would know who she was. — Maile (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NPOL#1 and #2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I know nothing about her but she was CIO of the US. Wikipedia has numerous men's articles with far lesser accomplishments. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
She was CIO, not even that senior an official, of the U.S. Department of Energy, not the U.S. While acknowledging that WP:SYSTEMICBIAS exists here on Wikipedia, we go by the guidelines of WP:GNG, not WP:RGW. Longhornsg (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for now. My first impression on skimming the article is that this is an important, if minor administrator in multiple administrations; the posts named seem to involve a considerable degree of authority, even if they didn't give rise to much notoriety. The fact that she had to have Senate confirmation at least once should weigh heavily in favour of keeping this. While there could stand to be better sources, there is a background sketch from the New York Times in 2003, and she was still important enough to be mentioned and pictured with other officials nearly two decades later. I expect more reliable news sources can be found, although some of the others already cited are probably adequate.

I looked for the guidelines "NPOL #1 and 2" and could not figure out what these referred to, unless they are obsolete former guidelines, in which case they carry no weight in this discussion. I'm not sure this person should even be classified as a "politician", as she doesn't seem to have stood for elected office; this is an administrator. The other arguments made seem to be along the lines of "why should somebody I've never heard of have an article?", which is not a valid reason for deletion, and "having an honorary degree doesn't make someone notable", which is a straw man argument, since nobody claimed that it was evidence of notability; not every fact mentioned in an article has to establish notability. Since the arguments being made for deletion look rather bogus, I'm going with my impression as to what's actually in the article, which is that the person meets our minimum standard for notability. P Aculeius (talk) 11:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a low level administrator. The position of Administrator for the Office of Electronic Government and Information Technology is the former name of the Federal Chief Information Officer of the United States. Most of the holders of that title have WP articles. I think she could be considered to have held national office, and thus meet WP:NPOL. Honorary doctorates are actually an honor - there are far fewer holders of honorary doctorates than PhDs. She is also an elected Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration (United States): "Election to the National Academy is considered to be one of the highest honors by those engaged in the study or practice of public administration." The article could do with some editing and reordering of positions. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd consider that her election as a Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration would meet WP:NACADEMIC#3 as a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Former head of a national role, clearly meets WP:NPOL. Contributor892z (talk) 07:37, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Sung-keon

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

I couldn't find any decent sources in English during my WP:BEFORE searches, and the two references [19] and [20] in the corresponding kowiki article 404ed and they didn't seem to be available on the Wayback Machine either. As it stands, the article does not meet WP:SPORTBASIC, though I acknowledge that there may be better sources in Korean language with WP:SIGCOV, in which case I would happily withdraw my nomination. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and South Korea. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 200 K League games is an almost guaranteed notability. However there is an even more notable sports figure also named 김성근. I hope that a Korean speaker/reader contributes here. Geschichte (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is what I thought, Geschichte, but it proved tremendously difficult to find sources. It would be great if a Korean linguist was able to contribute. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 17:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: added a source. Most likely meets WP:SIGCOV but any Korean speakers here would help a lot with the case. Contributor892z (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly notable as pointed out above, 250+ games in top league in Korea. Did you search for Korean sources? WP:COMMONSENSE applies. Giant Snowman 21:03, 4 February 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 [21], [22], and [23] 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]

Weak keep - the Forbes and Business Insider, along with the trade publications, are probably enough. Bearian (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep: Antoine Rostand fulfills the notability criteria under WP:NBIO due to his prominent role in the energy sector and significant coverage in reliable sources. Articles such as Forbes, DotCom Magazine, and mentions in industry-specific trade publications demonstrate his influence and recognition in the field. His leadership at Kayrros and association with global organizations like the World Economic Forum further establish his credibility and notability. Additionally, the existence of the article in multiple languages indicates international interest, reinforcing his significance.--Abhey City (talk) 15:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jfire (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to the company as noted. This is the third time in as many years it's come up in AfD, and still nothing substantial has shown up. Not convinced the sources given show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It might be worthwhile to undelete the last version of the previous version of the old article (the one that was deleted as a result of the second AfD) so that the sources in that article could be added to the current version. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:27, 27 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, CR (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kayrros. Per nom, the subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO as the sources are largely either WP:PRIMARY or WP:ROUTINE. There's not enough WP:SIGCOV to establish notability in this case.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binaytara Foundation Cancer Center

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

Article doesn't meet criteria for organization. Most of the references are about same news of 200 bed expansion. No coverage to describe its notability in neutral and reliable source . Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Medicine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The argument that "most references are about the same news of a 200-bed expansion" is not valid for an AFD or deletion. References are not exclusively for the title but for supporting the article's content. The article meets the criteria outlined in WP:ORG and satisfies the WP:GNG through secondary, reliable sources. This hospital operates as a non-profit, charity-based organization, focusing on cancer treatment and contributing significantly to society. It clearly meets WP:N guidelines.

(Note: This appears to be a targeted edit. If a user selects random articles for review, it is statistically improbable for the same contributor to repeatedly target multiple articles in a short time span (e.g., minutes or hours). In this case, the contributor initially applied a G11 tag, which was rejected, and immediately escalated to an AFD. Such actions indicate a lack of adherence to Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. The article has existed for over six months, undergone multiple revisions by various editors, and includes well-sourced, verifiable content. This suggests that the contributor should thoroughly review policies and article sources before taking further actions. The behavior demonstrates intent to enforce personal judgment rather than following established Wikipedia policies.)

Reply to editor:I’d like to clarify that my nomination of the article for deletion was not personal in any way. My concerns about the article stemmed solely from its content and adherence to Wikipedia's notability guidelines for organizations. When I first came across the article, I noticed that it did not appear to meet the criteria for inclusion, and many of the sources cited were repetitive and primarily in Nepali media. This led me to question whether the article met Wikipedia's standards of significant coverage by independent, reliable sources.

I want to emphasize that my intention was never to target you or your contributions. I noticed from your edit history that you have significant experience writing articles, particularly about films, actors, and related topics, which made me curious about your interest in this specific subject. When I saw the draft of the Binay Shah article (who appears to be related to this organization) and its eventual publication, I decided to monitor these articles to ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies.

I hope you understand that my actions were motivated by a commitment to maintaining Wikipedia’s standards, not by any personal issue. If you feel strongly about the article's inclusion, I encourage you to participate in the deletion discussion and present evidence of notability with reliable, independent sources. The platform is open for all editors to contribute their views, and the decision will ultimately reflect a consensus.

I hope this clears up any misunderstanding. Let’s focus on constructive discussions to ensure Wikipedia remains a reliable and impartial resource.

Best regards,Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:46, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LLLC defensive driving

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

Fails WP:GNG TheLongTone (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 🪐Kepler-1229b | talk | contribs🪐 19:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Promotional in tone. Ajf773 (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. LarryL33k (Contribz) 03:53, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as promo. -Samoht27 (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tshela Airport

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

The article itself makes a very strong argument for the lack of notability of this airstrip. TheLongTone (talk) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully contest the proposed deletion of the Tshela Airport (FZAH) article. While I understand concerns about notability, this article is actually more verifiable than many other Congolese airport entries. I will try to make this argument with the following points:

1. Finding reliable data on airports in the DRC is extremely difficult. However, many airstrips remain listed in aviation databases despite being long abandoned.

2. Many other Congolese airports lack verification, yet they remain on Wikipedia - for example Inkisi Airport, FZAS, where at the given coordinates no trace of an airport can be seen.

3. Unlike those articles, Tshela Airport’s existence is historically verified. A 1967 U.S. Defense Mapping Agency map confirms its location, making this article more reliable than entries for airports that no longer exist at their listed coordinates.

4. The (still active!) ICAO-code FZAH underlines its former importance. Even if abandoned, its past role and the exact location could help research about the history of Tshela or infrastructure in the Bas-Congo region.

Deleting this article would remove one of the few sources accurately documenting the airport. Instead, a note can clarify that the airport is no longer operational.

I believe Tshela Airport deserves to remain on Wikipedia as a documented piece of history rather than be removed due to a lack of recent activity.

Thank you for considering this appeal. Ianp727 (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Shellwood (talk) 16:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a WP:BEFORE search shows no significant coverage in reliable sources, which is the key criterion in WP:GNG. The only mentions are in database sites all repeating the same incorrect coordinates. The claim in the article that the coordinates from a 1967 map correspond to traces of a runway in current imagery is unsourced and would appear to be original research. Even if this claim could be verified in a reliable source, verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. Rosbif73 (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand why my specific article is subjected to those enormously strict standards. If this would generally be the case - fine. However, the majority of articles about small airfields in the DRC contain even less information, featuring even fewer sources. You can verify this by checking the List of airports in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Dozens of articles are based on map data - ironically some even on OpenStreetMap data which I personally added years ago, as I am quite familiar with the DRC. I will make a last attempt, stating that...

...notability shouldn't depend on whether an airport is still in use. Many historical airports in the U.S. and Europe have Wikipedia articles.

...Wikipedia has dozens of articles on airstrips in the DRC with no historical verification.

...The Congo deserves better documentation. If historical infrastructure is erased from Wikipedia, it only reinforces the lack of accessible information on the country.

I understand the arguments for deletion of my article. However, there is no coherence in their application. If the article I wrote is actually removed, several other would need to go, too - which I do not want. An airport featured in the official ICAO-database should be eligible for a Wikipedia article. Ianp727 (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Other articles about comparable airstrips (especially those in the "Airports with unverified coordinates" section of the list you mentioned) probably do not meet the notability criteria either, in which case they should be deleted too. Rosbif73 (talk) 08:08, 4 February 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]
Keep: Looks like she passes Wp:NACTOR, multiple significant roles in notable films. No objection for redirect. Zuck28 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm not seeing evidence that she passes WP:NACTOR. The article says "she played a parallel lead" in Agar Tum Saath Ho, but she appears at the end of the cast list in that article. She's not listed at all in The Family Man or in Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi. I'm not sure how significant her role is in Sunflower - it's not mentioned in the plot summaries, though they may not be accurate. But even if it is a significant role, that would still be only one, not multiple. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Her role in several distinguished films substantiates her qualifications as an actress. But this article needs more substantial coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 10:31, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lucia Laura Sangenito

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

Not every supercentenarian needs an article. Wikipedia is not the "Guinness Book of World Records." Suggest deleting or redirecting to List of Italian supercentenarians. Junbeesh (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Italy. Junbeesh (talk) 11:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Anktjha (talk) 12:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, sole claims to notability is her age. Wikishovel (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notability whicu has been firmly established by the sources me and the other keep editor have added Wwew345t (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have added a couple of short news items as sources, which should go some way to establish her notability with respect to Wikipedia, and I've moved the grg-supercentenarians.org links - which I would put more in the class of database / stats sites, like Soccerway is to football - to be external links. On the wider, non-Wikipedia, meaning of "notability" I'd say, actually, that to be the oldest living person in a country is not a far-fetched claim to notability. I might do a more focused search against Italian sources to see if there are additional ones that might flesh out the biographical stub a little more. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I found a couple of english that help out as well Wwew345t (talk) 14:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there is almost nothing in this article however the article was deleted immediately after it was created then put unto afd ID say give the creator some time to build the article up before we rush it into afd. after I added a couple sources I believe the subject now passes GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwew345t (talk • contribs) 13:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that not every supercentenarian is notable enough to have an article but as this one is the oldest living person in Italy i feel like we should give people some time to flesh out the article with more sources before suggesting there arent enough to establish notability Wwew345t (talk) 13:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a ip user has been deleting content in the page most likley to make easier to delete it Wwew345t (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have now added another source that makes the article better https://longeviquest.com/2024/06/visiting-italys-second-oldest-resident-113-year-old-lucia-laura-sangenito/ it goes into her life story in great detail so it should help flesh out the article Wwew345t (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CR (talk) 14:22, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as suggested. Of course a 'supercentarian' will genereate a certain amount of passing press coverage. This is not the kind of lasting covererage necessary to establish notability.TheLongTone (talk) 15:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Its not just "passing coverage" she has bios on both the gerntolgy research group and Longeviquest the two biggest sources when it comes to supercentenarians the sources establish notability Wwew345t (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest doing a WP:BEFORE and count the amount of sources that have covered her Wwew345t (talk) 16:17, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have also added some sources and info to the article. There is coverage over time (I've so far found some from 2018), and in national newspapers as well as regional and local. She meets WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would also note that the editor Anktjha (1st !vote above) has been identified as a sock and blocked - their !votes on other AfDs have been struck through. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. -Sunny365days (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Salomea Schweppenhäuser

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

This person is not notable as such, only as a distant relative of the British royal family (WP:NOTINHERITED). Marcelus (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Marcelus (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable by any stretch of the imagination.TheLongTone (talk) 15:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Germany. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to her husband's article or delete, no evidence of notability. —Kusma (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Saeed Iravani

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

WP:BIO1E and WP:NOTNEWS. In all other coverage he's basically just a spokesman. This is Muskcruft. Golikom (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He serves as Iran's representative to the United Nations. Would you consider Gilad Erdan to be non-notable? Barseghian Lilia (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No I wouldn't. but that's Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFF. Unlike Erdan there are no sources I can find where Iravani not just referred to as making announcements/statements until the pop of stuff about meeting Musk Golikom (talk) 19:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far as right now goes, he's a clear WP:BLP1E. SportingFlyer T·C 03:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ambassadors of nations with populations over 1 million should have an article. Iran has a population of 86,000,000 and the article is about their rep at the UN.Arbeiten8 (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how it works though - ambassadors typically don't pass GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:30, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shooting down of F-16 in Nakučan

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

Another minor incident, not a major action. We do not have an article on every aircraft shot down. Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete individual aircraft downings in a conflict are incredibly rarely notable. There are some circumstances that would make them notable (they were carrying the PM, the first downing of the stealth fighter) but this certainly isn't one of them. It's a routine plane shot down during an active conflict. Canterbury Tail talk 15:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Yugoslavia. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No lasting effects of the downing, no changes to operational orders, nothing of a lasting consequence. Could be a brief mention in an article about the war. Oaktree b (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. Another unnecessary fork from the air combat section of NATO bombing of Yugoslavia. Mztourist (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasions outlined above

Ikmal Amry

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

Sources presented for this actor do not show that they meet WP:NACTOR. Thie foreign language Wikipedia article is similar to this and with just about three sources. Before search did not show anything beyond trivial mentions in what look like gossip blogs. Mekomo (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and Malaysia. Mekomo (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are multiple source about Ikmal involvement in Malaysian cinema. He already appear in Indonesia TV, thats why i know him and also from Soloz: Game of Life Ryan Nambou (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Soloz:_Game_of_Life#Cast_and_characters: and undo the redirect once other significant roles can be added. Not opposed to Keep if other users think he meets WP:NACTOR -Mushy Yank. 17:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dobot Robotics

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

Sources in the article do not show that this company meets WP:NCORP. A before search presented press releases which are not RS. Mekomo (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Technology, and China. Mekomo (talk) 13:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Failed the in-depth coverage needed in a page for a corporation. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The entry content and sources have been updated.Iuliusnanus (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahana

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

Withdraw nomination (see below). I struggled to find sources with significant coverage during my WP:BEFORE searches, and those in the related articles in other languages did not seem especially helpful. I therefore submit that notability is not established, though I'd be happy to withdraw my nomination if suitable sources, maybe in not in English, can be found and added to the article. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. SunloungerFrog (talk) 13:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It should be saved as the person is really notable and famous. The person SunloungerFrog did not dig well to find sources. --Jazzbanditto (talk) 13:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SunloungerFrog ? Jazzbanditto (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SunloungerFrog why to delete a honorable and trusted person? Jazzbanditto (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, if the article can be properly sourced and referenced, I would be happy to withdraw my nomination. I just couldn't find any reliable sources with significant coverage. If you can, that's brilliant! Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the person is famous and will have more sources than now, just wait a little bit fellows. Jazzbanditto (talk) 14:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If you check the first two notable films of he filmography, she has lead roles in them but the sources mention her as "Agana" https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=bNNQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=mxMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3363%2C2414868 l https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=aNhOAAAAIBAJ&sjid=zRMEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4368%2C464823 So improve and rename? -Mushy Yank. 19:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Clearly pass WP:ENT, The subject has appeared in more than three films. Baqi:) (talk) 08:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - thank you Mushy Yank for finding those sources. I've done the name change in the article and will do a page move once AfD is closed. It would be nice to have more sources with more significant coverage but these will suffice for the time being. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 09:46, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Binay Shah

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

Sources are not neutral, insufficient coverage, promotional tone. Rahmatula786 (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Nepal. Shellwood (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The user initially tagged this article with G11, citing the following reasons: "Bone marrow Transplant centre in Nepal was established in a government hospital (CIVIL) by the Government of Nepal. The editor is trying to promote the individual with misinformation that is not supported by neutral sources. Contributions and career sections are filled with such information." After the G11 tag was rejected, the user immediately took the article to AFD, claiming: "Sources are not neutral, insufficient coverage, promotional tone." These two actions reflect inconsistent reasoning and suggest an attempt to misuse Wikipedia's tools.

Supportive evidence:

The statement about the Bone Marrow Transplant center does not claim it was established by Dr. Binaya Shah. The original sentence in the article states: "Dr. Shah played a pivotal role in establishing Nepal's first Bone Marrow Transplant (BMT) center, which was set up at the Civil Service Hospital................" This is not original research and is clearly supported by the provided reference (reference link which is already given in article - https://www.khasokhas.com/2683#gsc.tab=0).
The user's actions show immediate and differing approaches without valid reasoning. This behavior strongly indicates targeted action rather than random article review. Random reviews rarely involve the same contributor repeatedly targeting the same article and same contributor different article multiple times within a short duration (minutes or hours), further highlighting this as a deliberate search-and-target action.

The article does not violate WP:GNG or WP:BLP guidelines. It meets notability requirements with adequate sourcing, and the content adheres to Wikipedia’s policies. The user should ensure proper evaluation of sources and policies before taking further actions.Endrabcwizart (talk) 09:35, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 13:07, 3 February 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]

oppose the mendy wax case is notable enough to warrant the article. 212.199.168.193 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 12:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wegan, Indiana

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

Here we have another puzzle. There is no question at all that people called this place "Wegan"; the church still does. But that church and the short-lived post office are the only evidence I can find. The church is now isolated and has been so as far back as I can see; the post office came into being late and lasted only four years, closing earlier than most in the region, which leads me to surmise that the demand wasn't there, and therefore neither was the population. Baker only mentions the post office, and the county history we have is dated before the post office opened, and makes no mention of it nor of anyone named Wegand. I'm inclined to chalk this one up as jsut a post office, but maybe others can do better. Mangoe (talk) 12:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The history of St. Paul's Lutheran Church at Wegan may be traced from February 6, 1854. During that year several families then attending worship services at St. John Evangelical Church discussed the idea of forming a new congregation. Those families had moved and settled in the northern regions of Grassy Fork Township. Pastor Johann Sauer led the group in its efforts to bring about this change. On March 17, 1857 seventeen men signed the constitution to complete the process. The Lutheran congregation at Wegan became the second group to form its own church. Indeed, it was the second to be spawned from the mother (Sauers) in Jackson County.
— Noblitt, Loren W. (1997). A History of Jackson County Churches. Jackson County Historical Society., p. 131
Noblitt then goes on to talk about schooling consolidating in Brownstown in 1966. Bowen's 1904 Biographical Record of Bartholomew and Jackson Counties, Indiana on p.741 mentions "the Wegan church, in Grassy Fork township, southeast of Brownstown, the official center of Jackson county" and on p.728 talks of someone buying land "near the present hamlet of Wegan, in Grassy Fork township". Sad to say, the only other decent-appearing source turned out to say on its cover that it was a work of fiction. Uncle G (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Darrell Cavens

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

Coverage is mostly focused on Zulily, Cavens lacks notability independent of Zulily. Fails WP:GNG. It would be better if we redirect this to Zulily's article. Gheus (talk) 11:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BuyAutoParts.com

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

Non-notable company, coverage in WP:TRADES only. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 11:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Transportation, Websites, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Behappyyar (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anant English School

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

Doesn't meet criteria for schools and has promotional info on top of this. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 11:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hermann Kafka

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

Non-notable merchant. The page is all about his family relationships and what he was like, but there is nothing he accomplished. Being a father of a notable person does not make him notable, similar case like Kafka's sister (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriele Kafka). Redirect to Franz Kafka#Early life could be a reasonable alternative to deletion. FromCzech (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article Franz Kafka says that Franz's relationship with his father Hermann had a great deal of influence on his works. Doesn't that count towards Hermann's notability? JIP | Talk 21:38, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Influence on his work is a reason why Hermann should be part of Franz Kafka's article, but it does not make him a notable person for his standalone article. FromCzech (talk) 06:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Keep inclusion in the Financial Times and the Mercator Institute for China Studies shows that this page is worthy of inclusion on wiki. I find the "routine coverage in industry publications" comment questionable. What is "routine" about the coverage? Why does wiki discriminate against "industry publications"? Shouldn't we be promoting the Category:MEMS factories instead of deleting of one out of four articles in it? After all, if a $90 billion revenue company like TSMC is in the business of MEMS we should promote understanding of MEMS. Stickhandler (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Stickhandler (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (1) it's not our job to promote anything except our mission: in fact, to do so jeopardizes our existence (it's Concern 3 of My Big 4 Concerns of 2025); (2) the sources cited above are primary sources, which paradoxically are not the building blocks of an encyclopedia; (3) we don't discriminate against trade publications, but many of them just print press releases, and we keep a handy list of what sources are good, bad, or ugly. I don't expect every newbie to know all of our rules, but we have resources. Bearian (talk) 11:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist in hopes to get more participation here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete coverage is rather routine and insufficient to meet WP:CORP, and article is bordering on WP:PROMO. LibStar (talk) 22:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete References fail WP:NCORP criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S21Sec

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

Fails per WP NCORP; poor sources about acquisition or money raised. Cinder painter (talk) 09:38, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and Spain. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

COVID-19 commissions

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

The commissions vary significantly, so this article primarily provides an overview (which is currently outdated and incomplete). It would be more effective to present this information by category or in a list format. Dajasj (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Dajasj (talk) 08:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Salem Science Park

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

Too Soon, no reliable sources nor general notability. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Science, and India. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tamil Nadu-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom of Malwa

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

The article frames the "Kingdom of Malwa" as a standalone entity, but it primarily details the Paramara dynasty, which already has a dedicated article. The Paramara rule over Malwa is extensively covered there, making this article redundant. Article citation Sen(1999) refer to the Paramara dynasty, not a distinct "Kingdom of Malwa" separate from the dynasty which contradicting some sources in the article. The infobox lists the kingdom lifespan as 800–1304 and the narrative begins with the Paramaras as Rashtrakuta vassals in 800 and claims independence only in 947. This conflates the dynasty origins with the kingdom founding, misleadingly extending its timeline (see main article Paramara dynasty(948–1305) for better understanding. ) Further specific claims ("...until 948 when it declared its independence under the House of Paramara...") lack direct citations. References like Prasad, History of Mediaeval India and Austin, City of Legends are tertiary sources with broad, non-specific quotes that do not directly support the article detailed chronology (eg. battles, reign dates). Critical events, such as Siyaka II sack of Manyakheta (972) or Bhoja alliance with the Cholas, are unsupported by the cited sources. Claims like Malwa becoming a "province of the Gurjara kingdom" (c. 1150) are oversimplified. The Paramaras faced intermittent subjugation but retained autonomy, which the article misrepresents as direct provincial status. The Paramara dynasty article, as the "Kingdom of Malwa" here is indistinguishable from the dynasty rule. The article fails to meet the criteria for a standalone position. It is better to delete this POV-fork, as it contains original chronological synthesis and duplicates existing coverage. NXcrypto Message 08:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, India, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. NXcrypto Message 08:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with nominator's assessment, the sources cited in the article state that Kingdom of Malwa and Parmara dynasty are the same and only use "Kingdom of Malwa" when referring to the Parmara dynasty, we don't need a duplicate article on the same topic, especially given the issues of synthesis with this article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All kingdoms have seperate articles for dynasties and the respective kingdoms. Specific issues can easily be fixed. You don't delete an entire article simply because it has a couple of issues. The Paramara dynasty ruled many other kingdoms other than Malwa as well. Why not delete the article on the Austrian Empire as an article on the House of Habsburg exists?

PadFoot (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sources do not treat it as distinct from Parmara dynasty. You need to explain why we need a POV fork of the original article. - Ratnahastin (talk) 13:28, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@PadFoot2008 comparison to the Austrian Empire and the House of Habsburg is not apt here. "Kingdom of Malwa" as presented in the article is indistinguishable from the Paramara dynasty rule. The article does not provide evidence of a distinct political or administrative identity for the "Kingdom of Malwa" that would justify its separation from the Paramara dynasty article. NXcrypto Message 13:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, Paramara dynasty is a dynasty. Only stuff related to the dynasty should be present there. There should be a seperate article for the kingdom ruled by them. All kingdoms and their ruling dynasties have seperate articles on Wikipedia. PadFoot (talk) 18:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is a poor approach to arrange Indian dynasties and empires in a manner similar to Chinese history. Well, that's reminds me of JJP(blocked sock), who often provided similar reasoning, as seen here. NXcrypto Message 02:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And why must you think that it is a poor approach? And how in the world does it have anything to do with Chinese history of all things? All histories including that of Europe have seperate articles for kingdoms and dynasties. PadFoot (talk) 04:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no problem in fixing the problems you mentioned above, and would be more than willing to fix any issues concerning the article. PadFoot (talk) 04:41, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I believe its a poor approach as it will only boost-up OR and non-notable POV forked articles, nothing more than this. NXcrypto Message 06:04, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now fixed all the issues raised above. I acknowledge that it was a mistake on my part to add content without proper sourcing, and I apologise to NXcrypto for it, but none of the content was unsourced or OR. They were all summarised from the dynasty article, individual monarch articles and from Sen (1999) mostly. All the issues raised above including duplication and sourcing have been fixed. The chronology has been fixed as well. PadFoot (talk) 05:32, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kingdom of Malwa is not notable on its own and is merely the synonym for the Parmara dynasty. NXcrypto Message 05:46, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You say above that the early members of the dynasty who were vassals didn't rule the Kingdom of Malwa as it was formed in 947–8, and yet here you say that two are synonyms. Additionally, there are numerous branches of Paramara dynasties which existed long after the fall of the kingdom of Malwa. How in the world are they synonymous then? PadFoot (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Above, I pointed out the incorrect dating with this statement:.... infobox lists the kingdom's lifespan as 800–1304, while the narrative begins with the Paramaras as Rashtrakuta vassals in 800 and claims independence only in 947. This conflates the dynasty origins with the kingdom founding, misleadingly extending its timeline (see the main article Paramara dynasty (948–1305) for better understanding).... I was highlighting the mistake in the dating, not making any claims myself. Anyway, you have now corrected the dating. NXcrypto Message 08:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Another fancruft. "Kingdom of Malwa" is redundant as it mirrors the Paramara dynasty page. Sources treat "Kingdom of Malwa" as synonymous with the dynasty rather than an independent political entity and the Paramara dynasty article already covers the subject comprehensively, this article serves no distinct purpose. Needs to BLOWITUP this trash. CelesteQuill (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kayrros

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

Promotional company page with no reliable coverage – not corresponding WP:NCORP. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Environment, and France. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:05, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

InnovaFeed

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

Pure promotion, massive usage of pdfs and primary sources, no reliable third party independent coverage. At least Too Soon. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Science, and France. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Animal, and Technology. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meero

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

Not notable company (startup) with no independent WP NCORP coverage. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and France. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sergio De La Torre

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

No good coverage can be found, not notable person according to the Wikipedia's general notability guideline Taking off shortly (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Actors and filmmakers, Photography, and California. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Maquilapolis. As an associate professor of art, focused on making and curating art rather than on publishing art scholarship, most criteria of WP:PROF appear out of reach to him, leaving only WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. But that would require in-depth coverage of him or his works, published independently. Thus, for instance, this news story about one of his projects doesn't count as independent, because it's in the student newspaper of his university. I also found independently published stories quoting him about the greying of the Mission [24] but they don't have the necessary depth of coverage of him. His film appears notable, though, and there is some discussion in that article of his role in creating it, so I think it would make a good redirect target. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Olatunji Okuku

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

Notability not presented; promotin; possibly paid news placement Taking off shortly (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Nigeria. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - appears to be a WP:COATRACK. Notability of the individual not established. C 679 12:35, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 21:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tripple 44 Football Academy as possible search term. Giant Snowman 21:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stromness Primary School

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

This primary school is not notable for an article. Patre23 (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and United Kingdom. Patre23 (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Schools, including primary schools, should follow WP:NSCHOOL. With that being said, I only found this BBC article. Limmidy (talk) 19:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nkiru Olumide-Ojo

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

Not a single relialbe independnet source to meet WN ANYBIO or GNG. Generally not notable businesswoman/ columnist. Removed some dead or not related links Cinder painter (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and Nigeria. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors and Women. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not entirely agree that the links that have been removed are unrelated. The article's history shows quite a bit was removed before this was posted in AfD. DaffodilOcean (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why were sources removed? Dead links could be rescued using the wayback machine. Also, sources that shows that her books were reviewed by independent outlets were removed before this nomination. I do not have an opinion on the notability of this topic at this time. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 19:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This AfD should be withdrawn so that the sources can be restored. Then resubmit for AfD if needed. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B1t

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

Fails WP:NBIO and WP:GNG. Only sources in article are Navi.gg, ESL, (both of which are not independent of the subject), and HLTV (unreliable per WP:VGRS). A WP:BEFORE search does not find anything of substance either. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Video games, and Ukraine. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 14:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Did you search Ukrainian language sources? The player is Ukrainian, Counter-strike is pretty big there, so I'd be surprised if there's wasn't some level of coverage since he's been on the roster of two-major winning rosters. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not found any. None of the ones over at the uk-wiki appear that they would hold up to our standards for reliability either. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found some sources from isport.ua and ua.tribuna.com, but I am unsure if those count for notability. IgelRM (talk) 08:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the sources seem to have a staff page nor an editorial policy. – Pbrks ^(t·c) 15:01, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Kaiser-e-Hind Fortress

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

So far only cited with WP:NEWSORG. The event does not have enough independent significant coverage to warrant a standalone article. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, History, Military, Pakistan, India, and Punjab. – Garuda ^Talk! 13:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The whole book written on Battle of Kaiser-e-Hind we can add reference from there.

Ahmed, Habib (2015). The battle of Hussainiwala and Qaiser-i-Hind: the 1971 war (1 ed.). Karachi: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-906472-4 PWC786 (talk) 15:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per nom. It seems like a part of another battle, the source given above is not accessible but it definitely does not mention it as a distinct conflict. Mithilanchalputra (Talk) 10:35, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Put Your Hand Inside the Puppet Head

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews which do not establish notability. The secondary sources cited here only discuss the song briefly, and I cannot find any RSes that discuss the song in-depth. The article is sourced okay, but it does not pass WP:GNG, so it should be merged into They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as creator. I noted in the bundle discussion that I think this one has sufficient referencing to meet NSONG and/or GNG. It's close, though, and I doubt there's much to merge, so redirect if there's consensus against notability. --BDD (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 09:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, looks like Merge or Keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but not just from nom's reasoning. The song simply fails WP:NSONG and bears no notability. Eelipe (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to They Might Be Giants – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean They Might Be Giants (album)? --BDD (talk) 17:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it's even more WP:PRECISE. Svartner (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Waab station

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

Redirect to Gold Line (Doha Metro). The only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV I found was this, most of which isn't even specifically about the station in question. JTtheOG (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and Qatar. JTtheOG (talk) 08:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Stations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Station is mentioned on Gulf Times, The Peninsula, and Doha News, certainly enough to meet WP:SIGCOV. Eelipe (talk) 08:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

merge to Gold Line (Doha Metro). There's nothing in this article that couldn't be better presented as part of the rather minimal list within the line article, and this appears to be true for the other stations on the line. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 3 February 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]

Delete per nom. It's a redundant fork. There are only two seasons, so having both seasons only under List of Beyblade X episodes would be the wisest move. Eelipe (talk) 16:48, 26 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) — Note to closing admin: Media Mender (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Merge with Beyblade X season 1 And rename page as simply Beyblade X, just like other programs with several seasons they should just be on one page. OhNoKaren (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Currently at 64 episodes, the episode count is expected to rise beyond 80. For such a series, having these two articles will be reliable in the future. VizDsouz (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:44, 27 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!} 07:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rajib Kro

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

No SIGCOV sources were found, failing GNG, and there are no significant roles in these films, failing WP:FILMMAKER. GrabUp - Talk 08:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Assam. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, appears to fail WP:NACTOR and WP:FILMMAKER -Samoht27 (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Electrum Bitcoin Wallet

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

The sources show that the subject is not yet notable for an article Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency and Companies. Patre23 (talk) 07:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, such an article already exists in the German Wiki. This doesn't mean that the Electrum is notable but at least shows a demand for this. I also wish to translate the article to other languages that I know. The point of the article is to have a more neutral information about the critical software.

Even after 16 years since release of Bitcoin there are not so many of wallets available.

The ideal wallet also should be open source, community driven and cross platform. Current options are:

Bitcoin Core (Qt) which downloads the full blockchain, too complicated for most users.

Cake Wallet which is based on Electron and the Electrum which is fully cross platform. It even available in PlayStore and F-Droid.

The Electrum exist since 2011 and very well known. It introduced many innovations like simplified validation, seed phrases and Lighting. It also a base for the official NameCoin wallet.

It's endorsed on the bitcoin.org https://bitcoin.org/en/wallets/desktop/windows/electrum/

Please clarify why you think this software is not important.

I'll try to add more back links. Stokito (talk) 09:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Stokito (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Keep: Although this article should be rewritten, there is some literature investigating the features and security of Electrum. [25], [26], [27] . Less significant coverage: [28], [29], [30]. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Needs to be significantly rewritten to meet WP:MOS, and needs more sources, but they do exist. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 01:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without actual third-party RS coverage. The book sources may be RSes (Packt is a dubious churn-en-out publisher) but they are only 10- and 11-year-old cites to the notion Electrum is "continuously improving", which would probably require a more recent RS to claim. The rest is non-RSes, primary sources and OR. There's nothing here. Is there any solid third-party RS coverage? Not claims there might tentatively be in the tufure - David Gerard (talk) 09:41, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you can find an RS as an example? I mean, there are not so many books which is probably expected for a software. But else would be good as RS? The first Google page shows many reviews, including a popular CoinMarketCap, ZoneBitcoin etc.

In one video I heard the "Electrum is used for 10% of all Bitcoin transfers" which is a big argument for notability. I didn't found the stats to confirm.

Please note that many users can't find a good and trustworthy sources and starting to use some proprietary wallets with dark patterns. I myself was overwhelmed by amount of them. But also users may found a phishing Electrum clone.

That's why it's so important to have an article about the critical software here.

If there are not enough of recent books that mentions Electrum then this is a not so big reason for deletion of the article as for me. Stokito (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Finding RS in the crypto field is tricky, but is possible, e.g. Business Insider calling it the best desktop wallet, an in depth review from Techradar, an in depth review from Money (Money.com). There's also plenty of RS coverage of the attacks on it: ZDNET 2018 ZDNET 2020 Vice. Then there are various bits of academic research discussing different aspects of it: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]. WP:NSOFTWARE is clearly met. SmartSE (talk) 11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man, It's So Loud in Here

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG. The article is a very short stub that only cites two primary sources. The song did chart, and there are a few RSes that discuss the song (e.g. the ABC); however, none of them have enough coverage for a standalone article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:03, 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!} 23:51, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist. Is there a suitable Redirect target article?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to They Might Be Giants – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(She Was A) Hotel Detective

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

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article mostly cites primary sources such as interviews and does not cite any reliable secondary sources. The article is only briefly covered in RSes (e.g. Pitchfork and this tongue-in-cheek mention by A.V. Club) and does not have enough coverage for an article. This should redirect to They Might Be Giants (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Very strongly oppose: Article is fairly well sourced and I, for one, am tired of the "PRIMARY SOURCES IS BAD!!1!1!" attitude. I think it's common sense to say that the information contained in the sources themselves should dictate credibility, not whether they're primary or secondary. —theMainLogan (t•c) 18:07, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A hopeless stance. Who decides whether "the information contained in the sources themselves dictates credibility"? Geschichte (talk) 09:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to They Might Be Giants – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singdarin

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

I've lived in Singapore for more than ten years. "Singdarin" is not a thing. Clubette (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Clubette (talk) 05:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A quick google scholar search for "Singdarin" comes up with 17 results, and a google search finds only 124 results (with similar results ommited). If Singdarin is a thing, it is safe to assume that the good sources are not in English. Machine translation is pretty useless with this word. Anyone who knows Mandarin, Malay or Tamil might be able to find some better sources.

The sources on this article are also really bad. The word Singdarin is mentioned in almost none of the sources, and when it is, it is used as shorthand for Singaporean Mandarin. Clubspike2 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Denying the existence of Singdarin is no different to denying that Singlish exists. An overwhelming number of Mandarin-speaking Singaporeans use Singdarin in colloquial speech and I find it peculiar that you have not noticed this despite claiming to have lived in Singapore for a decade—which I suppose its possible, if you had mostly just lived among other expats/immigrants and not interacted much with the locals. Many ethnic Chinese Singaporeans are not known to be particularly fluent in Mandarin as compared to their Chinese/Taiwanese counterparts due to their country's multicultural background as well as their huge immersion in English being their main language, which led to the rise of Singdarin. 175.197.10.59 (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's no secret that Singaporeans mix Mandarin and English, but unlike Singlish, I have never ever heard the term "Singdarin". Clubette (talk) 17:24, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm leaning towards this definitely exists, but a few more academic sources would serve this article better. JungleEntity (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ravinder Kumar (wrestler)

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

A non-notable priest of a Temple, It was actually a redirect to Ravinder Singh (wrestler) but it is vandalised by User:Ravinderkumarpriest, see [36]. There is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. The citation Mapping Histories and Kashmiri Pandits are not about this subject as he is a 1994-born and books were published in 2002 and 2001 respectively. The citation 1 is a blogspot website, 2 is a X (Twitter) post and 3 is an official website. Taabii (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Hinduism, India, and Himachal Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 06:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy delete~~: Blatant promotion; qualifies for WP:G11. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the redirect needs to be restored, so I guess I should !vote Redirect. Is there a better way to handle G11-deletable material that overwrites a redirect? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this last night on NPP and was going to come back to it today, after seeing there was a redirect involved when I went to the talk page and ended up on a different article! (Wanted to wait until I had a clearer head!) Redirect the article, per Helpful Raccoon. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 12:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Taabii,

I was planning to make further changes, including adding news and articles to this, but you have requested its removal without giving any time for discussion. This suggests that you are promoting individuals like Repest and Seril Keler on Wikipedia, and encouraging the misuse of such a reputable and growing platform to rank them on the first page of search results. 182.77.60.22 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to log in when editing and commenting. Wikipedia does not promote anyone, see WP:NOTPROMO. Articles created for promotional purposes are not appropriate here, and Wikipedia's criteria of who should have an article are stated at WP:Notability. It is unfortunate that you have the same name as a notable criminal, but this is not a problem that Wikipedia can solve. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i admit my mistakes, but I was about to fix them as soon as possible. However, all of you started commenting one after another, pushing for the page to be deleted." Ravinderkumarpriest (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has little tolerance for promotional editing. It is strongly discouraged for people to write articles about themselves due to the inherent conflict of interest. You should definitely read WP:Autobiography#Creating an article about yourself. If you still want to write an article about yourself, you should create an article in draftspace and submit it for review, making sure it meets WP:Notability and doesn't read like self-promotion. (The vast majority of people do not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria.) I saw you created Draft:Ravinder Kumar Pandit but didn't include any text. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it doesn't make sense for someone who isn't a wrestler to have an article titled Ravinder Kumar (wrestler). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT - I feel sorry for my student who was named Jordan Marsh, but he can't make his own Wikipedia article. Right now this article is a chimera of two different living persons' articles, neither of whom is notable. Bearian (talk) 16:15, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok Thanks 182.77.60.22 (talk) 21:14, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BlackHatWorld

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

I don's see any reliable sources to provide notability. Note that the Yahoo source is from NewMediaWire, which seems to specifically write PR articles. Janhrach (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Technology, Internet, and Websites. Janhrach (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ – BlackHatWorld has a surprising number of hits on google scholar. It is apparently well-known within its field. Most papers only have 30–40 words of usable information, which I don't consider to be significant coverage. However, there are some exceptions. Honor among thieves: A common's analysis of cybercrime economies (cited 32 times, published by the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) has 150–200 words of potentially usable information. Profiling underground merchants based on network behavior (also published by IEEE) has an 86-word blurb explaining what "BlackHat World" is. I also found a conference paper titled Computer-Supported Cooperative Crime that may or may not be significant coverage – I can't access the whole thing. I can keep looking, but so far, I'm leaning towards keep. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 20:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- After taking a more thorough look, I am less convinced that this meets either the general notability guidelines or website-specific notability guidelines. Everything from APWG is peer-reviewed, but both articles from that conference only count as one source. The other scholarly sources either have the same authors (so again count as one source) or only have trivial coverage. I can't access the kernelmag.dailydot.com source, but based on how it's used, it doesn't look like it has significant coverage. The Ungagged source, which I also can't access, probably isn't independent. Coverage by Paris Martineau is insignificant. If ~~both~~ Tech Business News ~~and Search Engine Round Table (aka Barry Schwartz)~~ were reliable sources, then BlackHatWorld would meet notability guidelines. However, I do not believe this to be the case. So, regrettably, I am changing to delete. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 04:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've stricken my comment about Search Engine Roundtable because coverage in this source is not significant. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 23:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This website is known to promote a lot of online scams, and it's been getting worse in recent years according to a 2024 HackerNoon article that I've just added. For the purpose of educating people about the history and reputation of this "scammer's paradise" it might be a good idea to keep the article for now. --Honos582 (talk) 10:08, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- This discussion should be relisted soon. @Honos582: I agree with you that the article is useful. The question we're trying to determine is whether BlackHatWorld is notable according to Wikipedia's definition of notable, which tends to be a higher bar than the ordinary definition of "notable". For an explanation of why these guidelines exist, see this explanation. We don't want to pass along gossip about a topic – we want a balanced overview of the topic. To do this, we need at least two (though preferably three) reliable sources that have significant coverage of the topic and are independent of the subject. All of these criteria must be met by multiple sources.

We have found several independent sources that have significant coverage, but it is my opinion that only two of them are reliable. Here comes a rather lengthy analysis of every source that I can I access that I believe to have arguably significant coverage. I apologize for its length.

In my analysis, every study with Sadia Afroz as a co-author counts as one source because these studies will all have the same bias (and so don't make our understanding of BlackHatWorld more balanced). A lot of these studies are published through the IEEE and claim to be peer-reviewed. Coverage is significant.

A second scholarly source is published by MDPI. This publisher is hit-or-miss. The actual journal is Mathematics. Looking at the journal's stats, it could very well be reliable. At 70 words, coverage is arguably significant.

One source is an opinion piece published in Tech Business News. I can't find a discussion of the source on Wikipedia, but it has the word "blog" in the url. Here is that website's policy on contributions. I don't think this source is reliable for statements of fact. At best, it is a newspaper blog.

Regarding hackernoon, there was a discussion involving hackernoon in 2019. There seemed to be a consensus that hackernoon was not a reliable source.

Regarding the Huffpost source, see this entry on the frequently discussed source index.

Regarding an article in The Tribune, it's hard to be certain this is independent. PrinceTortoise (he/him • poke) 22:59, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 06:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satandisk

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

I can't find coverage outside of forums, even there it seems to be a niche gadget. Jay Cubby 05:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Video games, Technology, and Computing. Jay Cubby 05:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The best ref I can find is a couple of pages about the UltraSatan in Jamie Lendino's 2019 book Faster than Light: The Atari ST and the 16-bit Revolution. There are passing mentions in a couple of European computer magazines in retrocomputing articles, but I didn't see anything else in-depth. Adam Sampson (talk) 10:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So redirect somewhere or delete? IgelRM (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Travel Portland

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

May not pass WP:NCORP, was dubiously created after related Mr. Dude article was AfD'ed, with its content merged into this article. Might be better to merge everything into "Tourism in Portland, Oregon." PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and Oregon. PlotinusEnjoyer (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Advertising. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a refbombed article created specifically as a spin-out of another article at AfD which fails WP:NCORP, specifically the WP:AUD prong (as do a lot of Oregon articles, which is why we have more articles on random businesses in Oregon than any other jurisdiction in the world) but also with regards to significant coverage. The best articles are just local reporting on advertising buys. I agree this could be merged to a specific article on Portland tourism. SportingFlyer T·C 06:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Tourism in Portland, Oregon. Clearly does not meet NCORP on its own, but the coverage of campaigns is suitable for the Tourism article. Sounder Bruce 07:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG and HEY. Not sure why I couldn't be afforded even 24 hours to expand the article, which clearly covers a notable topic and now has 50+ reliable sources. I'm also not sure WP:BEFORE was completed, as searching "Travel Portland" at The Oregonian archives from 1987 to present via the Multnomah County Library yields 168 returns and a search for "Portland Oregon Visitors Association" (the same organization's former name) yields 550 returns. There are additional returns in the library's pre-1987 database. Of course some of these are passing mentions or reports released by the organization, but there's in-depth coverage in Oregon's paper of record spanning decades. There's still more to add, but already the article includes details about history, operations (including leadership, visitor centers and office locations), funding, specific tourism campaigns, and other funded projects. I can at least make sense of the nomination to delete Mr. Dude, but there's obviously sufficient coverage to support this standalone article. I would ask other editors to allow more time for this entry to be expanded and improved. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable, fails WP:NCORP. Created to circumvent consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. Dude. A complete waste of all our volunteer time. Asparagusstar (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (keep or merge) I take it from what Another Believer says that the coverage in The Oregonian meets the WP:NCORP requirement for significant, independent, reliable, and secondary coverage, but another source meeting all four criteria is required, though it needn’t be regional or statewide as is the O. If such coverage exists (whether referenced in the article or not), then keep; otherwise merge to Tourism in Portland, Oregon. Whether a portion of the information comes from an article since deleted by consensus is immaterial, as is any speculation about the motives for creating this article. YBG (talk) 05:06, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

María Figueroa

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

Fails WP:SINGER. His supposed fame began when he was 5 years old and from then on it has not been revealed for years, and clearly fails. doesn't pass GNG. AgusTates (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spanish wiki has several recent references about a failed audition for The X Factor, so she still seems to be a recognised name. And notability is not temporary. PamD 08:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately she, was not admitted. AgusTates (talk) 10:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Othering & Belonging Institute

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

Can't find any sources about it, rather than by it or mentioning some person as being from the institute. Only source in the article is the organization's own website. (Note when searching that it used to be the Haas Institute). Rusalkii (talk) 03:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Disability, Health and fitness, Organizations, Politics, Sexuality and gender, Education, Religion, Economics, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree I searched directly on the campus newspapers and see a few articles about events hosted by it https://www.dailycal.org/news/campus/uc-berkeley-othering-belonging-institute-hosts-1st-democracy-and-belonging-forum/article_e3cf1670-a9aa-545f-ada3-42a28ebd2e78.html. But that doesn't seem important enough to me Earlsofsandwich (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not much secondary coverage of this department beyond UC Berkeley-related sources, doesn't seem to meet GNG criteria. Jordano^5³ 18:59, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UMSL Student Government Association

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:ORG non-commercial organization that does not operate on a national scale or have significant coverage from multiple unrelated sources (many sources are from UMSL or the UMSL student newspaper). The scope of UMSL Student Government Association is limited to the students of UMSL. Similar concerns were brought up in a 2008 AfD discussion but no notable sources were added.

There are also very few of these types of articles on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Category:Student_governments_in_the_United_States). Articles on that list like Florida Student Association and Hawaii State Student Council are intra-state organizations that work for student populations across whole states whereas the UMSL SGA article serves a single school. GrantPeePee (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and Missouri. GrantPeePee (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every school has a student government, and student organization are typically not notable. The whole article is only relevant to members. Reywas92^Talk 15:08, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Borac Hall

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

Hall only seems to lend any notability from the resident basketball club. A Google search only shows sources with passing mentions (the main focus being the club). Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Serbia. Aydo h8^[contribs] 02:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:12, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google searches aren't typically enough of a before search for Serbian articles: for instance, the "correct" name to look up would be "Hala kraj Morave" or "Hala Borca kraj Morave" and not "Borac Hall" and this does bring up coverage like [37] (specifically on the arena), [38] (reconstruction), [39] (discussing new ownership and how it is a famous sports arena), [40] (several mentions), [41] (decent mention). Note I stopped there, more sources almost certainly exist. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As SportingFlyer already mentioned, this article does bring up more searches if you search different terms so definitely worth keeping. ✨Боки✨ 💬 📝 07:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2018 Super 6 Baseball rosters

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

The rosters of this tournament are not notable enough to warrant an article. WP:NSPORT / WP:GNG. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Baseball, and Europe. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Lists of people, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Super 6 Baseball and Softball as an alternative to deletion. C 679 07:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cloudz679. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Salame

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

Declined prod with additional info added up on competing in Summer Universiade. I don't think that is enough to meet WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, Sport of athletics, and Lebanon. LibStar (talk) 00:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, WP:SPORTCRIT is met by the wealth of newspaper sources at [42]. I'll wait for a native speaker to dive in further, but those from Al Anwar seem to indicate the subject was a 1987 national champion which would fulfill WP:NATH as well. --Habst (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · View on Wikipedia