Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 February 8

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      February 10 (Mon)      February 9 (Sun)      February 8 (Sat)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

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

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

She doesn't pass notability guidelines in Brazilian Jiu-jitsu, because her medal was at minor event. (Ju-Jitsu International Federation) As for her Judo accomplishments, I am not convinced she is meeting WP:SPORTCRIT, she didn't make it to the olympics. If anyone finds better sources, I am willing to change reconsider. Citation issues since 2013.. My search didn't establish any WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG. Lekkha Moun (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per nom. Svartner (talk) 06:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: I see her potentially gaining notability, I suggest keeping in draftspace unitl then. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 19:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  She is 44 years old, not competing anymore, I highly doubt it. Lekkha Moun (talk) 06:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024–25 Heartland F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

This article provides no useful information and there is no indication of sigcov. Also seems to miss WP:NSEASONS and WP:NEVENT. RachelTensions (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Nigeria. ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 23:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – And delete 2023-24 Heartland F.C. season. Svartner (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a 100% notable topic if properly developed, but the current article is basically just an infobox and there's only one source. However it's not sticking around in draftspace - keeps getting repeatedly moved back - even though draftification should be the best option here. SportingFlyer T·C 04:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Delete per nominator, If more useful information cannot be added here then it should be be added to Heartland F.C. page. Information on the page is not enough to have its own page. Jamiebuba (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per nominator. Otherwise merge into the Heartland F.C. page. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 15:35, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:DICDEF: If the article cannot be renamed, merged, or rewritten into a stub encyclopedia article about a subject, denoted by its title, then it should be deleted. Paradoctor (talk) 22:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:33, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Skeleton Crew, a robust dab page. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why didn't I think of that? Paradoctor (talk) 06:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No reliable sources, fails WP:GNG. ProtobowlAddict ^uwu! (talk | contributions) 22:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Bondage_pornography#Resurgence_of_bondage_magazines: covered there; add that source: https://chicagoreader.com/film/movie-feature/fetish-media-house-of-milan/. A lot of NSFW results make it hard to check but GBooks has quite a few hits. -Mushy Yank. 22:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Sexuality and gender, and United States of America. -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra P. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:BLP of a county-level politician, not properly sourced as passing WP:NPOL #2. As always, county commissioners are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to show a significant volume and depth and range of WP:GNG-worthy coverage about their work to establish a reason why they should be seen as substantially more notable than the norm for that level of significance -- but this is referenced far too heavily to primary sources that are not support for notability at all (e.g. stuff self-published by the county council or community organizations she was directly affiliated with), and what there is for reliable source coverage is just the purely run of the mill stuff (local election coverage, etc.) that every county councillor in every county could always show, not demonstrating any reason why she would qualify as a special case of greater notability than the norm.
Simply existing as a county commissioner is not "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced a lot better than this. Also clear conflict of interest, as the creator's username had "Apdavis" in it — and the page was then moved from draft into mainspace by a WP:SPA editor with a different username but no edit history on any other topic but Alexandra Davis, without the proper WP:AFC review that was required because of the creator's COI. But as always, even people who do properly meet our inclusion standards still aren't entitled to either create their own articles themselves or pay a staffer to do it for them. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Florida. Bearcat (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails both Politicians and judges criteria. As it says Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability.Both (xtools) of the major editors have COI and have only edited this page. As Bearcat said, The sources do not prove she is notable. Most just say she was elected or are primary sources. CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 17:02, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Electricmemory (talk) 20:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep_ As Bearcat pointed out, I see there is an overt conflict of interest (COI), but I believe the subject can meet the notability criteria under WP:GNG. Here are some reliable sources I found within the article:

1. The Gleaner (a 190-year-old Jamaican newspaper) covered her early life, career in public service, and political life in depth.1

2. WPLG covered her role in establishing the in-house social worker position at the Miramar Police Department. 2

3. The Sun Sentinel (the main daily newspaper in Florida) has featured her in two articles, which I could not access for it is behind paywall. 34

4. South Florida Caribbean news in 2012 listed her within the top 50 influential black business leaders.5

I also see some more references which covered her for her work in the black diasporas of Jamaicans in US which makes me assume that she is somewhat notable individual in the black Jamaican community in US. Instant History (talk) 06:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The subject fails WP:NPOL so the question is whether the subject would pass WP:GNG with an expectation that there is enough coverage to describe the impact the subject made as a member of the county commission (much more than they exist). The Gleaner article describes election results, and the WPLG and Sun Sentinel articles do not provide significant coverage of the subject. The COI issue is relevant too. --Enos733 (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I meant to PROD it, but apparently it was nominated for deletion in 2005. Regardless, the only source that confirms this event existed at all was made by a partner organization. I couldn't find any other sources, not even a PR release, documenting it, so it should be deleted for not following the notability guidelines. Norbillian (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Events. Norbillian (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Other than some stuff from Getty Images that show this wasn't a hoax, I couldn't find any coverage that meets WP:NORG. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Has already been brought to AFD before so not eligible for a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This particular extended play (EP) fails WP:NALBUM and is not notable. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not critically reviewed. The article's critical reception section is misleading to say the least. The OkayAfrica and P.M. News sources cited in the article are not reviews. I redirected the article to its parent article per criterion 6 of NALBUM, but User:MakeOverNow reverted my edit.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Nigeria.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 18:35, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised that you think that Maffian didn't meet WP:NALBUM, but the mistake was made by the editor who published this article that didn't provide enough notability. The EP charted on US & UK Apple Music Album chart at #57 & #82 and peaked at number 2 on Nigeria Apple Music Album Top 100 and number 3 at TurnTable Top 100 Albums. [1][2]. Remember Boy Spyce (EP), or Soundman Vol. 2 didn't provide any chart or review to meet WP:NALBUM. MakeOverNow (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apple Music Charts are considered WP:SINGLEVENDOR charts and cannot be used to establish notability. Although Turntable is a reliable chart, simply having an EP chart doesn't justify a separate article. The fact of the matter is that Maffian was not discussed in reliable sources or critically reviewed. I am not sure why you're comparing Maffian with those two other projects. For your info, both Soundman Vol.2 and Boy Spyce were critically reviewed. Show me multiple reliable sources that reviewed the EP and I will change my vote.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 18:43, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. It would be helpful to hear from more editors about this article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mario de Miranda (bridge engineer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

No sources provided to link this name to any of the supposed achievements. Searches reveal a number of simimilarly named people but none who are bridge engineers. The original article was draftified some time ago and has been moved to mainpspace by its creator without providing any sources. A web site of his own company asserts that he is a Professor at the University of Venice but that is a self penned sources. It is likely that ths individual is notable as a Professor but this is not that article and cannot be extracted from the current version per WP:TNT. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   19:12, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Engineering, and Italy. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:21, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - My larger issue here is COI. Author worked extensively on Italian Wikipedia's article on it and is almost entirely written by them. Their COI is also declared on the itwiki's talk page (and hasn't been declared here).

  This article also needs significant cleanup if it intends to remain here, but that can obviously be fixed if this article is able to pass GNG. Chew^{(V • T • E)} 23:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear Chew, I made the COI statement on the talk page and I modified the page by lightening the list of publications and inserting a reference for verification on each point. Everything written in the article is true and verifiable. The person who is the subject of the article is, in my opinion, encyclopedic and worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Thank you. Fedem (talk) 09:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added external sources. In particular the international database of structures and several cards of this database. I have formatted according to the guidelines of English Wikipedia. I ask if the changes are sufficient to remove the deletion noticeFedem (talk) 21:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting GNG or NPROF. The page is a mess and will need TNT but that is besides the point of notability, which is not established with the sources or with the achievements and memberships listed. JoelleJay (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing here rises to automatic notability; we need WP:GNG-worthy sources, and we don't have them. An individual who was primarily responsible for designing the Great Belt Bridge, say (the first example listed) would certainly be notable, but it was designed by a consortium of three Scandinavian firms, and constructed by more consortia. The linked reference lists his firm as construction engineers for one span of the bridge but even setting aside the distinction between him and his firm that is not the sort of in-depth coverage that counts towards GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear David Eppstein, what you say is not true. Mario de Miranda designed the construction of the suspension deck of the Great Belt Bridge during its construction period from 1995 to 1997. Not the design of the bridge but of the hundreds of construction phases from the construction of the cables to the last segment of the suspension deck. This is documented in many publications that are in the references. He also designed several dozen long-span bridges in various countries around the world. Everything written in the article is true and documented. I think that the person who is the subject of the article is certainly notable and worthy of being included in Wikipedia. Fedem (talk) 07:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. - Fedem (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• %Keep has a defined and significant trajectory. AgusTates (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC) striking confirmed, blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful. Arguments like "has a defined and significant trajectory" are not helpful. To editors unfamiliar with AFD, this is not a "vote" count and it's valued for you to present policy-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• ReDraftify. I ran across this AfD after being alerted to this edit at [Great Belt Bridge]. The sourcing there - inline URLs - was difficult to verify; the first claim can't be confirmed from the URL provided, the second can, but with considerable digging. With this AfD, the two most glaring problems are a poverty of sources, and of the sources there are, few are properly formed citations - most are just bare URLs wrapped in <ref> tags. A random check of some of the references hit 'Page not found' as well.

The article in its current condition is not ready for the public encyclopedia, regardless of the other issues identified. The individual may be notable within the context bridge engineering, but better sourcing is required to confirm that acclaim. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 19:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments. I tried to correct the references according to Wikipedia rules. As for the sources cited, it seems to me that all those in the structurae database are secondary sources and all references to Wikipedia articles are third-party sources. In addition, there are several secondary sources from independent Italian portals and therefore I think that these are also valid. I would like the article to be examined by users who are competent in the field of bridge engineering. I am convinced that they would be able to evaluate the notability of the person. Fedem (talk) 22:43, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The sourcing is exclusively primary and non-independent—there is nothing here to analyze for GNG. His impact in bridge engineering has not been demonstrated through NPROF either. There is no reason to draftify when we have no evidence suggesting a path to notability. JoelleJay (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Dear JoelleJay, I disagree with your comment. In my opinion most sources are independent (secondary or third) Fedem (talk) 22:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Database sources, like Structurae, are primary, and anyway none of them have any coverage of de Miranda, they simply name him or his firm. Sources from organizations he belongs to are not independent. You need to find completely independent coverage of him, not of his works. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

.*Keep. The only primary source cited in the article is the official website of Studio de Miranda. All other sources cited are secondary or third party. Even the Structurae database, in my opinion, is a secondary source and has dedicated a page to the person Mario de Miranda. Not only that, but the sources cited are very authoritative sources such as the ECCS (European Convention for Constructional Steelwork) which has recognized a European award for the construction of the Lingotto heliport, or the AICAP (Associazione Italiana Cemento armato precompresso) which is the most important Italian association on reinforced concrete works. This association has recognized him with the medal of honor which is a recognition given to engineers from all over the world who have distinguished themselves in the field of engineering. These two data would be enough to justify the encyclopedic nature of the person. But, in my opinion, the extraordinary importance of the many works carried out is the main reason for the encyclopedic nature. Any engineer who works in the field of bridges could confirm it.Fedem (talk) 21:33, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have struck through your Keep vote! as only one vote! per editor. You also have a very strong COI which you reluctantly admitted after some prodding. Please read WP:COI again where it clearly sets out that those with conflict of interest should make their inputs only into Talk page comments. This is not a talk page.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   21:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Associations that have recognized him with awards or to which he belongs are not independent. Database listings of specs/data, rather than prose someone has authored specifically discussing the subject, are primary. Non-notable awards, especially from niche, non-notable societies, do not demonstrate notability. JoelleJay (talk) 00:52, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacking independent sourcing to meet WP:BIO. Also as per WP:NOTRESUME. Lastly the COI agenda is worrying. LibStar (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohi-ud-Din Islamic Medical College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There are a few mentions like [3], [4] but this is enough in-depth enough to pass WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2025 (UTC) it lacks in-depth coverage. Fails WP:NCORP. Gheus (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Schools, and Pakistan. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Quick search and and got quite good references [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] . And here are some urdu news papers references [12] [13] [14] [15] Behappyyar (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Mentions and routine news reports are not enough to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Gheus (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's your opinion. I found these references right for the vote to Keep. Another thing I have seen that it is the first medical college either in Public or Private sector of Azad Kashmir. Some how that's also makes it notable. [16] [17] [18] Behappyyar (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, you have shared primary references. Please provide secondary sources to prove the notability. Gheus (talk) 19:01, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I thinks these five to seven references are enough to establish notability. [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

  There are more references but they may fall into primary categories, but we can use them in the article.

  By the way, I voted to keep on the base of these references. Now let's wait for more votes. Whatever decision is made will come out. Behappyyar (talk) 07:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 23:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of companies-related deletion discussions. Gheus (talk) 00:08, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. A source review would be helpful of sources in the article and here in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Norwich built-up area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely primary to Nomis/ONS, with one additional site that doesn't work. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - I suggest we merge with the Norwich article. Eopsid (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to merge. Norwich already has 220 years' worth of census statistics. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator. I should add that there are histories of Norwich discussing where its built-up area is, and how it shrank in the 14th century and re-grew in the 17th, but that's not this computer-generated statistical polygon from 2011, or something that in the sources is a concept distinct from Norwich. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ipswich built-up area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely primary to Nomis/ONS, with one additional scrape site. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 21:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 03:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Is there a reason why this (and all the others) can't be redirected to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom? Espresso Addict (talk) 15:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because they aren't recognized things, or useful redirects. As explained at length in the prior AFD discussions, these are nonce computer-generated polygons used by just one statistical office that no-one else adopted. Rupples has already noted in another of these discussions that not even the creator of these polygons uses them now, and they lasted for 1 census cycle. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't agree. "XYZ built-up area" is a perfectly respectable search term, and what the searcher is looking for appears to be covered in the List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. It's completely irrelevant whether or not the search term is an actual entity or not; we have plenty of redirects for misspellings, typos, former names... Coming down on a formal redirect. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding here for clarity (not going to repeat myself n times but it applies to the others too) -- the list was started in 2004 by Morwen and has nothing to do with the recent articles started by DragonofBatley. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I think this could be merged into the Ipswich article Eopsid (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing to merge. Ipswich already has the town's census statistics. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am unable to find enough coverage of this rugby player to meet WP:GNG. There is this routine transfer announcement as well as this paywalled article. Even if the latter was SIGCOV (I'd appreciate if anyone could access it), we would need more coverage to warrant a standalone article. JTtheOG (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 22:38, 1 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!} 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dil Wali Gali Mein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Sources are all unreliable. Most are un-bylined churnalism and the few that do have bylines are unreliable (ex., Fuchia Magazine). Attempted redirect until the show is released and there are some bylined reviews but redirect was challenged by creator so here we are. CNMall41 (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep : The article for Dil Wali Gali Mein have to be kept as it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines for television series. The show has garnered significant attention from multiple reliable media outlets, including Samaa TV, PINKVILLA a Indian entertainment magazine, The Express Tribune a Pakistani leading and major news network, Dunya News, Daily Times (Pakistan), Fuchsia Magazine, a Pakistani entertainment magazine, Minute Mirror, Aaj News, Jang (newspaper), which have covered the television series and highlighted its potential in the context of Ramadan television programming. Furthermore, the involvement of well-known professionals, such as director Kashif Nisar, producer Momina Duraid, and popular actors Sajal Aly, a prominent Pakistani actress who worked on domestic and International level and Hamza Sohail also, adds to the series' notability. Ramadan dramas have a long-standing cultural tradition in Pakistan, and Dil Wali Gali Mein is positioned to be part of this tradition. Given the expected wide reach during Ramadan, the show has the potential to contribute to cultural discourse, making it a noteworthy subject for documentation. Given the media coverage, industry involvement, and the release in the Ramadan month as Ramadan Programming, the article qualifies for retention based on Wikipedia's criteria for notability in the entertainment sector. The article has needs to be kept. Thanks PB987 (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. BilletsMauves^€500 08:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As noted when this was redirected and in the deletion rationale, sources are churnalism and unbylined. I counted a total of four bylined references out of the present WP:REFBOMB, one of which is unreliable and the others are just announcements and likely churnalism based on HUM TV's promotion. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify: currently fails WP:SIGCOV, draftify for now. Vestrian24Bio 13:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vestrian24Bio Thank you for your suggestion regarding the article "Dil Wali Gali", but I believe it meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines and should remain in mainspace rather than being moved to Draft. The topic has received significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, which fulfills Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG). If multiple sources discuss the subject in depth, it qualifies to stay in the main encyclopedia rather than being sent to Draft. The article is supported by reputable media sources, newspapers, or journals, demonstrating its wider recognition. If any improvements are needed, they can be made directly within mainspace rather than requiring a move. Furthermore, similar topics already exist in Wikipedia’s mainspace, which establishes a precedent for keeping this article as well. Since the article is neutral, well-developed, and not promotional, there is no strong reason for it to be moved. Any concerns about citations or formatting can be addressed through improvements instead of removal from mainspace. Per Wikipedia’s policies (WP:GNG, WP:V, WP:N), this article has demonstrated sufficient notability and does not require incubation in Draft space. Instead of moving it, any necessary improvements should be made within mainspace. I look forward to further discussion on this matter. PB987 (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. BilletsMauves^€500 08:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources are bylined that constitute significant coverage? At this point, your argument is a fallacy by assertion. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: two bylined although evidently formulaic articles (Lens, Express Tribune) on the page. Coverage about production, notable cast and crew. If judged insufficient please consider a redirect to the director Kashif Nisar#Television. Add this: https://www.pinkvilla.com/tv/news/5-upcoming-pakistani-dramas-that-will-make-ramadan-2025-more-lively-sajal-alys-dil-wali-gali-mein-and-more-1371004 for example. The page has only 2 days and the series will be broadcast in March, so I see no reason to delete now and I am opposed to that outcome. -Mushy Yank. 22:41, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify: Still upcoming show, Sources are mostly pre-release fluff pieces, so hold off until actually released or better developed production section. Ravensfire (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. Low-level sources plus some fishy history. Tend to think any page reliant on sockpuppetry just to get written can be take with a grain of suspicion, as can picking up and carrying on for this later. Hyperbolick (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I think the 2 bylined ones are okay for now, it will likely gain a lot more in like two weeks so I'd say keep for now. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:01, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which two bylined references would you consider significant coverage as everything is based on announcements?--CNMall41 (talk) 01:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify. Poor to unreliable sources. Case of WP:TOOSOON and hoping for significant coverage with multiple critical reviews after the release, for the series to be considered notable. RangersRus (talk) 14:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dil Wali Gali is an upcoming television series that has generated significant anticipation due to its notable cast. It has been featured in many reliable sources, highlighting its potential impact on the entertainment industry. With growing interest and buzz surrounding its release, Dil Wali Gali is poised to make a notable entry into contemporary television. I suggest to Keep the article. Zxa123 (talk) 08:16, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See here. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sırrı Yırcalı Anatolian High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There is only one good source in the Turkish article https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/ege/turkiye-birincisi-bahce-10794778 and nothing in this article to explain how the school is notable. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and Turkey. Chidgk1 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, There is a very detailed article in the [26] source. This is [27] rebuilding article. It is first Anatolian High School in city. May be this sources can help. İmmortalance (talk) 17:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not meet notability requirements. Sources are unreliable. one source not in the article (unsure of reliability) says his clinic is renowned. Not convinced that makes him notable. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine and Thailand. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 19:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:24, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Is mentioned in this Thai journal article[28], master's thesis[29], and an article on the Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery of Thailand's website[30] as a pioneer of sex-reassignment surgery in Thailand, though none of the mentions are particularly in depth. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:04, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 19:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Insufficiant news references, fails WP:NMusician. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack of coverage for this individual; I can't find any. Article only has primary or database sourcing. With no Dutch article to compare too, I can't find sourcing we can use to show notability. Oaktree b (talk) 21:09, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I was about to nominate this myself, I see no significant coverage to establish notability. Ligaturama (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graded English Medium School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

A quick Google search and no reliable source is found. Failed WP:NSCHOOL. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools and India. Jitujadab90 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources on the page and does not satisfy the notability guidelines for organizations. Fails WP:NSCHOOL. RangersRus (talk) 13:36, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete– Fails WP:NORG; only trivial coverage and passing mentions found online. EmilyR34 (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing, there are only two, entirely to the primary Nomis/ONS. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - I dont think there are any sources outside of the census and no obvious merge target. The 1966 book conurbations of Great Britain has this to say about the area "In North Wales the coast towns from Prestatyn through Rhyl [then it mentions a load of other towns] are virtually fused one into another but they are excluded here as the process of conurban linkage is hardly complete" Eopsid (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator in what is now 12 years. I have Wesley Dougill calling the area from Prestatyn through Rhyl to Llandudno a "a shoddy, unplanned and unsightly blight" in 1936 but that does not make a coherent concept for an encyclopaedia, or state anything factual, and certainly isn't this concept. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless anyone cares to expand the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom to include smaller ones as far down the list as this one. PamD 12:24, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely to the primary Nomis/ONS data. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - I think theres more sources out there which havent been added to this article yet. The 1966 book "Conurbations of Great Britain" on page 244 says "Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham have now fused into a single small conurbation. Eopsid (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, how are you not reading that source properly? You aren't even reading what you quoted. "Lancaster, Morecambe and Heysham" is not "Lancaster/Morecambe". And a book from 1966 does not and cannot support a statistical polygon from 45 years in its future. That's the sort of propping up by synthesis source abuse that the article creator does. Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • The map on this article clearly shows it includes Heysham. That book and the 2021 census are both talking about the same conurbation but defining and naming it differently. Eopsid (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator. The best that one can get even approximating this is sources talking about Lancaster, Morecambe, and Heysham, as Eopsid has mis-read above; but they're usually in fact talking about the self-containedness of the Lancaster District and its Travel-To-Work Area in the middle 20th century. In fact, the eagle eyed will spot that one of the external links is even about the Lancaster District. Well, as ever with the synthesized false areas/suburbs articles from this article creator, we already had an article for the City of Lancaster District, and it is not a "Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area". Delete. Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless anyone cares to expand the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom to include smaller ones as far down the list as this one.

Barnsley/Dearne Valley built-up area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing, only two, to the primary Nomis/ONS, and a scrape site that doesn't appear to mention the term. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator in what is now 12 years. We should be grateful that the article creator didn't do more string matching with that Freeman book from 1966, because the reality is that Freeman discusses "a string of large mining villages" that extends "from Rawmarsh into the Dearne Valley to Barnsley and beyond". So not support for a statistical polygon 45 years into the book's future, or even for the same area. And of course, as ever, the article to explain the obvious connection between mining villages on the South Yorkshire Coal Field (using, say, historian Melvyn Jones's South Yorkshire Mining Villages, ISBN 9781473880795) is South Yorkshire Coalfield. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Birkenhead built-up area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely to Nomis/ONS, with there only being one. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete only one passing mention in Google scholar, and a recent mention of a built up area around Birkenhead on the government website shows a completely different area[31]. Orange sticker (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confusingly for the latest census they've redefined what built up area means. Previously built up areas were made up of built up area subdivsions. But for the latest census the subdivisions have been renamed built up areas and they form built up conglomerations together. But they havent released the data for conglomerations yet. Theres more information on it here [32]. Eopsid (talk) 17:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not confusing at all once one realizes that this is a nonce concept made up by a computer for one statistical analysis, that never escaped its creator to be acknowledged by anyone else, and that even its creator has now discarded. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• As with all of the rest, rationales already given at length in the two prior AFD discussions given in the nomination applying just as equally here, this is a concept that has never escaped its creator in what is now 12 years. The only thing coming even close to this grouping that actually is acknowledged by the world is the old hundred of Wirral, and not only do we already have an article on that (as ever with this article creator), that's not very close to this grouping at all. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 03:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This makes sense, agreed. Orange sticker (talk) 10:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Burnley built-up area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing mostly to Nomis/ONS, with a few additional. The book source appears not to use the term. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Accrington/Rossendale Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not going to repeat what I said at length about original research machine-generated statistical areas and false conurbations at the two prior AFD discussions, but what I said there holds here as well.

  Indeed, reading the 1966 source by Freeman, which couldn't possibly support an ONS invention from 2011, reveals that indeed it doesn't support a "built up area" at all, or even a conurbation. It talks, in fact, of the "weaving area" towns of Lancashire, also called the "cotton mill towns", and more formally the Lancashire cotton industry, which a redirect to a couple of sentences really does not do justice to, given the existence of entire books just on that subject (e.g. Mary B. Rose's History since 1700 and stuff by Sydney John Chapman) and articles like JSTOR 2589825, JSTOR 621119, and JSTOR 1810346.

  This article has no bearing on improving Lancashire cotton industry and its "weaving" or "cotton mill" towns into a break-out sub-article, however. This subject has not escaped the confines of its creator in what is now 12 years. Delete.

  Uncle G (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • How are they false conurbations? I weakly support deletion but this is definitely a conurbation by definition of the word. Its just not notable enough for an article. The 1966 source (conurbations of Great Britain) has a whole section on the Burnley conurbation on page 240. Amongst other things it says: "Along the road and canal through Brierfield to Nelson and Barrowford there is continuous town". I'm unsure what you mean about the Weaving area? That book clearly says that the weaving area includes four conurbations: Blackburn, Burnley, Accrington and Rossendale and then goes into detail on all four. Eopsid (talk) 17:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can you be mis-reading the book this badly? Freeman has the words "The 'weaving area' Towns" in italics right there in front of you, and then goes on to list towns. Burnley is called a "town" in the very first sentence below that heading, and several times further on on that very same page; a town "in what is commonly called the 'weaving area' of Lancashire". We have an article on the town of Burnley: Burnley. If you had looked in the index, you'd have found Burnley also on page 222, where it is called a "cotton town".

      This is false sourcing by an article creator that often just string-matches highly inappropriate sources, in this case a source that pre-dates the ONS creating these statistical polygons with a computer by 45 years. (That's not the worst of it. Another article from this creator had a 19th century report of a cricket match being used to support a 21st century false suburb, when — just as here — we already had an existing article on the cricket club by almost but not quite the same title. And the "suburb" is actually a park, the remnants of a 19th century manor house and grounds, which encompasses the cricket club.) The stuff about the canal isn't about a group of settlements in the source, as this article has it; it is specifically about "the valley to the north of Burnley". We already have an article on the River Calder, whose valley it is, too; and that article already even has mention of the Leeds and Liverpool Canal that Freeman mentions crosses the valley.

      If you'd then tried to find out what Freeman meant by "weaving area towns", you would have almost immediately turned up sources such as Manchester and its Region (roughly contemporary with the Freeman source, at 1962 and published by MUP) which has the "Weaving area" followed by the "Spinning area", both groups of towns (it saying the word "towns" 5 times in one paragraph) that include for the weaving area "The three larger towns of Blackburn, Accrington, and Burnley". The larger context of what it is discussing for these "area"s is the textiles industry, i.e. the Lancashire cotton industry. It's what Rex Pope is talking about in xyr 2000 book Unemployment and the Lancashire Weaving Area: 1920-1938.

      There are loads of books and articles on the economic/industrial history and geography of the Lancashire cotton industry, many explaining what the towns in Lancashire's "weaving area" are, and it is not good to prefer to merge falsely sourced bad content trying to prop up a statistical polygon than actually address a proper topic, especially when a mis-used source explaining a group of "fifteen town units in what is commonly called the 'weaving area' of Lancashire" is staring us all in the face.

      Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Sorry but I dont think I'm misreading it. Its a book called conurbations of Great Britain and has a section on a conurbation it calls Burnley. It also calls Burnley a town but that doesnt mean there isnt also a conurbation centred on Burnley. The source even gives seperate population figures for the town of Burnley (80,600) and the group of towns (i.e. the conurbation) centred on it (156,000). Eopsid (talk) 09:04, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Is the misunderstanding here that we are using different definitions for the term conurbation? Eopsid (talk) 13:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I think this should be merged with the Burnley article Eopsid (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is badly sourced inaccurate content, not even correctly representing what the Freeman source says, for starters, that should not be re-used. As explained above, we already have the town, the valley, the canal and others in their proper articles; and this content isn't accurate or on point for the Lancashire cotton industry, because it's just throwing misrepresented factoids together as synthesis for a statistical polygon. Uncle G (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:28, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accrington/Rossendale built-up area (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Non-notable census area. Sourcing entirely primary to Nomis/ONS, with one additional scrape site. The arguments are set out in detail at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfreton/South Normanton Built-up area and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Royal Leamington Spa Built-up area, both of which concluded in Delete. Note that this is one of eight BUAs by the same author that are at AfD. The others being Burnley Built-up area / Birkenhead Built-up area / Barnsley/Dearne Valley Built-up area / Lancaster/Morecambe Built-up area / Ipswich built-up area / Norwich built-up area / Rhyl/Prestatyn Built-up area. KJP1 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. According to one website (assuming it's reliable) this BUA existed from 2011 to 2022 and is now classed as inactive.[33] Rupples (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think they redefined the BUAs for the 2021 census but they havent released the data for it yet. Eopsid (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Seems to be a lack of WP:SECONDARY coverage of this built-up area to enable a GNG pass. Sources in the article are the Office for National Statistics, which defined the area and citypopulation.de, which replicates data. Needs commentary in addition to a definition and data. Not sure a single redirect would work. Possible multiple merges into the constituent settlement articles, but is there any point given the lack of coverage of the term? Rupples (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC) Added redirect as AtD now a suitable target has been put forward. Rupples (talk) 21:49, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No sources outside of the 2011 census and mirrors of that data. This area didnt exist as one built up area in the previous 2001 census which considered Accrington and Rossendale seperately. Other sources like the book "The conurbations of Great Britain" also treat the Accrington and Rossendale areas as seperate built up areas/conurbations. So I dont think we are going to find any more sources. Eopsid (talk) 17:11, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I've discussed this at length in the two prior AFD discussions, the long explanations of the statistical polygons never having escaped their creators in what is now 12 years I won't repeat. We can thank good fortune for the article creator, unlike in the case of Burnley built-up area (AfD discussion), not trying to prop up this article with false sourcing from Freeman's 1966 book, which string matches Accrington and Rossendale on page 241, but which does not support this idiosyncratic statistical polygon from 45 years in its future. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of urban areas in the United Kingdom. Respectable search term, no reason to make it harder for readers to find information. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the list at List of urban areas in the United Kingdom which includes it and explains the term. PamD 12:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No indication of notability. Fails WP:NCORP. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 17:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not noteworthy. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Some promotional coverage of acts they've signed, but I can't find anything beyond four hits in Gnews that basically confirm the company exists and does buisness. Oaktree b (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Fails to meet WP:NCORP. RangersRus (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lack sig cov., fails WP:NCORP TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP. EmilyR34 (talk) 13:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Almost entirely promotional and not indication of WP:SUSTAINED notability per WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:03, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:22, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Appears to fail WP:NORG. Amigao (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Products, and China. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This content is a English version of Wikipedia translation using Wikipedia. The content has been reviewed and hopes to pass 雪影惊鸿 (talk) 01:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yihetang is a major Chinese tea chain with over 8000 outlets and the Chinese article at zh:益禾堂 is reasonably sourced. Their presence on the English internet is minimal so far, but they're starting a major overseas push into SE Asia. Jpatokal (talk) 04:00, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. The LOL article is mostly just a definition of the term, which belongs on Wiktionary instead. While LOL is a popular slang term, the article doesn't provide enough in-depth information beyond what a dictionary already covers.

If we keep this, should every internet abbreviation (BRB, OMG, ROFL) get its own page too? Instead of having separate articles for every slang term, it's better to merge this into a broader article on internet slang or just redirect it to Wiktionary. 1keyhole (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language and Internet. 1keyhole (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I won't litigate other abbreviations here. LOL is a notable term with an encyclopaedic history worth preserving; the current state of the article doesn't impact that the topic is notable and could be expanded ([34]) — ImaginesTigers (talk∙contribs) 16:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are cases where terms have articles because sources provide commentary on their history and social significance, which wouldn't be described in much detail on an average dictionary. There is coverage on the history out there, not to mention all those reputable sources on the analysis section, which wouldn't fit a dictionary. Other terms like OMG are individually evaluated by their own merits. Maybe the "Variations on the theme" section could be cut down, but that can be fixed by editing. ObserveOwl (talk) 17:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The variations section always needs cutting down, and for years I kept doing that (e.g. Special:Diff/34413823). The problem is that that part of the article is a magnet for unverifiable invented stuff. Ironically, that was what the whole article looked like back in its early years. Vide Special:Permalink/17843080 for example. The vandalism did settle down somewhat when it stopped being just a laundry list of examples with no actual verifiable linguistic analysis at all, yet another example of how one successfully tackles cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing.

    The nominator's argument that this somehow sets a precedent of some kind is entirely based upon total ignorance of Wikipedia history. We've managed to keep dictionary articles on all of the nonce words out for almost 2 decades at this point by having this article. Witness Roflcopter (AfD discussion) and Lollerskates (AfD discussion) for just two AFD examples and the many redirects at Special:Whatlinkshere/LOL.

    Feel free to prune the unsourced overgrowth of non-Wiktionary variations yet again in my stead. It turns out that I am busy with a bizarre combination of an old onion railway in Indiana, a 19th century French poet-cum-botanist-cum-geographer, and some machine-generated places in the U.K.. And Marshall Fields. ☺

    Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, borderline speedy. This is clearly a topic that has been covered in ways that give it an encyclopedic scope. BD2412 T 17:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The LOL article is mostly just a definition of the term is simply not true. The term is culturally significant and the article includes details about its influence, reception, and spread, the majority of which could not be reasonably included in a dictionary. (As another user pointed out, the lack of articles for other abbreviations is not a valid argument, but FWIW some of them are covered in the article you have nominated for deletion...) Pink Bee (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article goes well beyond a dictionary definition. It has well sourced sections on history and analysis that clearly meet WP:GNG. I don't find any of the reasons that OP has proposed to be valid WP:DELREASONS. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG is not particularly relevant here, as the issue is not about general notability but rather whether the article aligns with Wikipedia's content policies. WP:NOTDICTIONARY is key—while the article may go beyond a simple definition, that alone doesn’t justify its inclusion if it primarily serves an explanatory rather than encyclopedic purpose. The presence of sourced history and analysis doesn’t automatically override concerns about scope and purpose 1keyhole (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTDICTIONARY has a section about articles like this: WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I believe that applies here. In particular, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term is a remarkably good description of what is in the LOL article. Pink Bee (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Why delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hello what idk (talk • contribs) 18:58, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per WP:IAR - regardless of whether there is enough information beyond a dictionary definition, our core readers will be expecting to see this on top when then use Google or another search engine. Bearian (talk) 03:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, clearly meets WP:GNG and is an incredibly popular phrase to the point where there are academic sources on it. "Not a dictionary" doesn't apply here. jolielover♥talk 05:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moon Over Isla Island (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:GNG as an individual episode. Can't find anything on Google Books, while Google News is just listicles from pop culture websites. Sources provided on page are just ratings digests that don't even name the episode, and even the one review reviewed everything else on Fox that night. Unknown Temptation (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Can't search for sources right now to check if it should be kept, but I would suggest redirecting to the season article instead of deleting if it is not kept, as episode titles are reasonable search targets. RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now willing to say redirect – one review is insufficient to keep, and I failed to find further reviews or coverage. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:21, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 16:01, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Nelemans spent his entire career at amateur levels before apparently retiring in 2013. Secondary source analysis from my search:

1. Omroep Brabant: Transfer rumor
2. Eindhovens Dagblat: Managerial announcement
3. Amateur Voetbal Eindhoven: Interview with small independent analysis and seems to be a local source.
4. Algemeen Dagblad: Paywalled and only contains him in an image caption.

None of those references contain significant coverage that are required for Wikipedia. Corresponding article on Dutch Wikipedia is just an unsourced dumping ground.

⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Netherlands. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 15:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – The article on nl.wiki also doesn't bring anything promising. Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I already mentioned that. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:37, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 12:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - 228 apps and 51 goals in the Dutch professional second division, there will be offline sources out there, per WP:COMMONSENSE. There are sufficient online sources that WP:HEY will apply. GiantSnowman 15:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—I agree with GiantSnowman above. This player had a long career in a professional league at the dawn of the internet age. WP:COMMONSENSE indeed applies. The article itself is awful, for the record, but that's no matter. Anwegmann (talk) 20:45, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:BLP of an actor and model, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passing inclusion criteria for actors or models. As always, actors and models are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist, and have to be shown to pass certain specific markers of achievement supported by reliable source coverage -- but the attempted notability claim here is staked entirely on supporting or bit parts in films that don't even have Wikipedia articles about the films, and the article is sourced entirely to short blurbs and public relations fluff rather than substantive WP:GNG-worthy coverage.
Nothing here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to have better referencing than this. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Malaysia. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Significant roles (including various lead roles) in series and films (that have a Wikipedia page in Indonesian/Malay) and received coverage in those languages and, to a lesser extent, in English. The page needs expansion

The productions include: Syurga Itu Bukan Mudah (2023); Kahar: Kapla High Council (2024); Scammer Geng Marhaban (2023); Gamers Mangkuk (2023).) Coverage in English includes: https://sea.ign.com/entertainment/208982/news/explores-the-lives-of-amateur-esports-players-in-new-comedy-series-gamers-mangkuk ;https://www.cinema.com.my/articles/news_details.aspx?search=2025.n_kaharheadtoastrofirst_68231 https://thesun.my/style-life/prequel-that-stands-on-its-own-HG13375222 https://thesun.my/style-life/fight-back-to-school-EL10826442

A lot of interviews have introductions that allow to verify the roles and their significance (as well as the notability of the productions). https://www.nst.com.my/lifestyle/groove/2024/10/1124348/showbiz-thats-not-my-photo-why-am-i-being-blamed-–-amir-ahnaf for example or "people/fashion" coverage allowing the same, such as https://www.mens-folio.com/style/boys-will-be-boys-smir-ahnaf-aedy-ashraf-sky-iskandar-superdry/ https://hype.my/2023/324380/actor-amir-ahnaf-on-his-darkest-moment-feeling-empty-after-projek-high-council-success/

A lot more exists in English and in other languages. -Mushy Yank. 00:05, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 00:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Television, Fashion, and Indonesia. -Mushy Yank. 00:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not seem to be notable. All three refs only provide technical information about the subject. DWF91 (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Christianity, and Florida. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network, the parent company. WYBX is not independently notable, and relevant technical information is already there. schetm (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network#Stations: the station did exist for about seven-ten years before BBN took over, but probably did not attain any significant coverage in that time; any notability here, if there were any, would be carried over from that era entirely. The article going back to that era, however, still makes this little more than a remnant of the considerably lower inclusion standards of 2008, when this topic area considered FCC licenses to be a notability sign; that largely faded away after the 2021 RfC that deemed the GNG to be the notability standard here. I think this came under the NPP radar because of an aborted BLAR by Chuterix (talk · contribs), the undo of which was never fully explained, but the reality is it was a correct BLAR, as the rationale not notable on its own appears accurate. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network, as the same reasons as schem and WcQuidditch (fails WP:GNG). Chuterix (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Bible Broadcasting Network, as I can't find anything about its pre-BBN operation anywhere. Sammi Brie (she/her · t · c) 08:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NEVENT. Could be summarized and merged to Qazançı, Agdam and sourced there if possible, then redirected. Cremastra (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and Azerbaijan. Cremastra (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Armenia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Banani DNCC-Unique Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG, None of the sources give significant coverage to the topic, Only 1-2 lines are about the building in the sources. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Koshuri ^(グ) 13:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

While this has a short receptions section, it is made of a few WP:SIGCOV mentions in passing, listicles, and even some passing commentary from a minor YouTuber. this fails WP:GNG. At best, this can be redirected, per WP:ATD-R, to Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be very surprised if this didn't have enough sources for an article; this is almost certainly extremely well documented from 1960s and 1970s sources alone. I haven't looked too far yet but the very first result is something that isn't even in the article yet, a 2001 Billboard piece reporting Vince Clarke and Martyn Ware naming their album this. Second result (ISBN 9781785306396) is about Dinky dedicating an entire plant to just this one toy. Third result is Bentley's book, already liberally used in the article. Fourth result is an Amberly book that has the SPV, not even used in the article (ISBN 9781445648736). Given the designer, almost certainly ISBN 9781932563825, again not even used in the article, is probably worth a look. The next result is ISBN 9780563534815, already used by the article. And so on. Uncle G (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Uncle G Note that subsequent comments suggest lack of SIGCOV. Did you see anything that you consider meeting SIGCOV in the sources you checked? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:33, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have copies of Bentley's books, but the fact that the article at hand at the time of nomination cites pages 21 and 53 of the 2001 one and pages 81, 163–164, and 196–197 of the 2017 one indicates that it isn't just mentioning the subject in passing. The Amberley book gives the toy form just under a page of prose followed by another half page of captioned pictures. The August 2006 PC Magazine cited in the article is indeed that whole page and directly about the relevant computer kit. I don't have a copy of the Fryer book ISBN 9781781555040 which calls it a "Spectrum SPV", which is RAS syndrome.

      One telling source is the Haynes Manual Captain Scarlet Spectrum Agents' Manual already cited at the time of nomination which treats the subject in detail and with the taking-non-cars-seriously approach of the the Haynes series according to every blurb and review that I can find. One describes that book as having "fully annotated cutaway drawings of Spectrum vehicles", and that seems to agree with the article at hand citing 6 pages of it, which some copyright violators on Pinterest hint to be several 2-page spreads with prose.

      The reason that I suspect there to be many contemporary sources, difficult to find in the (ahem!) 21 century, is that in my own second-hand book collection there is a 1967 Captain Scarlet Annual, which has a 2-page annotated spread on pages 50–51, although with no production information; and that didn't turn up in any catalogue search that I did.

      Uncle G (talk) 07:27, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge I am dubious about there being WP:SIGCOV as opposed to a lot of trivial mentions, and the same is true of all the vehicles in this series. Merging them all to a list of vehicles might be apt if they are talked about as a group. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per Zxcvbnm. Coverage isn't much more than WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and doesn't pass WP:SIGCOV. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Captain Scarlet and the Mysterons: I agree with nom that the sources are trivial, but I definitely think it could be salvaged. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 20:12, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Footballer and football coach who according to the article made no pro appearances and has to date totalled 2 days as a pro club manager, as interim Derby manager,18 years ago. Lacks significant coverage. C679 13:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and England. C679 13:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 13:28, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 15:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Poorly-formatted article without evidence of notability. Sources are mostly transfer announcements and brief mentions. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 16:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - @GiantSnowman:, @Clariniie:, I found [35], [36], and [37] among many more sources over the years. Clearly significant figure in English football management with ongoing career in Premier League club. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, 17:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Lots of coverage/hits on a google kevin thelwell nytimes.com search in addition to other sources presented.Canary757 (talk) 08:56, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  which can be read here [38] and [39] as examples.Canary757 (talk) 07:08, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—This is a clear keep. The article is terrible, but that's not what we're here for. The three examples presented above are very obviously WP:SIGCOV. Anwegmann (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Plot summary plus a bit about the film prop and its history, as well as some replicas. Longer and with many refs, but I couldn't find anything that is reliable and WP:SIGCOV, so this fails WP:GNG, and has some WP:OR issues too. BEFORE fails to find anything. Per WP:ATD-R, I suggest this can be redirected to Airwolf. PS. Keep from ~10 years ago was based on the fact that passing mentions of this have been found here and there, and of course, that it was a "main feature of a notable work of fiction" (which back then was enough for many folks... how time have changed, eh?). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and Aviation. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as a whole to Airwolf. Being a "main feature of a notable work of fiction" is still absolutely a basis for inclusion in an encyclopedia, but in this case both articles are short enough that they would benefit from the information being in a single place. BD2412 T 17:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A fictitious helicopter, from a television series not sufficiently well-known worldwide, doesn't seem to be worthy of note. JacktheBrown (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Airwolf is certainly notable and I would agree with BD2412 as to the virtues of a merge here. However we have a substantial body of content about the real world helicopter used for filming and so we get to the question of balance and structure of the article. Is that best as a single article, swollen by this section? Or by separating it out, as we have at present? We can justify either according to policy, but I see the best results as being how it is at present. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Airwolf was pre-Internet, so I'm expecting there will be plenty of offline sources. For example, I can find Spark, A. (1989). Flight Controls: The Social History of the Helicopter as a Symbol of Vietnam. In: Walsh, J., Aulich, J. (eds) Vietnam Images: War and Representation. Insights. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19916-7_6 but I don't have access to the whole chapter to see if the snippet Google Scholar brings up is sufficiently significant. And, of course, no objection to a merge to the series article, although I disagree that in any case it should be forced as an AfD outcome. Jclemens (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do have access to the source and mentions of the words "Airwolf" are primarily in context of the plot of the show and, in my view, don't provide WP:SIGCOV for the fictional aircraft itself. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:23, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Unless drastically improved, there is no real keep argument here since there is a legitimate place to point it and it is, as a whole, unencyclopedic, failing WP:NOT regardless of its notability. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:46, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the helo exists outside the show with a well-sourced history. - \\'cLf 07:48, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Thewolfchild Which nobody has been able to demonstrate yet... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a whole article full of such info, with sources, on the page you're trying to delete...? - \\'cԼF 01:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Thewolfchild Nope, as you can see from comments here, nobody has been able to point out a single source like that. You are welcome to identify at least two WP:SIGCOV meeting sources and prove me wrong. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:59, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ping not req'd, I'm subbed) What I see in the comments is a wide majority in favour of keeping or merging. And the onus of proof isn't on me, it's in the nominator. Wait... that's you, isn't it? There's 22 refs on the page, are you saying they're all useless or garbage? - \\'cԼF 02:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The onus in the ones adding or wanting to keep the content, per WP:BURDEN. And yes, I have not identified refs meeting SIGCOV while covering NONPLOT issues. Which is why we have 6 votes to delete/merge/redirect and only 3 for keeping, perhaps... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:12, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Airwolf. When paired back to what can be written based on coverage in WP:RSs (and not e.g. blogs, twitter posts, the work itself etc) this could easily fit into the main article, whereas a standalone article seems to fail WP:N. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 12:29, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect per all. This doesn't have enough WP:SIGCOV for its own article. but I note that some of the keep !votes support merge, and the nominator supports a redirect, per WP:CONSENSUS. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Airwolf - per WP:NOPAGE. As stated, neither article is long enough to the point where a split would be necessary due to length, and it makes more sense to cover the show and its titular vehicle in the same article. Rorshacma (talk) 05:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Merge with history to Belcan. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Computing, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Do not merge - better to delete. I converted this article from a redirect to a stub article on seeing that AE had bought Israeli spyware company Paragon Solutions (currently redlinked, but in my opinion notable, they attracted notice by successfully attacking users of WhatsApp on behalf of state actors; spyware in my opinion is nasty) and that the company name redirected to Belcan, one of several companies that they had owned but no longer do. I was accused (totally falsely) of possible COI; see the discussion on my Talk page for my very detailed response about this article. If the consensus is that the article is not notable, I have no particular objection to it being deleted, though I think a $6b corporation that sells spyware is notable if not admirable; but it shouldn't redirect to Belcan, which AE does not own. It's just a stub at the moment, and can certainly be expanded and improved. If it is to be a redirect, it should redirect to Paragon Solutions, currently redlinked but notable,, not Belcan. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I read the Keep vote above three times and I still don't understand the point it's trying to make. We make judgments about notability based on sourcing. There are no carveouts based on arbitrary, magically made-up criteria like whether they sell spyware or bring in billions of dollars for shareholders. If you disagree, go read WP: GNG and WP: CORPDEPTH. I also don't think Belcan is an appropriate merge target. AE Industrial Partners sold their stake in that business to Cognizant last year. All the sourcing I could find is plainly routine coverage; it's not enough to establish a standalone article. HyperAccelerated (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Following my weak "keep" above, an article has just come out explaining my concerns about this company and its purchase of Paragon. Whether this is deemed good reason for its inclusion in a work of reference like Wikipedia is up for debate, but it's certainly becoming increasingly noteworthy. Kirchgaessner, Stephanie (10 February 2025). "Revelations of Israeli spyware abuse raise fears over possible use by Trump". Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 21:13, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article only mentions AE Industrial Partners once: "The person also pointed out that Paragon was now a US-owned company, following its takeover by AE Industrial Partners.". This is a trivial mention and plainly does not rise to the standard of significant coverage necessary. Do not insert any more sources into this discussion until you've read and fully understood WP: SIGCOV. Thank you. HyperAccelerated (talk) 00:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is a passing mention used in a single sentence, trivial zero information on the company. It is a complete fail of WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I'm sure there is something else going on here. scope_creep^Talk 05:53, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fictional 'copter, and a film prop. Poorly referenced to a YouTube video, and various primary materials. Poorly written WP:FANCRUFT that at best, per WP:ATD-R, could be redirected to Blue Thunder (the movie it originally appeared in). PS. It's interesting to consider how our standards have changed in the 11 years since prior AfD; where arguments like "it's enough that it is well written and has some references", "it is notable in the context of the series", and "it is a major part of a story of a notable work" held sway... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Aviation, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:16, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as a whole to Blue Thunder. There is sufficient basis for inclusion of this subject in an encyclopedia, but both articles are short enough that they would benefit from the information being in a single place. BD2412 T 17:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as BD2412. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the above. Unlike Airwolf, there was nothing particularly special about the helicopter, either in fiction or in real life. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as stated above. Notable helicopter info can be covered at Blue Thunder or other similar article. -Fnlayson (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per all. Just doesn't have enough reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as cultural significance in both film and aviation is noteworthy. Both articles can benefit from each other in one. Calling for deletion outright is unnecessarily extreme. --Picard's Facepalm • ^{Made It So} _Engage! • 22:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge is enough to save some information. --Old-AgedKid (talk) 13:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fictional ship. Short plot summary and that's all; my BEFORE failst to find anything better. Per WP:ADT-R, suggest redirecting this to the Aubrey–Maturin series. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Military, and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Aubrey–Maturin series, fails WP:GNG. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 11:51, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I sought this article to learn about the historically vessel(s) O'Brian based this ship upon, a literary practice he was known for. I found the information I needed and links to the Wikipedia pages about those real ships.I could never have found that info without this article. It should be retained. Hal Sawyer. 108.4.208.55 (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect per Boneless Pizza. Fails WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

No sustained coverage (WP:SUSTAINED) in reliable sources. The single play with a broader game, with a broader finals series is already well discussed at 2016 NBA Finals#Game 7. Note that this proposal follows from the reversal of a December merge (see Talk:2016 NBA Finals#Merger discussion. Klbrain (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:29, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Strong Oppose - Pretty clear evidence of sustained coverage:

  Top NBA Finals moments: LeBron James' chasedown block in Game 7 of 2016 NBA Finals

  https://www.nba.com/news/history-finals-moments-lebron-chasedown-block-2016

  LeBron James Talks Block on Andre Iguodala in NBA Finals: 'I'm Getting This S--t'

  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10116277-lebron-james-talks-block-on-andre-iguodala-in-nba-finals-im-getting-this-s--t

  Andre Iguodala recalls getting blocked by LeBron in the NBA Finals: "It really sounded like an M80, like fireworks"

  https://www.basketballnetwork.net/latest-news/andre-iguodala-recalls-getting-blocked-by-lebron-in-the-nba-finals

  When LeBron swooped in and changed the course of Cavs' history

  https://www.espn.com.au/nba/playoffs/2016/story/_/id/16544563/nba-finals-2016-oral-history-lebron-chasedown-block

  LeBron James had the block — and nearly the dunk — of his life to help win Game 7

  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/06/20/lebron-james-had-the-block-and-nearly-the-dunk-of-his-life-to-help-win-game-7/

  Andre Iguodala Talks LeBron James' Blocked Shot in Game 7 of 2016 NBA Finals

  https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2672475-andre-iguodala-talks-lebron-james-blocked-shot-in-game-7-of-2016-nba-finals

  Richard Jefferson says LeBron's block in Game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals is the best defensive play in league history: "A split second later, that's goaltending"

  https://www.basketballnetwork.net/latest-news/richard-jefferson-says-lebrons-block-in-game-7-is-the-best-defensive-play-in-history

  Reliving LeBron James's Block in Game 7 of the 2016 NBA Finals

  https://www.si.com/nba/2017/09/20/open-floor-podcast-best-games-warriors-cavaliers-lebron-james-block-game-7

  I can grab tons more if you'd like but these are articles from 2024 and pretty much every year since 2016. Nkulasingham (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Apologies that should be Keep instead of Strong Oppose Nkulasingham (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fictional ship. Pure plot summary, no WP:GNG. My BEFORE fails to find anything, and while I cannot search in Japanse I would be very, very surprised if such a niche topic had any sources in any language. Per WP:ATD-R, we can redirect this to Zipang (manga). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Military, and Japan. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airwolf (helicopter) (2nd nomination). A fictitious helicopter doesn't seem to be worthy of note. JacktheBrown (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I'll note that the above delete !vote has no policy basis. Jclemens (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Zipang (manga) per nom; this article is almost entirely plot and has little real-world notability. Link20XX (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect, per nom. Doesn't have enough reliable coverage to pass WP:GNG, or even have anything worth preserving. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:34, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Chandler (The Last Ship) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fictional character. Pure plot summary. Fails WP:GNG; my BEFORE fails to find anything useful. Per WP:ATD-R can be merged or just redirected to List of The Last Ship characters. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Military, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and Wikipedia articles need reliable sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fictional ship from a novel (also a TV series based on it). Pure plot summary. Fails WP:GNG; BEFORE finds nothing useful. Suggest redirecting to The Last Ship (novel) per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Military, and United States of America. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:50, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - Since it is featured in more than one creative work. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 17:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  by which you mean, "a book, and an adaptation of that book"? DS (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Illegitimate Barrister FYI that has not been a sufficient reason for keeping for a long time. A zillion stuff appears in more than one creative works - so what? WP:NOTTVTROPES, this is just WP:FANCRUFT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or redirect to the book. It doesn't matter if the book has an adapatation, we can't have articles without WP:SIGCOV in reliable independent sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Simply holding the position of secretary or national secretary of a political party does not satisfy the WP:NPOL criteria, and the subject also fails to meet the WP:GNG requirements. Baqi:) (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. Baqi:) (talk) 12:49, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Only held party offices and not elected to any state or national legislative assemblies. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete– as per nom, fails both WP:GNG & WP:NPOL. EmilyR34 (talk) 13:56, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Major WP:GNG and WP:V failure. Very poorly referenced piece of WP:FANCRUFT, summarizing a plot point (history of a fictional ship), and cataloging its appearances in various media, making WP:ORish claims that "The stories sparked considerable interest in the puffers, and many books explore their now vanished world." (in any case, if the stories sparked interest, that's not the same as this fictional ship doing that...). The articles does not even make the claim that one particular work or series is relevant to this ship, so I am not even sure what might be a plausible redirect target (per WP:ATD-R. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Transportation and United Kingdom. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:30, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has also been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Scotland._{Cactus.man ✍} 15:51, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If sources can't be found to meet GNG, I'd suggest merging to Para Handy - that's the article about this long-running franchise as a whole, and the information about the various TV series featuring the Vital Spark is duplicated there (whereas it currently doesn't even have a photo of the ship). Adam Sampson (talk) 14:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A merge or redirect are always better than outright deletion, thanks for the suggestion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That looks like a Keep now with the new sources. Adam Sampson (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Para Handy per the suggestion by Adam Sampson. The term "Vital Spark" will have widespread recognition amongst Scottish readers and those of wider literary awareness, but two of the three Notes in the article are currently dead links. I think encyclopaedia coverage is therefore still warranted. Cactus.man ✍ 16:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Changed to Keep in light of the substantial improvement work done by Drchriswilliams to bring the article up to sufficient standard that it now easily satisfies WP:GNG Cactus.man ✍ 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC).[reply]

  • Comment. I'd be happy to withdraw this after improvements, but I don't see them. As in, there are some changes, but I still do not see any analysis/reception or such; all that is written and referenced is pretty much what appears to be a 'list of ships with that name in fiction and real life'.

  _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:24, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I was surprised to see an article with such an iconic name nominated, but I found the article was in bad shape. While the name started off as fiction, there came to be several vessels associated with the name. There is plenty of coverage in newspapers of Vital Spark Clyde puffers that have appeared in the various television series. Several of the articles feature pictures of the vessels. I have added a range of sources over several decades. I've edited the lead to reflect this. There is a bit of duplication of content across the articles on Neil Munro, Para Handy and the three series. The Para Handy article isn't particularly well referenced but some of the plot-related content could be moved to those if it helped to keep it in one place. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I am a bit hesitant still, the article has been expanded to a stage where I'd feel confident in letting this stay around. Unopposed to further discussion in the future, but for now these sources definitely seem to illustrate the subject has some degree of notability. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Can't find any interviews or media articles that are about him. The only thing that I can find is passing mentions in Idlebrain.com reviews [40]. He seems to have played the father character in some films and minor characters in some films. I can only find sources about Palle Raghunatha Reddy. DareshMohan (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and India. Shellwood (talk) 11:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's not quantity of films that matter, but quality of coverage that matters. Bearian (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage on the subject's career in the sources and no coverage is any significant roles were played by the subject. Two of the 4 sources are unreliable WP:ICTFSOURCES. RangersRus (talk) 13:42, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: meets WP:NACTOR as a (very) prolific actor. Actually, some of his numerous (400?) roles in notable productions are not minor so he might also meet the general criterion for actors (same guideline, only a line above). The page can be improved with coverage such as https://www.thehansindia.com/cinema/an-actor-par-excellence-661445 (which contains an interview). -Mushy Yank. 00:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree there's no significant coverage. Don't understand obsessions with pushing things through with hot garbage sources, but here we are again. Hyperbolick (talk) 07:29, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MTV Roadies: Double Cross (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

While there has been a substantial amount of work done since this was draftified previously, the references are not useful in verifying notability. It relies on two sources flagged as unreliable and used in multiple places. Substantial improvement to the referencing quality will solve this problem. Fails WP:V - I would have returned it to draft with this issue, but am prevented by WP:DRAFTOBJECT, which is why we are here. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Merge with MTV Roadies. Media Mender 📬✍🏻 10:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment– This has received one full-length review (Koimoi), and with one more, it may pass WP:NF. EmilyR34 (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Single liner article that doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 08:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unable to find any WP:SIGCOV. First name or last name may be misspelled. Unable to find name in original script, which made searches difficult. C679 08:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Laos. C679 08:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 08:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 2022 PROD removed with rationale at this Old revision of Daoneua Siviengxay. C679 08:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 11:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2012 AFF Championship squads#Laos – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article about musical artist that does not satisfy musical notability or general notability. Nothing in the text of this article addresses any of the musical notability criteria or refers to third-party significant coverage. This article was draftified six months ago and has been moved back to article space, and so is a contested draftification that should not be unilaterally moved back to draft space again. A review of the sources shows that they are a user-generated biography, an interview, and listings by music streaming services. There is no independent secondary coverage.

Number	Reference	Remarks	Independent	Significant	Reliable	Secondary
1	www.deezer.com	Biographical sketch on site that has user-generated content	No	Yes	No. User-generated.	No
2	www.graphic.com.gh	An interview.	No	Yes	?	No
3	music.apple.com	A listing on a music streaming service	No. Anyone can list their music.	No. Says that the recording is available.	Yes, but only as to the existence of the recording.	No
4	music.apple.com	A listing on a music streaming service	No. Anyone can list their music.	No. Says that the recording is available.	Yes, but only as to the existence of the recording.	No
5	music.apple.com	A listing on a music streaming service	No. Anyone can list their music.	No. Says that the recording is available.	Yes, but only as to the existence of the recording.	No

Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Music, and Ghana. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sign of notability of any flavour. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Fails WP:NMUSICIAN 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - We've seen this hundreds of times with new African musicians. They pay for placement in unreliable regional publications that simply reprint press releases, then try to use those as proof of media coverage in a WP article. Good luck to him as he gets started but he has to do the work to get noticed by reliable media. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 23:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to meeting GNG per source assessment and WP:NMUSICIAN. Too many press releases demonstrate the person's media activity, but they do not add to notability. --NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Not notable. I can't find any sources that meet WP:42. Fails WP:GNG. Rosentad (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Businesspeople, Women, and China. Skynxnex (talk) 17:05, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article: Justification for Dai Ying’s Notability

I strongly believe that Dai Ying meets Wikipedia’s General Notability Guideline (WP:GNG) and WP:ENT (Entertainment Industry-Specific Notability) due to her leadership role at iQIYI, her involvement in award-winning productions, and significant media coverage. Below are the key reasons why this article should be retained:

1. Professional Roles

Dai Ying is a Vice President at iQIYI, one of China’s largest video streaming platforms, and serves as the General Manager of the Original Drama Development Center. Her leadership role in overseeing original content development at iQIYI positions her as an influential figure in China’s entertainment industry.[41] Executive-level figures in major entertainment companies frequently meet notability guidelines, given their direct impact on large-scale productions.

Dai Ying, as Vice President of iQIYI, is directly responsible for developing original content and overseeing hit Chinese dramas that gained international recognition (The Bad Kids, The Long Night)[42]. This aligns with figures like Ted Sarandos, Kathleen Kennedy, and Bela Bajaria, who are considered notable for their impact on streaming and original content production.

Another crucial aspect to consider is the underrepresentation of Chinese women executives in the entertainment industry on Wikipedia. While Western executives frequently meet notability guidelines, there are very few articles on Chinese female media executives, despite their significant impact on the entertainment industry.

Wikipedia has a well-documented systemic bias issue, particularly in terms of gender and geographical representation. Studies reported on Wikipedia have shown that women are underrepresented in Wikipedia’s coverage. As mentioned by the co-founder Jimmy Wales, as a newcomer female editor, I'm hoping to be encouraged by writing about notable women in my lifetime even though I work 12 hours in a restaurant. Wikipedia is an inspiration and gives me hope one day I can also work in an office.

Women in Chinese entertainment and business leadership are often overlooked, despite their contributions to global media.

2. Notable Productions with scale

Dai Ying has served as the executive producer for several critically acclaimed Chinese dramas that have gained international recognition.[43] These include:

• The Bad Kids – A highly acclaimed suspense drama that became a cultural phenomenon in China, gaining high ratings on Douban (8.9/10) and sparking widespread discussion.
• The Long Night – An award-winning drama that received the Best OTT Original Series Award at the Busan International Film Festival. The show was also broadcast on NHK Japan.
• "Dr. Tang" – A notable medical drama highlighting China’s advancements in medical technology.
• War of Faith - Captured the attention of overseas markets

These productions have been recognized both domestically and internationally, which strengthens Dai Ying’s case for notability. She has produced over 30 dramas. The dramas she produced has received 7 wins and 2 nominations.

Source: IMDb

3. Significant Media Coverage

Dai Ying has been interviewed and featured in various reputable media outlets discussing her role in shaping China’s streaming industry. These interviews and articles provide independent, in-depth coverage of her work, meeting Wikipedia’s WP:GNG requirement for multiple reliable sources.

Source: Launch new projects

Source: Won Producer of the Year

Conclusion

Dai Ying meets Wikipedia’s WP:GNG and WP:ENT guidelines as:

She holds a top executive role at a major streaming company (iQIYI).

She has produced multiple award-winning, widely recognized dramas.

She has received independent media coverage from reputable sources.

Based on these factors, I urge editors to reconsider the deletion nomination. I am most willing to learn and would greatly appreciate sharing on feedback on how to improve the article.

Thank you for your kind consideration.

Heureuxl 18:19, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heureuxl is the creator of this article (posted by Nominator). Rosentad (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neutral, I agree that [44] [45] likely constitute GNG, unless there is some connection between Sohu and iQIYI that I haven't found which would make them non-independent. (stricken per comment below) As a heads up for the future @Heureuxl, WP:WALLSOFTEXT are much less likely to help your argument than a more succinct and focused argument. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarity and well-understood on this.

Heureuxl 01:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Wasianpower: Source [4] actually originates from Qianlong.com (here) and is not an official Sohu release. It's most likely a commercial press release, as it's very promotional and doesn't have the reporter's name on it. Source [5] is actually posted by a Sohu self-media account. It is self-published content. They are clearly not independent of the subject. Rosentad (talk) 09:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, apologies — wasn't familiar with Sohu's formatting. I'll change my vote to neutral to now, there's enough breadth of coverage that it seems plausible to me that this subject could meet notability, but I don't have the experience to properly navigate the sourcing. [46] This source seems like it may meet GNG but it may also be self published, and this source [47] reads a bit promotional in tone (from the generated translation at least) but may also qualify. She also has an entry to on the CN Wikipedia, which could be used to find additional sourcing [48], though this entry is also tagged with concerns about COI and promotional content. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rosentad @Wasianpower

Thank you for your feedback. But just because it's reported by a sohu self media account, how does it say that it's self published content when it's a media report? Please let me know so I can improve my 3rd party sources selection for the future. Also, how can I further improve the article? Thank you both.

Heureuxl 23:48, 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! 06:57, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Producers are run of the mill, and do not get an encyclopedia article unless they pass both WP:NCREATIVE and WP:SIGCOV. Almost all producers are just managers of money and other resources. They are not creative people. If they are involved with the creative process, then we have a whole Guideline for that. I don't see how the subject "is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited," or has been "known for originating a significant new concept," etc, or theory, or technique. The only argument is the subject had "a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work." Turning to significant coverage about them, I find it lacking. Compare Lorne Michaels. Bearian (talk) 06:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. User:Heureuxl, in AFDs, we don't need your arguments about why a subject is notable, we need solid, reliable sources that demonstrate notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree with Bearian that she definitely doesn't qualify for WP:NCREATIVE — she is a media executive, not a "creative professional". I had a look at Chinese language sources to see if there might be enough to satisfy WP:GNG, but wasn't able to find anything particularly useful. There are plenty of mentions/quotes in articles about new shows, a few interviews, and a few pieces about minor awards she's won, but nothing beyond that. Her articles on Baidu Baike and zhwiki don't have anything that would indicate a GNG pass either. MCE89 (talk) 08:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This organisation fails WP:NORG. Sources are none other than routine coverage. GTrang (talk) 04:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep : While the article is basically an ad and perhaps needs a total rewrite, I don't think sources are an issue. See [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55]. I can't vouch for the quality of all these sources, but these were just the first things I found after hardly any searching. The coverage seems far beyond routine. — Anonymous 04:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some of these sources were created by the org, and the rest are churnalism in trade publications (WP:TRADES) based on press releases. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Animal, Organizations, Environment, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There might be enough coverage to meet WP:NORG. Reuters, FT are the best I could find; there's a lot of less significant coverage. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 07:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can we get a source eval?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 06:07, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable initiative with pretty decent sourcing, mentioned above and we should keep in mind that there are almost additional sources in printed or other media per WP:NEXIST for such kind of orgs.--ג'ימיהחיה (talk) 13:07, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a general rule to participants in an AFD, PLEASE do not recommend sources unless you have checked them out before listing them in your comments. It's your job to vet the sources before suggesting them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources suggested by User:An anonymous username, not my real name are WP:TRADES publications based on press releases ([56], [57], [58], [59], [60] -- plus, these are not WP:SIGCOV of the organization but rather reporting on one of its reports), a non-independent source authored by the subject org ([61]), and a press release from the subject ([62]). The Reuters source supplied by Helpful Raccoon has two trivial mentions of FAIRR in an article on a broader coalition. Looking through the sources in the article, I see a mix of WP:ORGTRIV, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs, and affiliated sources, but nothing that qualifies at WP:SIGCOV in WP:SIRS. The FT source is the only thing I see that gets close to WP:NORG and that's not enough. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete DClemens' analysis strongly shows WP:ORG is not met. LibStar (talk) 22:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of NAIA national football championship series appearances by team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Subject lacks the requisite coverage to meet the WP:NLIST. Wikipedia is not a repository of primary sources as is currently the case here and a BEFORE didn't come up with anything better. PROD was removed without a rationale so taking this to AfD. Let'srun (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football and Lists. Let'srun (talk) 23:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Eh, I'm not sure this will letter of the law qualify but deleting this also feels like removing part of a set of college football stats articles. I can't make a source based argument for keep, but this isn't a delete which "feels" like it makes the encyclopaedia better. SportingFlyer T·C 04:25, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Perhaps the info can be covered in a different article? That being said, wikipedia isn't everything. Let'srun (talk) 13:30, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have any problem if a better article or article title is established, I'd just prefer not to lose the information. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I had the same reaction as Sporting Flyer. The piece is well done and sourced, records a significant piece of college football history, and seems to make the encyclopeida better. And I did find this which discusses the topic of NAIA teams ranked by the number of postseason appearances. Cbl62 (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE for the reasons stated by Cbl62. It would be a shame if the encyclopedia were to lose this information. Jeff in CA (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not think there are any independent sources regarding the set, but individual sourcing on each team's total playoff appearances seems likelier to find. I agree with Cbl62 that a list such as this is encyclopedic. Therefore, I would prefer a different option than deleting. A rename or even merge target may work better. Conyo14 (talk) 18:30, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There are suggestions for ATDs, but can we please come into an agreement?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 05:59, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See previous relisting comment.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:46, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into NAIA football national championship. Wikipedia is ultimately WP:NOTSTATS but I recognize the value of having table as an enhancement to the encyclopedia if its properly sourced. I still agree with OP that it fails WP:NLIST and doesn't deserve its own article. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a target I can agree with. Conyo14 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have no issues with this. Let'srun (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not "excessive listings of unexplained statistics", which is the topic of WP:NOTSTATS. In fact, this list contains no statistics at all, as simple counts, such as win-loss records, are not statistics. Jeff in CA (talk) 23:56, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Hall of Fame (2025) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

WP:TOOSOON, Although, it is announced that Paul "Triple H" Levesque that will inducted on Hall of Fame, it is premature to create this solely article. However, there is a section on WWE Hall of Fame#2025. Much likely supporting to Redirect for a while, then if it's announced completely who's in the hall of fame, it can be created solely. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. ROY is WAR Talk! 05:25, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 for now, until/unless we get more to work with. It's WP:TOOSOON.LM2000 (talk) 05:40, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 as per LM2000, the topic simply does not have enough information at this time to warrant a standalone article. JustARandomEditor123 (talk) 06:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:16, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a ridiculous nomination. Clear secondary sources exist such as [63] and the event is two months away. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It is obviously WP:TOOSOON like you said, it's two months away. According to WP:TOOSOON:Sometimes, a topic may appear obviously notable to you, but there may not be enough independent coverage of it to confirm that. In such cases, it may simply be too soon to create the article. It's Triple H that only have an announcement that inducted on Hall of Fame and if there is will be on hall of fame without a reliable sources might be WP:CRYSTALBALL. ROY is WAR Talk! 12:50, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Did you even read what I wrote? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:43, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to WWE Hall of Fame#2025 for now. Per WP:TOOSOON. Hansen Sebastian (Talk) 14:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per WP:PWEVENT once the date and location has been announced for these events its deemed to have met the notability criteria. Therefore WP:TOOSOON does not apply. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 13:31, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The date and location for this event have already been announced according to the article. The date is April 18, 2025, and the location is T-Mobile Arena in Paradise, Nevada. So, it is keep. Abhiramakella (talk) 17:07, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be real the date and place have not been confirmed yet- it is a bullshit 2A13:9900:F000:0:1F0:6059:E8EA:D3F6 (talk) 10:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@2A13:9900:F000:0:1F0:6059:E8EA:D3F6:Please be Civil to your vote. ROY is WAR Talk! 11:39, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Secondary sources are present, and this is obviously something that will be updated over the coming weeks, so deleting it now only to have it re-created next month seems odd. Thief-River-Faller (talk) 22:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails GNG. She assumed some positions at the United States Copyright Office, but none of them was extraordinary enough to confer her notability. Even if some positions she held are notable enough to have a stand-alone page, that doesn't automatically make her notable.

• [64] Blog source.
• [65] Routine announcement, which most people who get appointed to assume relevant federal roles usually get.
• [66] Mostly Strong talking about her own work, not an independent source. Badbluebus (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Women, Law, and United States of America. Badbluebus (talk) 04:06, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: California and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:10, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the valid arguments made by @TJRC

  Nayyn (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. She didn't just assume "some positions" at the Copyright Office; she was acting Register of Copyrights, the top position, the head of the entire Copyright Office, with responsibility for all U.S. policy relating to copyright law. I know that "register" sounds like a purely ministerial title, like a county register, but it is the equivalent to a position like the head of the US Patent and Trademark Office. It's just that the USPTO head's title has changed from the mundane U.S. Commissioner of Patents to the more ornate Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property, while the Copyright Office has stuck to its original title. Frankly, each of the registers in the List of registers of copyrights merits an article.

No objection to improving the sourcing.

Disclosure: I'm the editor who initially wrote the article. Frankly, I think it was better -- in content, sourcing and clarity of notability -- in its original form. I agree it should be cleaned up; but not deleted. TJRC (talk) 04:26, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which policy are you using to back up the notability of this topic? NPOL? If yes then they didn’t merit NPOL#1, the sources itself are neither sufficient to merit NPOL#2. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 04:04, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Copyright Office is very clearly a national agency; and the head of the United States Copyright Office is very clearly someone "who [has] held ... national office" by virtue of holding the office heading that agency. TJRC (talk) 04:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The United States Copyright Office is a part of the Library Congress. This is what NPOL#1 says: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. Which part of NPOL here does she pass? She doesn’t pass NPOL#2 due to lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand the basis for your confusion. Are you saying that the US Copyright Office is not a federal agency? TJRC (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Holders of every federal agency is not notable; that’s not what NPOL is about. "Not every appointee (or elected position) automatically passes the bar of WP:BLP/WP:N. I would also note the language in NPOL: "are presumed to be notable" but it doesn't relieve them of the obligation in WP:GNG to have significant coverage in reliable sources. If the position was that important, it would be trivial to find SIGCOV in WP:RS, but that isn't the case. "Presumption" isn't a guarantee, it just means that it is likely you will find sources." Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 20:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per TJRC. For the record, most active Wikipedians are 2 or 3 degrees of separation from the subject via the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Directors member Kat Walsh, who's a mutual connection on LinkedIn and Copyright Counsel at Creative Commons. Bearian (talk) 06:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't necessarily understand the views above about WP:GNG. Serving non significant or perhaps public political or literary offices doesn't meets WP:NPOL. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 07:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Appears to be the head of a government corporation, doesn't seem to pass political notability. They’re a business person in the employ of the government, not a politician that's elected. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 12:26, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per TJRC. She was also vice-president of the International Intellectual Property Alliance, and was quoted in that role in newspaper articles about laws relating to piracy of software, CDs, etc. She has also published book chapters and journal articles on copyright. I have added some refs and info to the article. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:05, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem to qualify for WP:NPOL and also doesn't match WP:GNG. Pollia (talk) 10:56, 7 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!} 06:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Acting or not, there is a single Register of Copyrights for the whole of the United States, and their legal responsibility is substantial. While the case would be stronger if this was a presidentially appointed position, it is still a nonfunctionary national office, the equivalent of an agency head. BD2412 T 22:07, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Role in just a single Notable film, the subject fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Taabii (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Nepal. Taabii (talk) 06:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Prem_Geet_3#Cast: and undo the redirect when the filmography includes more roles. -Mushy Yank. 22:20, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Having examined all the sources in the article (except the offline German article from the 1930s), and done some searches of my own, I think there is only a single sentence of information extant about this figure: he was king when Tudhaliya and Suppiluliuma invaded Hayasa-Azzi. He gets namedropped in passing in histories of the Hittites, but the discussion does not rise to the level of WP:SIGCOV. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, Royalty and nobility, and Turkey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dharampal Singh (party secretary) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. The subject just holds a state-level post of a Notable National Party in India. Taabii (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, India, and Uttar Pradesh. Taabii (talk) 05:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• the person before him holding this post Sunil Bansal also had a Wikipedia page and this is a notable post in the party's state unit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amplify Digital 21 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holding a party office alone does not confer notability, even if the office itself is notable. WP:NPOL only applies to state offices. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Simply holding the position of secretary or national secretary of a political party does not satisfy the WP:NPOL criteria, and the subject also fails to meet the WP:GNG requirements. Baqi:) (talk) 12:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While WP:NPOL is clearly not met, I'd like to see a deeper source analysis before concluding whether WP:GNG is met or not. Some sources such as the two from The Indian Express ([67] and [68]) appear to provide some level of WP:SIGCOV (that source is considered reliable, see Wikipedia:New page patrol source guide#India). I haven't checked the other sources, but it would be worth to look deeper into them. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 14:18, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:NPOL. I cannot find subject's work as politician that has made any significant impact and achievement to be worthy of notice and noteworthy. RangersRus (talk) 13:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nom. Subject only holds post within the party and not elected to any state or national legislative assemblies, fails WP:NPOL TheSlumPanda (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I looked at half of the sources, with the main trends being that reliability isn't clear for most Indian news organizations, and, more crucially here, that there is a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage beyond his appointment as general secretary. Still not knowledgeable enough on Indian news orgs to tell whether or not he meets WP:GNG, but the lack of sustained notability is definitely an issue.

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/dharampal-uttar-pradesh-bjp-general-secretary-8083646/		Per WP:NPPSG		✔ Yes
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/lucknow/dharampal-saini-replaces-sunil-bansal-as-up-bjp-general-secretary/articleshow/93480841.cms	WP:NEWSORGINDIA	~ WP:TIMESOFINDIA		? Unknown
https://www.livehindustan.com/uttar-pradesh/story-who-is-dharampal-singh-who-got-the-responsibility-of-organization-general-minister-of-up-bjp-6922808.html	WP:NEWSORGINDIA			? Unknown
https://indianexpress.com/article/political-pulse/bjp-general-secretary-begins-groundwork-for-party-from-braj-and-west-up-8103868/		WP:NPPSG		✔ Yes
https://hindi.news18.com/news/uttar-pradesh/lucknow-bjp-new-organization-general-secretary-dharampal-singh-called-his-first-meeting-in-ghaziabad-upns-4485823.html	WP:NEWSORGINDIA	Last discussion on the topic wasn't very fruitful		? Unknown
https://zeenews.india.com/hindi/india/who-is-dharampal-singh-assigned-the-responsibility-of-the-general-secretary-of-up-bjp/1297506	WP:NEWSORGINDIA, lack of a byline makes this one more worrying	~ WP:NPPSG		? Unknown
https://www.aajtak.in/india/uttar-pradesh/story/dharampal-singh-handle-responsibility-organization-general-minister-bjp-up-ntc-1516426-2022-08-11				? Unknown
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}}.

Commenters above pointed out that he didn't meet WP:NPOL, which is true, but NPOL is an alternative to GNG, not a requirement that also has to be met. In that case, notability (if it exists) would come from GNG, not NPOL, but isn't sustained either way, so I'm still not sold on keeping the article (although I'm not strongly swayed towards deletion either yet). Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avon School District (Massachusetts) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Likely fails WP:GNG. Merge and redirect this content to Avon, Massachusetts#Education. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, Schools, United States of America, and Massachusetts. –Aidan721 (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A school district is a type of municipality, and its boundaries are not necessarily the same as a town of the same name. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 09:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  In this case, they are the same. And how does that address the notability argument? –Aidan721 (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Aidan721: The idea is that a municipality is a government-recognized place, and so it is not necessary to do the work to prove it as notable. However in Massachusetts, school districts do have the same boundaries as municipalities. Also, the US Census Bureau considers most Massachusetts school districts as being dependencies of municipal governments. Therefore, if this school district is deemed not notable, it can be merged into Avon, Massachusetts. Anyhow, I will look for information on this district. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Per School Committee Policy Manual from the offical website: The area served by the Avon Public Schools is conterminous with the Town of Avon (p. 6). –Aidan721 (talk) 15:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep. New England school districts have school district boundaries be the same as municipal boundaries. In the case of regional school districts, boundaries are the same as the two or more municipalities included. The concept of school districts crossing municipal and county boundaries reflect school districts in most states, but not in MA. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll address the notability argument: "likely" to fail the GNG? Didn't you check? Ravenswing 05:01, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I found an angle in which keep can be an outcome: I found an article in which a superintendent took a tour of China and as a result, began to consider expanding academic courses on China. And I found another article on how the school district no longer could have Latin.

  Kazarian, Christopher (2006-07-13). "Ex-Southampton resident to tour China on Fulbright". The Summit. Easthampton, Massachusetts. pp. 1, 3 – via Newspapers.com.

  Melanson, Mike (2008-08-26). "Lack of teacher means no Latin for Avon students". Wicked Local. Retrieved 2025-02-08.

• I found other articles on changes of superintendents, but I think these two articles have the best SIGCOV on this district.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, additional SIGCOV is in the article about how the district had to use churches during a repair of the school: Coleman, Sandy (2004-10-03). "Public schooling, church setting". Boston Globe. pp. Globe South 1, 5 – via Newspapers.com. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

A user DePRODed this article stating to "not delete this because it can still have good sources and to give it a chance", however, I am not seeing this having good sources, it has failed WP:GNG for 15 years. This source might be good, ^[1], but it is still not enough to separate an article for the mascot. Opolito was right to PROD it, and he is also right that reliable sourcing will never happen. Toby2023 (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is not kept, I would recommend merging the info to Wienerschnitzel as its own section. DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 05:35, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Food and drink, Advertising, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Zero notability, poorly written piece of WP:FANCRUFT. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Wienerschnitzel - The mascot is already mentioned on the main article, so Redirecting would be a valid WP:ATD. Since the only sourced content here is merely confirming that the character is an advertising mascot of Wienerschnitzel, which is already stated on the main article, I don't really see the need for a Merge. Rorshacma (talk) 02:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Wienerschnitzel – All the mascot description fits perfectly into the main article. Svartner (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Per others. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect per Piotrus. Doesn't have enough sources. There might be a decent redirect target, but it does seem vague. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Recreation of salted title: Sathyam Gujja, which was salted in 2021 due to constant recreation. Subject appears to lack notability, and a WP:BEFORE search doesn't show much, if any, coverage from reliable sources. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and India. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:17, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is a well known activist in Telangana and Andhra Pradesh, he has gained more prominence in the past 4 years and deserves to be known Abcd45678 (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the subject is a back ward class activist and also an educationalist.see the references^[1] D u p e s g w y n (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Observation: Just want to note that user above did not have any contributions prior to this AfD, and is likely a sock of the author. CycloneYoris ^talk! 04:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Telangana-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:56, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: On WP:BEFORE search I didn’t found any sig cov. of this subject in independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

True Market Value is a common term. It refers to the price a buyer is willing to pay for a property, a product or service. It is not restricted to the real estate market or to online auctions. The text of this article is gibberish to me. The term True Market Value does not require a Wikipedia article; maybe an entry in wiktionary. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Economics. Ruud Buitelaar (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this article is gibberish and the citations do not support the text. This isn't notable enough to be worth salvaging. Basedeunie042 (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I am unable to find anything approaching WP:SIGCOV for this Argentine rugby player. JTtheOG (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby union, and Argentina. JTtheOG (talk) 02:54, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as he has played professionally for Benetton Rugby in the United Rugby Championship, a top-tier international competition, and has represented Argentina at the Under-20 level, demonstrating notability in rugby. His career has been covered by reliable sources--Loewstisch (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one source providing SIGCOV. JTtheOG (talk) 20:32, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing beyond passing mentions on ProQuest. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 03:06, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Single, unnotable game accessory, only reviewed in 2 magazines, which are passing mentions. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Games. -Samoht27 (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added summaries of the two listed reviews to the article, and used details from the reviews to expand the description of the subject. The two reviews are not "passing mentions"; each is several hundred words long. Notability is not in question.Guinness323 (talk) 07:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thanks to the improvments we now have a referenced non-stubby article, which demonstrates that the reviews were not passing mentions, and therefore the topic fullfilling WP:WHYN/WP:GNG. A closer look at sources during the WP:BEFORE search seems warranted. Daranios (talk) 08:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Guinness323 and Daranios. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Soft deleted previously due to lack of in-depth coverage. Still fails WP:GNG. Gheus (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Law, and California. Shellwood (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 01:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

per WP:NACTOR, no sources provide coverage about the actress. The article is also littered with fake references FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Democratic Republic of the Congo. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:27, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have edited the article a bit. She at least meets WP:GNG, and probably WP:NCREATIVE, though I have not checked for reviews of all the films she has produced (there is a list in an earlier version of this article, but the current article only names two she received award nominations for in 2022). The sources do provide coverage of her, as suggested by their titles: "Zoom sur la meilleure scénariste de la RDC : Belinda Kikusa Kandi dit « Bellevue », la Femme sage"; "Belinda Kandy dit « Belle Vue », apporte une nouvelle touche dans le cinéma congolais"; "Bellevue KANDY | 50 Femmes qui inspirent"; ). "L'actrice comédienne Belinda Bellevie Officiel est à deux doigts d'instaurer un nouveau record historique dans le cinéma congolais". (Note both her professional and real names used with variations in spelling.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:22, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ZyphorianNexus ^Talk 00:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:DICDEF and WP:SYNTH. It's a blend of various topics that can be found separately at the DAB page International. — Anonymous 00:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Geography. — Anonymous 00:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Concur with the nom. There is nothing here that passes our concept of an article subject. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Of course the concept of things being international exists, and a disambiguation page is no solution where it obscures, rather than elucidating, the fact that topics on the page express aspects of a single underlying topic. If the article requires further substance to pass muster, add that substance. Sources certainly exist. BD2412 T 03:05, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  But this is an encyclopedia. "The concept of things being international", as you put it, is not an encyclopedic topic, not any more than "the concept of things being the color beige" is. Without context, this is just a word. I have no doubt that thousands of sources use it, but words are not inherently notable in and of themselves. — Anonymous 03:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The concept of Internationality is precisely as encyclopedic as the concept of Beige. In fact, some of the most important topics that we have (and I would count this among them) are high-level conceptual abstractions of fundamental aspects of human life. BD2412 T 03:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What exactly do you envision this article as being about? Perhaps a colour was a poor example on my part (as it's something distinct and tangible). How about the concept of things existing on Earth? Similarly abstract and far too broad. For this case, we're looking at the internationality of what exactly? Can you provide a reliable source discussing internationality without further context (not in relation to laws, regulations, relations, agreements, or ideologies)? Any source will do (except a dictionary, of course). — Anonymous 04:15, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia has no requirement that sources discuss concepts "without further context". That would be like asking to have the article on Construction include sources on construction with no context about things being constructed. BD2412 T 04:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Construction is a process. I can point at something and say whether or not it is construction. Internationality is much more abstract. I think it's fair to say that abstract concepts require some kind of cohesive, concrete grounding. For instance Knowledge and Awareness are both pretty abstract, but they both represent consistent ideas that remain the same whether they're being discussed from a scientific, philosophical, or religious perspective. Internationality, on the other hand, can mean completely different things depending on the context. An international language is not comparable to an international treaty. They are two completely different things that happen to both be "international". — Anonymous 04:52, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, now that I think of it, the construction analogy itself could be broken down further. As a word, construction can also be used to refer to the way a text is interpreted or a type of geometric figure. Despite the existence of these other meanings (which it acknowledges itself), our article on the subject makes it clear that we're talking about human beings taking materials and building stuff with them. Defining other meanings is why DAB pages exist. It would be pointless to try to discuss them all in a single article. — Anonymous 05:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I raised Construction as an example of a thing that is inherently tied to contexts, not as an abstraction of the level of Internationality. BD2412 T 05:20, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Isn't the concept of things existing on Earth covered by our article on ontology? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a philosophical concept that is more to the tune of things existing in the universe. My very hypothetical example was based on the idea of having an article about things existing specifically on planet Earth with no further connection to each other. Sure, there are plenty of articles about these things. Perhaps you could make an article with a nice-sounding name like "Terran". However, it would still not be hopelessly broad and not describe a meaningful group. For a slightly more specific example, consider our DAB page for American. The first entry is something of, from, or related to the United States of America, commonly known as the "United States" or "America" So far, no one has created an article for this uselessly wide meaning, and information about more specific meanings can be found on the page. — Anonymous 04:57, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We also have an article on Globalization, which is basically just internationality taken to its ultimate end. Of course, Internationalization and Cosmopolitanism cover narrower iterations. BD2412 T 05:00, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is it really, though? Globalization is a process. As it is used by modern experts, it has a single, consistent meaning (it's arguably much less broad than the other examples I gave). — Anonymous 05:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, try this on for size: Jonathan Rée, Internationality, Radical Philosophy 60, Spring 1992. BD2412 T 05:44, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Intriguing. It seems the author defines it as a tangible concept here akin to globalization. If there are additional sources supporting this usage, then I'd support keeping the article, but that would mean getting rid of the content on international languages and sporting events. — Anonymous 05:54, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see why you would remove topics for which the concept is clearly applicable. Internationality in sports is functionally an extension of internationality in culture and, to some extent, in government. BD2412 T 17:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  See the IP's response. This is one philosopher's idea of a new concept of "internationality", which has nothing to do with other things that happen to be "international". — Anonymous 17:59, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The IP has misread the work, then. Rée does not claim to be the coiner of "Internationality" and in fact specifically acknowledges its prior coinage. He says that the word was coined but has "lain unused" (as of his writing 33 years ago), and that he seeks "to rehabilitate the word". This is, therefore, not "one specific philosopher's new idea", but an older idea teased out in a philosophical writing. BD2412 T 18:42, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this is where our impasse is coming from. Yes, it was a word before Rée. Yes, many people have used it as a word. However, not all words represent encyclopedic concepts. Rée is using an existing word to describe his new concept. Do these sources before Rée describe the same idea he is describing? And if so, how is this philosophical concept related to sporting events? — Anonymous 18:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't find Rée's use to be a "new concept" at all. He describes Internationality as the global context of state formation, legal systems, and military structures. Sure, he has his own theory about the order in which these things happen, but the concept itself is like the concept of the ocean with respect to naval battles, with a different theory of how battles on the ocean occur not actually redefining what the ocean is. BD2412 T 22:47, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For all the philosophical bickering in this AfD, we are missing the one thing this subject needs to pass WP:GNG: Are there reliable secondary sources discussing general "internationality" as a concept (as opposed to a specialized definition unique to politics, trade, or whatever)? If so, they aren't cited in the article, which is an unsourced definition followed by a list of examples from different contexts. This is as SYNTH as it gets. If the word can be shown to be commonly used in certain fields then I guess a redirect to the DAB would be acceptable. But not this article. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note: This was listed at the ARS rescue list without leaving a notice here, in a somewhat (but not overly) non-neutral way. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:14, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm forced to agree with the other delete votes. I just don't think there's a topic here. Some things have international applications, like sport or law, and we have articles about those, but there's nothing about "internationality" specifically except as a DICDEF. There just don't seem to be any sources here. The one actual presented source by Ree above, seems to be about one specific philosopher's new idea of something which he's calling "internationality". This a) doesn't seem to be notable on its own, and b) even if it were, if you wanted to write an article about this philosopher's idea, you'd start from scratch, because it's a different topic to that of the current state of the WP article. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment: My deepest thanks to everyone who has participated in this exhausting discussion; if anyone's interested, Transnationality should probably be brought here for extremely similar reasons, but I don't think I have the energy left to do so myself. — Anonymous 05:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — the cited rationale is incorrect. Speaking as an originator of the article in 2006, when it was merely International as a primary topic. Since then, International was moved back to a disambiguation. This is well sourced, and far more than a dictionary definition. This does NOT "imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." NB: polled by the nominator. Presumably s/he/it polled every contributor. That's a lot of effort for no good reason.
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @William Allen Simpson, I'm having a hard time understanding you. To be clear, you were the creator of this article, which your vote should make clear. The number of sources doesn't change the fact that it's a dictionary definition because the sources are describing different things that just happen to be "international". Also, what do you mean by "polled every contributor"? — Anonymous 18:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Things being "international" is notable. We don't have articles at adjective titles (Happy points to Happiness for example), and this fits with having Transnationalism and Globalism, since Internationalism is already occupied. I also find it defined in several book sources so the article can be improved, but doesn't need deleted. CNMall41 (talk) 19:57, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @CNMall41 but happiness, transnationalism, and globalism are concepts that have been discussed by academics. "Internationality" is a word that can refer to completely different things, making this a DICDEF. — Anonymous 20:23, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found it discussed in books such as this so I would need to disagree. It is covered in more specific uses, but the overall idea is still discussed enough for this to meet notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CNMall41, both this source and another source brought up earlier appear to be describing specific philosophical concepts (not necessarily the same ones), which may or may not be notable. Even if they can be proven notable, that would still mean essentially rewriting most or all of the existing article from scratch as it is currently just synthesizing different things that happen to be international. I think the most fitting comparison, given that we're dealing with internationality, would be a specific nationality. A person, language, or cuisine can be German, but we don't have one article that simultaneously discusses all German things. Now, if German represented a valid philosophical concept, we might have an article on it if enough experts discussed the idea, but it would be a completely different article than the aforementioned one that simply discussed all things German. — Anonymous 21:30, 9 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rewriting is always acceptable per WP:HEY but I don't think it needs deleted just to clean it up. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be deleted, but it does need to be pared and aligned with the concept of "internationality" - anything that's just "international" can be removed, but the Jonathan Reé parts shouldn't. In academia, a lot of the research is coming up with ways to measure how "international" different things are, over a variety of means - this should be the focus of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: I frankly don't think anything needs to be removed, just contextualized. The components that have been called out — internationality of words and languages, and of sports — are still elements of the culture of internationality, of which political and economic relationships are dominant, but not exhaustive. BD2412 T 20:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BD2412: Perhaps - the bit about sports is unsourced though and might not fit well, and there's definitely a distinct concept which isn't really talked about in the article. It feels like it talks about international too much and not internationality... SportingFlyer T·C 21:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I am not saying that it does need rewritten. What I am saying is that "IF" it needs rewritten, that is not a reason for deletion. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:55, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the first two sources that instantly popped up in a BEFORE search were a detailed definition of the concept and a literature review of how the concept is used in academia. The delete !votes are honestly baffling - the article is in no way a dictionary definition and clearly passes GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 19:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Care to share these sources with the rest of the class? 35.139.154.158 (talk) 03:30, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The 1991 Jonathan Reé article and Buela-Casal et al. 2006. SportingFlyer T·C 06:24, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]