Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 20

Recent AfDs:    Today    Yesterday      January 25 (Sat)      January 24 (Fri)      January 23 (Thu)     More... Media   Organisations   Biography   Society   Web   Games   Science   Arts   Places   Indiscern.  Not-Sorted

Purge server cache

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

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

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

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

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

  Part 4 here explains it [1]. The artist isn't notable, the artwork doesn't appear to be either. Oaktree b (talk) 00:32, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Donald Trump raised-fist photographs § Legacy, where the statue is already covered, as alternative to deletion and likely search target. The article's current state is irrelevant but apart from The Times's in-depth article, it's mostly local sourcing, which is weaker. There is plenty to expand from these sources and while I'd expect further sourcing after its unveiling this week, since we have no crystal ball, it's fine to all expand summary style within the parent article, the pose on which the statue is modeled. (The author's notability is a separate point, but there is way more significant coverage in reliable source about his practice linked within that article.) czar 03:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as per czar's reasoning. RopeTricks (talk) 12:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per The Times article and other coverage. Too soon to delete as it's not known if this will be notable in the future (as it is at present) or where the statue will end up after its planned nationwide exhibition. Other Trump statues, mostly satirical or mocking artworks, have retained their pages. It is said above that the artist, Alan Cottrill, isn't notable. He has a new Wikipedia article and see his 2016 Statue of Thomas Edison exhibited in the U.S. Capitol National Statuary Hall Collection representing the state of Ohio. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge together with the other, similarly problematic, ones to a new article, List of Donald Trump statues. Not notable enough for a stand-alone article, and "too soon to delete" should never be used as a reason to keep: we only keep once lasting notability is sure or near-sure, not in the hope that it will materialize in the future. Fram (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not need to merge if you create the list article, just add it as a linked entry on the list as is done with other American presidential statues. Yes, my mistake "too soon to delete", thanks. This is still a notable sourced statue by a notable sculptor. The Times article is much more notable coverage than most statues ever get. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Donald Trump raised-fist photographs § Legacy. Sources do not support this passing WP:GNG. Creator does not meet WP:ARTIST. "It might be notable in the future" is not a reason to keep. Asparagusstar (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Multiple reliable, secondary sources (including major outlets both within U.S. and internationally (i.e.: The Times) exist proving the artwork's notability. The artist, furthermore, is notable – and it has been confirmed that the statue will eventually be displayed at the future Trump Presidential Library. Infrastorian (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect - as suggested - this is literally a derivative work of a photograph. There are some sources, so a selective merge is possible. Bearian (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Donald Trump raised-fist photographs#Legacy as a viable ATD per Czar and Asparagusstar. Sal2100 (talk) 21:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Doc Shanley (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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. JayCubby 23:13, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The SABR biography has plenty of citations [2]. Blue Jays fans laugh then the Yankees and Sox start a feud anyway.... Oaktree b (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While there was minimal sources when searching for Doc Shanley, I found plenty beyond game logs and casual mentions when searching for Harry Shanley. Would suggest a pagemove upon closure. Wizardman 23:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per sourcing and a WP:TROUT for the nominator for (1) not doing WP:BEFORE and (2) the unnecessary antagonism in the nomination. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't have access to newspapers.com (though I ought to apply through TWL). Good catch with the sourcing. JayCubby 03:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the article itself is underdeveloped, but the sources presented already in this AfD clearly show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 00:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Florida, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Personal attacks in nominations is not a good look for you. Spanneraol (talk) 00:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per SportingFlyer and others. Rlendog (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marius Toma (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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Romania. JayCubby 23:07, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No reliable sources found. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 00:02, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 07:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 21:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Clearly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 02:35, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chief Minister's Cup 2024 (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/WP:NEVENT, tried to move to draftspace for improvement but the creator reverted the action. I brought it to AFD to avoid move-warring. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 08:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I added more sources

If needed more

I will add more

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Redirect with Kolkata Derby – As WP:ATD. Svartner (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A whole new cup? a whole new event organized by other.. How can i mix it. Shouldn't it have a separate article for itself Sid Prayag (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Hey I have provided many sources of media house covering this cup. Isn't it significant coverage? Sid Prayag (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—No reason to merge. Clearly not notable. Anwegmann (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

2015 in Scandinavian music (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)

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

The same applies to these other years as well:

2016 in Scandinavian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2017 in Scandinavian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2018 in Scandinavian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2019 in Scandinavian music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music, Lists, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Fram (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I fully agree that the concept of "Scandinavian music" is a nonstarter. Though there are only 3 countries in Scandinavia and not 5, there is not that much overlap between the music scenes as to constitute a common sphere. The information about individual concerts and even festivals is not encyclopedically relevant and should be burnt with fire. Relevant albums should be mentioned in country-specific pages where applicable (i.e. 2015 in Swedish music – the albums might already be mentioned there, though). Since there is no one target to redirect to, delete all. Geschichte (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The creation of such articles should be purely country-based. Orientls (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. The suggestion that we have articles on music for these individual countries is erroneous. Where are 2024 in Danish music, 2024 in Norwegian music, 2024 in Finnish music, 2024 in Swedish music? Scandinavia is as clear-cut a region as is Ireland. Why remove useful information with nothing to replace it? I'm baffled as to the reason for this nomination. Deb (talk) 09:43, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2024 in Scandinavian music is not up for deletion. For the nominated years, we do have individual articles for Norway, Denmark, ... Fram (talk) 09:56, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    So why would you delete a range of articles in the middle of a range of articles that are being kept up to date, in order to replace it with a range of incomplete articles whose creator was blocked years ago and hasn't returned? Deb (talk) 10:24, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    • The other Scandinavia ones should later be deleted after the necessary country articles have been made, and no new Scandinavia ones should be created. Funny, by the way, that the original creator was blocked for copyvio, while you created e.g. the 2015 in Scandinavia page by an unattributed copy of all his work at the 2015 in Norway page. Fram (talk) 10:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      Cut it out, right now. You haven't achieved consensus as yet. Deb (talk) 15:29, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

      "should later be deleted" =/= now. Fram (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all - These are lists that appear to fail the WP:NLIST criteria as a notable grouping discussed by reliable sources. Scandinavian Music is not a defined genre of music. Even the term Scandinavia is ill-defined - it may or may not include various territories depending upon the context. It seems these lists would be better if they followed the individual territories and can align with the current Wikipedia articles separated into territories such as Music of Iceland, Music of Finland, Music of Sweden, etc. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Fram, this AFD is not formatted as a bundled nomination and so our closing editing tool, XFDcloser, will not recognize the closure decision as relevant to any articles but the one in the page title. Please look over the instructions at WP:AFD for formatting multiple article nominations so that this process is smooth for the admin who closes this discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:53, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Done, I hope. Fram (talk) 08:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Deb. As far as I can tell from what I found in Google Books, "Scandinavian music" is a thing. You'll find books on "Scandinavian music" generally, and comments such as "Scandinavian music as a whole" [3] and "Scandinavian music . . . is distinctive" and is "a school": [4]. You will find, even in English, Billboard spotlight "review of the year" articles on Scandanavian music in 1971, 1972, 1973, 1979, 1981 and probably every other year, though I can't search the entire run. And Scandanavia has had music periodicals since at least the 18th century: [5]. And I think that indicates that most years in Scandanavian music are likely notable. James500 (talk) 22:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what's the point of just repeating the information on the standard by country pages into a grouped page? We are just increasing the maintenance cost for no good reason, it's not as if the entries in the Scandinavia pages are about some cross-Scandinavian things. The 2015 page Is an 80% copy of the Norway page, with some other stuff copied from the other country pages. It adds no value at all. Fram (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

    As you are fully aware from the previous conversation, most of the years don't have articles for individual countries within Scandinavia. The time for this discussion is when you've created the relevant articles. Deb (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @James500:, I appreciate you finding those sources. Unfortunately, reading through them only seems to confirm that "Scandinavian Music" is an ambiguous lumping and the music articles are still written on a national basis instead. For example. the 1924 Herbert Westerby book that you cite has a brief page attempting to describe a few similar elements among Danish, Swedish, Finnish and Norwegian music -- and then spends the next 35 pages describing the pianoforte music broken down by each individual country. (Westerly does the same with his chapters combining Spain & Portugal and Austria & Germany.) I also read the 1973 Billboard Magazine and see it lumps the countries into a general section -- but all the articles and data are written about individual nations with Billboard using individual editors from each country. Unless Scandinavian Music can be defined as a unambiguous genre, it still seems to me that listing by individual country makes more sense. And removes the duplication that occurs in 2015 in European music. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • If sources say in express words that "Scandanavian music" is a thing, we may getting into the realms of original research if we try to dispute that. Our article on Nordic folk music says it is Scandanavian, and a search for "Scandanavian folk music" in GNews indicates that it still exists, see for example, this Scandinavian folk music festival in 2017: [6]. The 1981 Billboard article, for example, does contain comments about Scandanavia as a whole, such as those in the article "Copryrights gain value". That information could not be placed in the national articles. Music does not necessarily confine itself to national boundaries. The present Sovereign states did not always exist, their boundaries have repeatedly changed, and they use each others languages (eg Swedish is an official language of Finland, and is spoken in Denmark, and Finnish is spoken in Sweden). One can find, for example, articles on Swedish music in Finland, and Finnish musicians in Sweden: [7] (and that article says that a purely national perspective of music is not sufficient to address certain topics). I could argue that our national articles are "ambiguous lumpings". If, for the sake of argument, the quantity of cross-Scandanavian material were felt to be too small to support a separate article, then this page could be redirected without prejudice to 2015 in European music#Scandanavia, and the cross-Scandanavian material added there. That would not require either deletion or an AfD. I was not aware that we had articles on European music. Alternatively, one could merge into decades in Scandanavian music. James500 (talk) 00:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with you about music crossing national boundaries. That's my point. Your link to Nordic folk music is a good example because it also includes all the Baltic nations and Russia in a discussion of "Scandinavian folk music." Should Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Russia be included in the 2015 in Scandinavian music list because Finland is? Is Greenland included or excluded because it has a separate music tradition? We agree that music can be a mosh pit across national borders throughout the world. That is exactly what I mean by an "ill-defined lumping." The above lists in this AFD seem to require some WP:OR to determine what is or isn't included. It is better for these music lists -- which are only about dates & events -- to be grouped by well-defined national boundaries as individual nation lists (e.g. 2015 in Norwegian music, 2015 in Swedish music, etc.). That better meets the selection guideline in WP:SELCRIT and the grouping guideline in WP:NLIST. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:29, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • Scandinavian folk music is inherently Scandinavian, and should be included in this article, regardless of where it is produced. If Scandinavian folk music was produced in Adélie Land, it would potentially belong in this article. If some of the music in the Baltic nations and Russia is Scandanavian folk music, that does not imply that the rest of their music is Scandanavian. When ABBA perform in Britain, they are performing Swedish music, and that does not imply that Rod Stewart's music is also Swedish. If a reliable source says in express words that music is Scandanavian, there is no original research involved in its inclusion in the article. The national boundaries are not well defined in relation to music. The national boundaries give no help in classifying something like Finnish-Swedish music. James500 (talk) 06:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

          The entries are not about Scandinavian folk music. And that would seem like such a small niche that a "year in x" page is not warranted. Geschichte (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete per nom; searching for the Nepali name in Google News turns up a bunch of Facebook pages. I'm sympathetic to the keep voter's concern about systemic bias, but there isn't a lot that can be done about that at AfD. --Richard Yin (talk) 05:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I made another effort to find sources and clean up the typos. I found a few, and added two primary sources. I saw a few government websites that mention the school in passing. I tried. Bearian (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

P. Shanmugam (CPIM) (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)

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

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

• Keep : Multiple reliable sources have covered P. Shanmugam who is the secretary of the Tamil Nadu Unit and member of Central Committee of CPIM which is one of the only six national parties of India (which can soon be one of the only six as BSP can soon lose the status).. Hence this article definitely meets notability criteria. It meets WP:GNG and hence it can be added by WP:NPOL as Wikipedia writes : "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline". This article includes citations on his student activism, farmers's movement leadership including the historic 2020-21 Farmers protest in India, struggles for upliftment of Dalits and tribals and the event of getting Ambedkar Award. This article also includes citation on formation of a panel including him. He is often called the hero for the justice for the victims of Vachathi case. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

@Liz I will try to add an assessment table after 16:00 IST. Besides the subject here is not only a local political figure but also member of Central Committee of CPIM — a national party. Besides being the state secretary of a sufficiently large state Tamil Nadu should not be called just local. By area, Tamil Nadu is almost equal to England. XYZ 250706 (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Liz Here is the source assessment table. XYZ 250706 (talk) 11:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment table prepared by User:XYZ 250706

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"P. Shanmugam, who got justice for Vachathi victims, is CPI(M) State secretary". The Hindu. January 5, 2025 – via www.thehindu.com.				✔ Yes
Maran, Mathivanan (January 5, 2025). "சிபிஎம்-ன் புதிய மாநிலச் செயலாளராக 'வாச்சாத்தி நாயகன்' பெ. சண்முகம் தேர்வு! கே.பாலகிருஷ்ணன் மாற்றம்!". tamil.oneindia.com (in Tamil).				✔ Yes
"Communist Party Of India (Marxist)".			~ Mentions about the subject being elected to the Central Committee of CPIM and also date of election	~ Partial
"சிபிஎம் கட்சிக்கு புதிய மாநில செயலாளர்! யார் இந்த பெ.சண்முகம்?". 1979 ஆம் ஆண்டு‌ மாணவர் சங்கத்தில் இணைந்தார். அப்போதிருந்தே‌ தீவிர மாணவர் அரசியலில் இயங்கியவர். தற்போதைய சிவகங்கை மாவட்டம் காரைக்குடியில், ராமசாமி தமிழ் கல்லூரியில் படித்தார். இந்திய மாணவர்‌ சங்கத்தின் மாநில தலைவர், செயலாளர் என முன்னணி பொறுப்புகளில் வழிநடத்தினார்.				✔ Yes
"Vachathi hero Shanmugham becomes first Dalit secretary of CPM Tamil Nadu". DT Next.				✔ Yes
"Vachathi Case Verdict Proves Sustained Struggle Ensures Justice | NewsClick". NewsClick. 25 October 2023. "We used all forms of protest for the Vachathi case. It became a people's movement. That is the reason for the victory," P Shanmugam, former secretary of the Tamil Nadu Tribal Association, instrumental in bringing the case to light, said at the victory celebration seminar organised by the All Inda Lawyers Union (AILU) in Chennai on October 20.			~ Mentions 7 quotes of the subject regarding the Vachathi case and mentions his instrumental role in gaining justice for Vachathi victims	~ Partial
"He also fought at the forefront of the struggles of the tribal people, demanding community certificates and implementation of the Forest Rights Act. The historic Forest Rights Act became possible only after the tribals launched a land rights struggle and met the then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on November 24, 2006, the party release said". DT Next.				✔ Yes
"சிபிஎம் கட்சிக்கு புதிய மாநில செயலாளர்! யார் இந்த பெ.சண்முகம்?". தமிழ்நாடு விவசாயிகள் சங்கத்தின் மாநில பொதுச் செயலாளராக 13 ஆண்டுகள், 2020 முதல் மாநில தலைவராக செயல்படுகிறார். பழங்குடி மக்களின் சாதிச் சான்று‌ கோரிய போராட்டங்களிலும், அனைத்து விதமான‌ நிலவுரிமை போராட்டங்களிலும் முன்ணனியில் போராடும் களப் போராளி.				✔ Yes
"TN: Seeking Pattas and Right to Habitat, Thousands Submit Demands to Govt Officials | NewsClick". NewsClick. 7 May 2022. Shanmugam led the protest rally in Mayiladuthurai district.			~ Mentions his quotes and remarks on the matter and mentions him leading the protest rally in Mayiladuthurai district	~ Partial
"CM Stalin gives away Periyar, Ambedkar awards". The Times of India.			~ Mentions the fact that he was state executive committee member of CPIM Tamil Nadu and he got Ambedkar Prize from the hands of CM M.K. Stalin and also writes one line about his work for tribal welfare	~ Partial
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}}.

Source assessment table prepared by User:XYZ 250706

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
"P Shanmugam elected CPI(M) TN secretary, CM Stalin greets". Chief Minister M K Stalin extended his greetings to the newly elected Shanmugam and expressed happiness that he was a recipient of the Ambedkar Award by the Centre for toiling hard for the welfare of the oppressed communities.			Mentions his election replacing K. Balakrishnan and MK Stalin's greetings remembering the event when the subject got Ambedkar Prize	✔ Yes
"CPM constitutes panel for seat-sharing talks with DMK". The Times of India.			Just mentions his name in the seat sharing panel although that is not any insignificant fact	✘ No
"CPM chooses its first dalit state secretary, Shanmugam". The Times of India. January 6, 2025.				✔ Yes
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}}.

Your source analysis is incorrect. All sources pertaining to one event count as one towards GNG. Regular news bytes on ongoing issues do not count towards GNG as they are almost always routine coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just made comment on first 3 columns. Whether the citation is counted towards GNG or not is not done by me. Besides most of the given citations contain detailed biography on the subject. XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides all the citations added to this article cover important facts on the subject like leading in popular mass struggle, being in various party posts, getting Ambedkar Award for upliftment of tribals and being involved in seat-sharing discussions for parliamentary elections. XYZ 250706 (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment:

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
thehindu, oneindia, samayam, dtnext, deccanherald TOI Coverage from his election as the secretary of the CPI(M).				✔ Yes
https://cpim.org/leadership/				✘ No
Vachathi Case Verdict Proves Sustained Struggle Ensures Justice			Quotes from the subject are irrelevant and different party leaders have shared their views in this news article.	✘ No
TN: Seeking Pattas and Right to Habitat, Thousands Submit Demands to Govt Officials			~ Quotes from the subject but nothing about the subject apart from leading the rally in a particular district.	? Unknown
CM Stalin gives away Periyar, Ambedkar awards	Press release			✘ No
CPM constitutes panel for seat-sharing talks with DMK	No byline		Passing mention	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Here is a more accurate source analysis. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Times of India is marginally reliable per WP:TIMESOFINDIA but can be used to establish notablity. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 03:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The giving away of Periyar and Ambedkar Award by MK Stalin is not a press release. Besides what is meant by now byline? Besides whether source is independent or not is based on the subject. Whether the subject is member of the Central committee of CPIM or not can be decided using the party official website only. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides most of the citations added in the article add biography of the subject. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides I have seen newsclick being considered reliable in some source assessment tables and the newsclick source regarding patta also mentions that P Shanmugam is a central committee member of CPI(M). XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides any citation covering a protest or movement led by the subject doesn't necessarily add a biography of the subject. His contribution to or views on the event are enough for significant coverage as "Significant coverage" addresses a topic of the subject directly and in detail without original research, not the whole subject. For significant coverage, the subject does not need to be the main topic of the source material. All these are the reasons why I don't think this latest analysis is accurate. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The policy on sourcing is WP:Verifiability, which requires inline citations for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations. This article fulfills this criteria. XYZ 250706 (talk) 04:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making multiple replies to your own statements. Decide on your points and consolidate them into a single reply instead of taking up the entire XfD space. Also stop using bold formatting in your comments unless something is extremely important and could be missed in a lengthy paragraph.

• The Periyar and Ambedkar Award is not notable and does not have a separate article on Wikipedia. The article is a press release as almost all the news agencies have covered it without a byline: TOI dtnext hindutamil deccanchronicle. A byline is where a journalist/author is credited for an article/content.
• If you can show significant coverage of the impact he had on the Vachathi Case verdict, apart from leading the rally and sharing bytes with the news media, that would be relevant. The focus should be on significant coverage of his actual contributions to the case. Even so, the source is questionable at best if we cannot find other secondary source which has covered the Vachathi Case/ Vachathi Case Verdict.
• XfD is for discussing notability in Verifiable and reliable sources. Just because something is verifiable does not mean it is notable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the citations added in the article mention his role in Vachathi case. Besides not having Wikipedia article doesn't mean that Ambedkar and Periyar awards are not notable. The awardees of the awards are covered by reliable media each year although that is not the main point of this discussion. Besides press release on a topic (generally press releases are given by the concerned authority) should be same on each site. They can't be different on various sites. Name of author sometimes also are not mentioned. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:01, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Vachathi case, a source by dtnext says : Shanmugam is one of the leaders who led and won the unparalleled struggle for justice for tribal people at Vachathi in Dharmapuri. In 1992, police and revenue officials raided Vachathi village in Dharmapuri district and ransacked the houses indiscriminately. The aged, women and children were thrashed mercilessly, and their households were destroyed. As many as 18 women were taken to a secluded place and raped. Shanmugam led struggles in the court and outside to get justice for the victims, with the Madras High Court in August 2023 confirming the conviction of the accused.

The source by The Hindu says : Mr. Shanmugam, who was the general secretary of the Tamil Nadu Tribals' Association, was the first person to enter Vachathi, the residents of which were subjected to brutal attacks and rape by police and forest personnel in 1992. The efforts of the association and CPI(M) leaders drew the nation's attention to the atrocities, and succeeded in bringing about an inquiry by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

The source by Tamil Samagam says (translated into English) : P. Shanmugam, who was a full-time worker of the CPI(M) movement, was selected as the first general secretary of the Tribal People's Association which was formed in 1992. He was one of the leading leaders who led and won an unprecedented vociferous struggle for 30 years in the history of Tamil Nadu.

The source of NewsClick also mentions his instrumental role in gaining justice for Vachathi victims.

Besides some sources also cover his leading role in the struggle for passing Forests Rights Act and his role in 2020-21 Farmers protest and other farmers struggle (both are national level issues). XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I request the other editors like @Oaktree b@Soman, who previously mentioned their comments in this discussion, to discuss here. Their neutral opinions will further enrich the discussion. Besides we will also have to think about alternative ways other than deletion (although this subject is far more well written than many articles staying in Wikipedia and should not be deleted). XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I also request @Jeraxmoira@Soman@Oaktree b to make the article more well-written. Deletion is not the main motive of this discussion, the main motive is improvement of Wikipedia. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Communist Party of India (Marxist): Politicians always tend to be in the media for various reasons, yet the subject does not have enough coverage to meet GNG or NPOL#2, per my source analysis above. His election as the secretary of the CPI(M) and his role in the Vachathi case provide evidence of notability, but it is not enough to justify a separate article at this point. Although the Vachathi case does not mention him even once, the source in the wiki article indicates that he played a significant role. Since the content of this article cannot be accurately merged into CPIM or Vachathi case, I am not opposed to draftifying it and waiting for six months to see if further coverage of him appears. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Indian media tend to publish less coverage for Left parties. You can check the press independence rank of India. Vachathi case was mainly led by leaders of CPIM and its organisations. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/tamil-nadu/vachathi-a-tribal-hamlets-road-to-justice-paved-over-the-course-of-31-years-amid-hurdles/article67361410.ece/amp/ XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Beeblebrox@GrabUp@Jeraxmoira@Liz@Miminity@Oaktree b@Shellwood@Soman Significant coverage of the topic is needed according to Wikipedia. Wikipedia nowhere mentions each citation should have significant coverage on the topic. I think all sources (Wikipedia mentions plural form) should together have significant coverage. So overall significant coverage is enough. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Why are you pinging admins who relisted the debate? We are not participants in this, our only role is to evaluate what, if any, consensus is established in the discussion. Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 19:52, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Besides his role in struggles in 2020-21 Farmers Struggle and in struggles for enactment of Forest Rights Act is also mentioned. XYZ 250706 (talk) 07:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment : More citations has recently been added to this article adding more coverage. Although more citations can be added with the passing of time, the article has inline citations and all the sources have made the article to enough depth to prove the subject to be notable. The subject is known for Vachathi case, his leadership for tribals struggle to enact Forest Rights Act, 2006 and farmers struggle including 2020–2021 Indian farmers' protest. He also held various leading positions in Students Federation of India, one of the largest students organisation in India. XYZ 250706 (talk) 08:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Utterly fails WP:NPOL, both criteria. In fact, NPOL #2 is equivalent to WP:GNG and that is not met either. The source analysis above is clearly incorrect as the analyser might not understand what a substantial coverage is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Both the source analysis above are outdated as many other sources have been added and some sources above are replaced. This article now clearly passes GNG as some editors previously told me that I can use multiple sources that have some parts of coverage, but the amount of coverage overall from all sources must be significant. Besides this article has more than 3 sources towards GNG (according to many editors, 3 is the minimum requirement). XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are doing the exact thing you did at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uday Narkar, please don't continue like this. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom. Clearly fails to meet WP:NPOL. RangersRus (talk) 17:05, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - for the sake of the AfD, I'd stress that the article subject is evaluated on its notability merits, and not as a referendum on article creator's action. Having said that, and reaffirming the point I made few days back;

1) Tamil Nadu has oven 72 million inhabitants. Framing state-level politics as 'local' matter is misleading.

2) There is in-depth coverage of P. Shanmugam in national media. In any Western context, articles such as this in The Hindu, [8], Deccan Herald would be perceived as more than enough for notability bar.

3) Is a recipient of the Ambedkar Award, given by the Chief Minister of a state with 72 million population, and the award is covered by national media - ETV Bharat. This would suffice the first WP:ANYBIO criteria, and would on its own be enough to establish notability. The award giving officially recognizes his 'major role in leading major protests against the atrocities committed against hill people and women in Vachathi village, Dharmapuri district and getting justice.'.

4) Dina Thanthi, the 'largest daily printed in the Tamil language and the ninth largest among all dailies in India by circulation', uses the following headline: "Vachathi hero Shanmugham becomes first Dalit secretary of CPM Tamil Nadu". This article is clear indicator of notability and in-depth coverage.

5) The New Indian Express writes "He founded the Tribal People’s Association and is known for leading a legal battle on behalf of tribal persons affected by the Vachathi incident. " (my emphasis)

6) SathiyamTV (6.6 million youtube subscribers) has this news report on P. Shanmugam's election [9]. News7 Tamil (3.4 million FB followers) did this 45 minute interview with P. Shanmugan after his election. Ananda Vikatan (1.1 million youtube subscribers) did this 30 minute interview with P. Shanmugam. There's tons of other news reports on his election.

7) 3 days ago speaking to News7 Tamil [10] (5.2 million youtube subscribers), speaking to ThanthiTV (11.2 million subscribers) at same event [11], speaking at same event to KalaigharTV [12] (1.4 million subscribers), same for PuthiyathalaimuraiTV [13] (13.4 million subscribers). Count the number of journalists trying to get a soundbite from P. Shanmugam at a single event, and ask - does it appear that this individual is a notable public figure?

8) I encounter different ways to write the name in Tamil, பெ. சண்முகம் or பி. சண்முகம் (the only difference is the vowel assigned to the first initial). Plenty of Google News results in Tamil.

I think the question that need to be asked is, if we were faced with an American, Canadian or British politician with this type of media coverage, would we be having this conversation? --Soman (talk) 12:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As per nom. Axad12 (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Ukraine, and Canada. SuperMarioMan (Talk) 21:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Very much non-notable actor. "Security Man" and "Another Guard" are just not what we need. I can't find any sourcing for this person. Oaktree b (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment His most significant roles seem to have been Sasquatch in the film of the same name, also released as The Untold (TV listings said "Tara Kostyuk had the thankless task of playing Sasquatch" [14]), and Red Seven in two episodes of Dark Angel (he's listed as Guest Cast in this Encyclopedia of superheroes on film and television). This Ukrainian Phrasebook, Dictionary, Menu Guide & Interactive Factbook ebook (on Ebookit.com, so presumably self-published) has as an example sentence for the word 'stunt': "When it comes to movie stunts, Ukrainian-Canadian Taras Kostyuk has performed many of them , some quite dangerous , in his 40 movies." The external link kinofilms.ua lists 4 movies/series in 2015 + 2016 that are not in the WP article, but his roles in those also seem to be the kind that's listed as 'priest', 'long-haired thug', etc. RebeccaGreen (talk) 08:52, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm leaning towards weak keep and to rework the page as the actor may be notable. 2001:A61:25EB:5701:CC85:6C3B:4189:8DC7 (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thai Flying Service Flight 209 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:MILL says, "Something that is run-of-the-mill is a common, everyday, ordinary item that does not stand out from the rest." I don't see how that could in any way apply to aircraft accidents. Failure to meet WP:NEVENT would thus be the only valid rationale for deletion. Considering WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in particular, while the initial flurry of news reports died down after 6 September, there's still news coverage from one month after the accident[15] and at three months[16]. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

•Keep Does not relate to general aviation, this was an airline-operated flight and is notable because of the oddity of the crash, something mechanical on board definetly failed aboard this crash, just looking at the nature.

We should wait on deleting this until a preliminary report or a final report are released as we have no foundation currently to show this is unnotable. Low fatalities do not determine notability.

@TG-article Lolzer3k 21:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Right now I'm a weak delete - this did generate international news but I don't see any LASTING coverage after a simple BEFORE search. If that can be produced, I'll happily change to keep. SportingFlyer T·C 00:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It was an airline flight with fatalities, and It recieved decent coverage. I think anyways we should wait for some kind of report to come out. Signor Pignolini 15:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". None of the sources are secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself, with none of them providing significant or in-depth coverage of the event. I'm not sure what a preliminary/final report could bring other than maybe possible lasting effects, but regardless, we're judging the event's notability on what coverage we currently have, not on what coverage and effects we could possibly have, and as of yet, this event isn't notable enough to warrant a standalone page. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:08, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was news at the time and coverage was, for some time and to some extent, WP:LASTING. It's notable and should be kept. Eelipe (talk) 17:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep A fair bit found on this one such as in the Granby Express [17], the QuinteNews [18] and [19] and also in the Journal deChambly [20] and [21]. Canary757 (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Of the sources uncovered in this discussion, I don't think the first three sources are WP:SIGCOV as they are all routine announcements and/or just a few sentences. The Journal deChambly articles look good, but I'd like to see at least one more source from another outlet before voting keep. Let'srun (talk) 23:06, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is some more at [22] from Le Monteregion.com. It's not perfect and focuses on him and his skating partner and its got quite a bit of interview in it, but there are details too about their career etc.Canary757 (talk) 07:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Weak keep: Le Journal de Chambly & la Voix de l'Est both have some non-trivial articles. These two plus the various other shorter pieces I think combine to barely clear the bar for notability. It's not the most clear cut, but this can pass a generous read of WP:NBASIC. Some of the interviews are pretty fluffy and not much use, but there should at least be enough reliable information in there to write a short article without risking original research. Just barely. Mlkj (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Source assessment table

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

• Delete I can find no coverage that would meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC. A photograph of his was highly commended in a competition - that is not enough to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:PHOTOGRAPHER. As for being a Fellow of the Royal Geographical Society, their website states: "Application for Fellowship is open to anyone, who can demonstrate: Either a sufficient involvement in geography or allied subject through training, professional work, research, publications or other work of a similar nature, Or five years continuous commitment to the Society as a Member." It costs £139 per year. So that does not meet WP:NACADEMIC C3, which says "The person has been ... a fellow of a major scholarly society which reserves fellow status as a highly selective honor." The creator of the article may not be aware of the WP:BASIC criteria for whether someone warrants their own article. See also 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." RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Based on the source analysis, the subject fails GNG, NARTIST, and BASIC criteria for notability. He sound like an interesting person, tho. Netherzone (talk) 03:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tornado Damage Investigation, Greensburg, Kansas, 1699 DR-KS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•  Comment: – Does this qualify for a WP:SNOW deletion? Four editors, including the creator and main editor, are all in support of deletion. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the primary author and all other contributing editors prefer deletion and nobody else is challenging that, it can go via criteria G7 of speedy deletion. Departure– (talk) 03:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  G7 added. Also, just a head's up Departure–: Earlier you mentioned "that's why the PDF of the report is already linked on the Greensburg article". It actually is no longer linked on the article after EF5 removed it. Once this article is deleted, the 2007 Greensburg tornado article will have no active references or links to the FEMA survey. The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:56, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @Espresso Addict: Since you declined the G7 request, can you close this as a SNOW closure for delete? The Weather Event Writer (Talk Page) 03:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and New Zealand. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I suggest moving the article to Oruru Valley.-Gadfium (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If someone is willing to create an article on it I'm fine with a merge. None of the potential merge targets such as Oruru, Parapara, or Aurere exist as articles. Traumnovelle (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Paul Marlowe (Irish republican) (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)

IRA member who was killed in 1976 when his bomb exploded prematurely. There is some coverage on Google Books but probably not enough to clear the bar of WP:N. Prezbo (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, article has been expanded with better sources.Prezbo (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm open to allowing reworking, but this seems to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT really. Espatie (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William James Carson (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)

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

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

• Delete - does not appear to meet WP:BLP1E or WP:NVICTIM. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Crime, and Northern Ireland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. He has an entry in Lost Lives (p. 783), and I would hazard a guess that there are offline sources. If not kept, merge to List of people killed during The Troubles (1969–1998) as WP:ATD. Jfire (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t think Wikipedia should try to have an article on every individual listed in Lost Lives, that feels off to me. Prezbo (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It's debatable. WP:5P1 says Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias. Lost Lives is such a specialized encyclopedia, so content with its features is arguably in scope for Wikipedia, providing it meets other guidelines and policies. Jfire (talk) 03:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Swinging Bridge (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 notable enough, the only sources I could find are either tourist guides or official park websites. The article is also written like an advertisement. Protobowladdictuwu (talk) 20:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

  This is a good point and I agree. However, there's already a disambiguation page for swinging bridges, I just found out: Swinging Bridge (disambiguation). Then I think the best course of action would be moving the content of this page to Yosemite Valley Bridges and then making it a redirect to Swinging Bridge (disambiguation). Tserton (talk) 17:16, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia Black (Irish republican) (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)

IRA member who was killed when her bomb exploded prematurely. This person has been commemorated by the Irish Republican movement, resulting in some controversy, so there is some press coverage on Google news (search for "Patricia Black" + Belfast). But I don't think it clears the bar of WP:N -- " significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time." And the article does have the feel of a memorial/apologia, even though all of the explicitly POV content has been removed over the years. Prezbo (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC) Nomination withdrawn, article has been expanded with better sources.Prezbo (talk) 13:40, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Prezbo (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:28, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Lost Lives entry (pp. 1259–1260) plus 2011 coverage of the memorial ([23], [24], [25], [26] and others) and brief coverage in Feminist Identity Development and Activism in Revolutionary Movements I think just meets WP:GNG/WP:BASIC. If not, merge to List of people killed during The Troubles (1969–1998) as WP:ATD. Jfire (talk) 03:10, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much like the similar Paul Marlowe AfD, this seems to be a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Espatie (talk) 07:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as a historically notable figure from The Troubles, with significant involvement in the IRA, making her relevant to Irish and British history. Reliable sources exist to verify her role, and the article provides educational value by contributing to a broader understanding of the period. --Loewstisch (talk) 12:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For clarification, your argument is that she’s notable even though the sources in the article currently don’t clear the bar of WP:N? Or that they do meet WP:N? Prezbo (talk) 12:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Spiegel (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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Advertising, Germany, and United States of America. SunloungerFrog (talk) 19:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @SunloungerFrog. Thank you for your feedback and for reviewing the article. To address the concerns raised in the nomination, I am actively improving the article by removing sources that lack sufficient independence or reliability. Additionally, I am researching and incorporating high-quality references that offer significant coverage of the subject from third-party, independent sources. To ensure the article adheres to a neutral point of view and complies with Wikipedia's guidelines, I have already removed content that appeared promotional. Based on these ongoing improvements, I kindly request that you consider the revisions before making a final decision regarding the deletion of the article. Thank you.

  Sergiomarcus (talk) 21:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

  @SunloungerFrog Thank you. Sergiomarcus (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I see that the stub is still expanding. Let's wait another few days. Ping me if you think this passes WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 03:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Sources found about this topic are PRs about their appointment as a CEO and some other routine interviews. I would be willing to change my !vote if sources are found. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:07, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Delete, and this article strengthens my conviction that we will need an RfC about Business Standard sometime soon. A lot of slop from there. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 08:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as mentioned this article fails various standards including NCORP. C679 10:24, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep: Sources 10 and 13 talk about this organization; listed as marginally reliable sources per Source highlither, but I see no reason not to use them (I can't think of a reason to make things up about clearing landmines). There's another project with the same name [27] that makes it hard to find sources. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: The article fails to meet notability guidelines under WP:GNG due to the lack of significant, independent, and reliable sources providing in-depth coverage. The majority of the references are promotional, potentially biased, and raise concerns about a WP:COI. Additionally, the content's tone is overly promotional, which detracts from its encyclopedic value. While the organization's efforts may be noteworthy, the lack of neutral, reliable sourcing prevents it from meeting Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.--जय बाबा की^Talk 16:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jfire (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What a Horrible Night to Have a Curse (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 WP:RS and does not meet WP:NMUSIC AVG555 (talk) 17:49, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Ali Raza (actor) (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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, Film, Television, and Pakistan. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 09:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Meets WP:NACTOR with at least two main/lead roles in notable productions + other significant roles. Can be expanded through sources like https://www.thenews.com.pk/magazine/you/1063549-ali-raza (containing an interview; bylined presentation). Declining creation because iit needs improvement could have been OK but not because it does not meet WP:NACTOR. Because it does. -Mushy Yank. 12:25, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that interview means means much for to WP:Notability, see WP:INTERVIEW. And declining wasn't an option for the nominator, as they said in the nom, this is a disputed draftification; this is an procedurally correct nomination. Follow up @Mushy Yank, I'm just going through the filmography on the article, which two are you considering main/lead roles in notable productions? I'm not sure I'm totally convinced but I could be persuaded to agree. Bobby Cohn (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bobby CohnOh, no the interview is not to prove notability directly, just an exemple of what can be used to improve the page and verify the importance of the roles. Regarding procedure; I did not say this could not be AfDed (everything can), just commenting on the fact that the nomination's rationale is based on NACTOR, just like the reason to decline the creation at AfC was. Lead/main cast roles in Muhabbat Gumshuda Meri, & Noor Jahan (2024 TV series) ; significant roles (not minor) in Duniyapur (TV series) & Gunah (TV series). I'm leaving it at that. Best, -Mushy Yank. 20:24, 13 January 2025 (UTC)EDIT: +lead role in Iqtidar (see page)-Mushy Yank. 18:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 14:22, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Having lead roles does not make someone inherently notable. They need the significant coverage to support. The references are interviews, puff pieces, or otherwise unreliable. On a side note, this was more than just draftification. It was draftified, then declined, then still moved to the mainspace. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Echoing the nom, fails NACTOR and GNG. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 02:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Pardon me, but "fail[ing] WP:NACTOR", how, please? -Mushy Yank. 12:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How is it otherwise? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just read the guideline and read the page. It is obviously a pass of WP: NACTOR. See my comment above. -Mushy Yank. 21:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I read the guidelines and read the page. In my opinion, he did not have any significant roles, in fact filmography section is devoid of any reliable sources. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No significant roles????? REALLY? I will assume good faith then.... if you honestly want to check, just click on the links about the series.....I’m leaving it at that. -Mushy Yank. 21:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How does a mention in a Wikipedia article confer notability? Almost, none of those articles has his role supported by a reliable source. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 22:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Almost? Meaning, you find a few that confirm them, after all? :D Again, I am assuming good faith. -Mushy Yank. 22:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Once again, the content covered in other Wikipedia articles about the subject does not establish notability. Almost meaning the ones I checked lack reliable sources amounting to WP:SIGCOV. He is a young emerging actor but does not have coverage at the level of establishing notability. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 23:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  NACTOR is not about SIGCOV (just read it, it's not long), NACTOR is about significance of roles in notable productions. 2 sources in English almost at random to confirm 2 different significant roles in 2 notable productions: https://www.dawn.com/news/1773436 ; https://images.dawn.com/news/1192720. Again, read my comments above. Thank you. (NB- I never said that mentions in WP confer notability, please read me carefully.) -Mushy Yank. 23:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Question - @Vanamonde93:, for clarification, are you saying that someone would meet NACTOR for significant roles despite not having the significant coverage to support? Meaning, as long as we verify those are significant roles then NACTOR is met? --CNMall41 (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

You say you agree with me, but what you're saying is directly in contradiction to what I said: NACTOR can indeed be enough without GNG. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How so? I referred to WP:BASIC, not WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 18:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you expect a reply from me on an obscure page, it would be useful to ping me next time...WP:BASIC does not in any way obviate other criteria. NPOL, NAUTHOR, PROF, NACTOR, and a few other criteria have long been held to be sufficient despite GNG. NSPORTS was too, before the community decided it wasn't. "Presumed notable doesn't mean notable" is not the gotcha that you seem to think it is - it means that common sense needs to be applied in every case, not that that particular criterion can be set aside altogether. The summary at the top of WP:BIO also uses the "presumed" language with respect to what is essentially GNG - yet nobody would argue that GNG was insufficient. Anyhow, this is the last I will say about this, because I don't want or need to persuade you - I am only explaining how a closer will usually weigh arguments. A clear NACTOR pass with sufficient sourcing to write a biography will usually be kept. A clear GNG pass will also usually be kept. A failure of both criteria will usually be deleted. I have no opinions on which case is true here. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has had significant roles in two or three TV series which have Wikipedia articles (so are presumably notable), so he meets WP:NACTOR. RebeccaGreen (talk) 10:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Presumably notable" is not notable. We need significant coverage to support that presumption. Can you provide a list of the sources you feel are significant coverage?--CNMall41 (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(1) We don't need significant coverage for someone to meet WP:NACTOR, we just need evidence that they had significant roles in notable shows. (2) I said the TV series were presumably notable. The series are not being debated here, and do each have two reviews, hence my "presumably". RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did read that wrong. Apologies. As far as "just need[ing] evidence," how are we able to get that evidence with there being significant coverage in reliable sources? Are press releases okay? Primary sources? Honest question. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The presumed notability of the TV series does not necessarily indicate that the actor had a significant role. It is entirely possible that their role was minor. On what basis do you consider their roles to be significant, and how do we establish that? Shouldn't we determine this by examining coverage in reliable sources? Do you really think an actor with a significant role would only be casually mentioned in an article about the series spanning ten paragraphs? Wouldn't you expect a bit more detailed coverage for a truly significant role? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Sources are poor and there is not enough significant coverage on the career and reliable sources to verify the roles (if lead or not) played by the actor. I have seen "Noor Jahan" show and the actor didn't have a lead but a supporting role (one of the sons of the lead female character who played title role) in that show and the page wrongly calls it lead role. So without verification and evidence on the roles played and significant coverage, we cannot assume the subject meets WP:NACTOR. RangersRus (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated the page rapidly again to address raised concerns.-Mushy Yank. 19:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Iqtidar: The only significant role I can verify as of now is from Iqtidar. In the future, coverage from Tauba, Girhein and Dastak may help establish notability. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 09:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Isabelle of Salm-Salm (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep. It seems that this article just needs to be improved by including more sources, she certainly did enough to warrant notability as another user mentioned. I do think that the wording and flow needs to be improved, but that's another topic. Perhaps just add the relevant banners instead of requesting deletion. Just the fact that "she was the longest lived royal European centenarian to have ever lived" makes me think that some more effort should be put in to save it. If there's a source for that, I don't see how it wouldn't meet the relevant standards. Laurelius (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it certainly needs work, but based on what is in there and sourced, and her extremely long life, she's easily notable. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I cut out some fluffy language and added some royal connections like Marie Antoinette, the headless queen who was her distant-great-aunt. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am very uncertain about this one. I think she would need to meet WP:GNG or WP:BASIC, as she doesn't meet any WP:SNG. So, has there been significant coverage about her in reliable, secondary sources? The first source in this article apparently "describes in passing" some activities the author of that source undertook with her. That doesn't sound like significant coverage. The two sources that Jfire found are as much about her family and the castle as about her, and don't go into detail about her wartime activities, and they are also both very local. In the past, when articles about centenarians were brought to AfD, they were usually deleted unless there was significant, non-local coverage (so not just the local newspaper covering their 90th, 100th and 110th birthdays, for example), or if they met WP:ANYBIO. Examples of AfDs where the result was Keep are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edna Parker (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jack Lockett. I haven't found much here, although there was a paragraph about her in The Tatler [28] (included in the article Salm-Salm). I have found a source about her donating land to the German War Graves Commission [29], but that isn't significant coverage, it just confirms content in the article. I have tried to search in digitised German newspapers, and found only a notice of her husband's death and some social notes. I tend to think there is not enough to keep this in English Wikipedia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I had a feeling someone would bring up the Tatler article. To spare people a click, it's a listicle that might well have been sourced from Wikipedia. 46.132.74.112 (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as female figure. To the listed pages noting her passing there is also coverage: Für viele war sie eine zweite Mutter (German) in local journal Kevelaerer Blatt. Axisstroke (talk) 14:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but...that article is one of precisely two sources in existence that aren't passing mentions. Tserton (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Hamilton Brookes (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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Military, and United Kingdom. — Anonymous 18:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A CBE appointment is usually a reliable indicator of notability per WP:ANYBIO#1; some editors regard it as definitive. Obituaries in 1988 were published in The Daily Telegraph and The Times. Jfire (talk) 03:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you for these impressive sources. I'm a little surprised these didn't come up when I searched earlier; perhaps I should've included "vice air-marshal" in my searches. I'm inclined to withdraw my nomination and perhaps improve the article myself. — Anonymous 04:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Garuda ^Talk! 15:31, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the subject died in 1988, when Who's Who was still reliable. Also, the additional sources found should be added as soon as possible to the article. Bearian (talk) 04:30, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Received the CB and CBE, two very high honours. Clearly considered to be notable by the British state. Plus obituaries in major newspapers. Clearly notable enough for Wikipedia. Clearly meets WP:GNG. Who's Who is only considered "unreliable" because its entries are self-authored. It is, in actual fact, generally wholly reliable, considered a valid source by most outside Wikipedia, and is certainly reliable for establishing notability, as those who appear in it are not self-selecting. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hohenfeld family tree (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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility and Austria. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There must be a substantial number of notable people on the family tree and coverage about these family relations to justify an article about not only the individual people but also about the family itself. Article was created by User:Hohenfeld who also edits other articles while having a clear WP:COI. When deleting this article maybe also delete User:Hohenfeld/sandbox as CSD U5 which is a duplicate of the article. User created and edits other articles too like Hohenfeld (surname) without declaring their conflict of interest. @Hohenfeld: I recommend reading WP:COI before continuing to edit articles about you or your family and make WP:Edit requests instead. Killarnee (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Dear colleague, please note Hohenfeld's response at User talk:Hohenfeld#Managing a conflict of interest. Our fellow editor had explicitly denied any link between their username and their real life connections. Do you have any additional information? If not, WP:AGF should apply here, IMHO. Note that if the information in the article is correct, it is physically impossible for any editor to be a Hohenfeld family descendant: the line had apparently died out in the early 19th century. Викидим (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  If so I recommend choosing another username to prevent misunderstandings. Killarnee (talk) 23:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m happy for this article to be deleted for lack of “notable people” (although I disagree), and I am happy to choose another username if this causes any confusion.

  But I vehemently oppose your points about a conflict of interest, and I protest your accusations, @Killarnee. In fact, you are killing my wish to further contribute my knowledge on this and other related topics, giving me the impression that my work is wasted. Hohenfeld (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Hohenfeld family (currently called Hohenfeld (surname) but shall be moved. There appears to be no lack of sources and notable family members, they are just all listed in this other article. This one is a WP:CFORK and does not have to exist on its own. --Викидим (talk) 03:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

• Merge selected parts into Hohenfeld family, but not the legendary characters. Bearian (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

  You people make me sick here. Go ahead and delete it. Verwolff (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Was this comment really necessary? DonaldD23 talk to me 21:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Keep. It's a Polish band from the 1980s; many sources are likely to be offline. We do have the aforementioned Polskie Radio article, a review from KFJC, capsule reviews in a Polish Hifi magazine and The Rough Guide to Poland, and pl:Nowa Aleksandria (album) cites a five-star review in Tylko Rock issue 54 from 2000. The title song is discussed in Outside the "Comfort Zone": Performances and Discourses of Privacy in Late Socialist Europe pp. 184–185. I think that's enough to meet WP:NALBUM, but if not, redirect to Siekiera as WP:ATD, preserving the article history should someone locate coverage in Polish-language offline sources. Jfire (talk) 04:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This album seems to be fairly influential to the point that there are writings about its album cover: "One of the covers that has certainly remained in the history of Polish culture is the dust jacket of the Siekiera band’s album – Nowa Aleksandria" (Tański, Paweł (2018). WIZUALNY KOSMOS PŁYT - OKŁADKI ALBUMÓW MUZYCZNYCH. Przeglad Kulturoznawczy (36): 326-333). Why? I Ask (talk) 12:25, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Merge to ADA University. Non-notable journal. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:11, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with ADA University: ISSN databade and WorldCat are not selective databases. The CIAO database may contribute as a selective database but there would need to be more than just this. The references added are press releases or are otherwise not independent of ADA University. Nevertheless, it's reasonable that someone looking for this journal could be redirected to the university's article, where information about their publications can be provided in short form. Reconrabbit 16:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Reconrabbit Thank you for your detailed input. I’m curious about your reasoning regarding the claim that the sources, such as press releases, think tanks, research institutes, researchers, news sites, and even the UNESCO site, are not independent of ADA University. Could you clarify how you reached the conclusion that these sources have affiliations with ADA University? Additionally, I researched and reached new references from reputable research institutes such as the Atlantic Council, The Washington Institute, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, Central Asia-Caucasus Institute and Pepperdine University School of Public Policy. Most of these organizations' researchers have published articles in Baku Dialogues Journal or these organizations cited the journal. Do you also claim that all these sources are not independent from ADA University, which is only the publisher of the journal. Wiseuseraze (talk) 01:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Education Channel (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 guidelines, sources not independent of the subject Protobowladdictuwu (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC) ~~[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't know a lot about perfume or about the reliability of fashion sources so am happy to be corrected by those who know more about this area, but I think there's enough coverage to demonstrate notability. Excluding the dozens and dozens of "top 10 perfume" lists and "this is the perfect Black Opium dupe" junk articles, there seem to be a good number of reviews and product announcements in reliable sources. Some of these are a little shallow, but these are some examples of what I could find: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. And that's not to mention the many, many articles about the advertising controversies, which aren't enough to show notability on their own but probably do contribute a little to notability. There were also quite a few scholarly sources in fields like marketing and fashion history that provide mentions of Black Opium. MCE89 (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Citation 1 from marginally reliable Vanguard with no substantial coverage.

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 16:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not agree that this article fails all ramifications of WP:NMUSICIAN, as subject has:

  1. "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". | "the highest new entry this week on Top Albums at #4. BILLION DOLLAR DREAM by Jeriq is the biggest winner, moving up by 57 slots to #21."[37][38]

  The Subject's notoriety can be supported by [39], from a notable magazine with a byline, and is named in some Wikipedia articles including Igbo music where he is referenced as one of the "Notable Igbo musicians."

  2. "Has won or been nominated for a major music award". The Headies being a major music award in Nigeria and Africa has nominated the subject twice, as the links to the nominations has tried to prove. These nominations are seen in The Headies 2023 and the award's website [40] Chukwukadibia1 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep

  Chukwukadibia1 (talk) 21:26, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I find I cannot agree with this nomination; subject appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO. Further to the verified notable award nominations (it is not clear from the nom why they do not count), and the several above citations (which include a secondary analysis in a reliable source the subject "has been making waves in the Nigerian music scene with his hit singles and collaborations" [41]), there is further coverage including Billboard charting, Billboard critical coverage, concert review in an WP:RSNG source, and the subject had a cover feature on the WP:RSNG TurnTableCharts magazine with a sigcov bylined intro. ResonantDis_tortion 17:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment- some of the above sourcing has been added to the article now, including the charting citation, and also a critics end of year "best of" list for Rolling Stone magazine. Some copyediting and tidying up done too. ResonantDis_tortion 20:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This was nominated in November 2024: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeriq. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer. During this AfD the article has been moved from JeriQ to Jeriq. ResonantDis_tortion 19:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants of the November 2024 discussion to see if anything has changed... @Versace1608, @Bearian, @Ibjaja055. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• You did a good job, ResonantDistortion, but sorry, it doesn't add a pinch of salt of WP:GNG for the subject. Firstly, for the charting, NMUSICIAN says that "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart" (emphasis mine). Not only is the Billboard chart entry being not a single, ("Oganigwe" by Zlatan featuring Odumodublvck and Jeriq), Billboard is not Nigerian's national music chart. Plus, if the song charted No. 47 on the Billboard U.S. Afrobeats Songs, it didn't really chart to confer notability on who was featured, nope, it didn't. This Afrobeats Fresh Picks also has the same issue, provides nothing to establish the mentioned notability on Jeriq.

I also cannot comprehend why you do not find the way this article was created deceptively concerning, This, then how it was moved to the supposedly correct title.

Again, "Nyem Ego" is another feature. Below is my analysis of the sources you added so far. This, coupled with my above analysis makes it evident that Jeriq is not yet a notable musician.

Source assessment table

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://guardian.ng/saturday-magazine/weekend-beats/jeriqhood-concert-rapper-sells-out-nnamdi-azikwe-stadium-enugu/	~ The ridiculously promotional nature of this piece is a clear sign	~ Ditto	Provide literally no substantial coverage about the subject.	✘ No
https://punchng.com/jeriq-highlights-rags-to-riches-story-at-concert-jeriq/	Reflecting on the concert’s significance, JeriQ told Saturday Beats,..., clearly not.	~ Ditto	Provide literally no substantial coverage about the subject.	✘ No
https://www.turntablecharts.com/magazine/Industry_Digest_July_August_2023/82	An interview...	...while not entirely prohibited, cannot be the base on a subject's notability.	Ditto	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That it's not a Nigerian chart is not relevant, and neither is the fact it's a collaboration. Jeriq, evidently a major contributor to the piece of music, still has featured in the top 50 of a reliable chart aggregator, contributing to WP:MUSICBIO#2. He has been nominated, as a solo artist, twice for a notable national award which is WP:VERIFIED, and contributes to WP:MUSICBIO#8. At least two collaborative works with different artists have achieved non-trivial critical "best of" selections in independent sources, contributing to WP:MUSICBIO#1. The article in TurnTableCharts magazine (a website listed as a WP-reliable Nigerian source) is not only a curated interview but includes notability-supporting journalistic bylined non-trivial biographical information contributing to WP:MUSICBIO#1 (per WP:INTERVIEW). The nature of the page creation is irrelevant to the notability of the subject; for the record I have updated the article to try and improve it. Overall, the evidence points to the subject meeting the relevant notability guideline, and therefore I maintain my position to keep. ResonantDis_tortion 16:56, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The subject's debut album, Billion Dollar Dream, was critically reviewed by Afrocritik and The Native. He has received two nominations at The Headies. As previously pointed out, he charted on a Billboard chart as a guest act. These three reasons should be good enough for a weak keep. When I previously nominated the article, I didn't see reviews of his debut album in reliable sources. I also didn't see his nominations at The Headies. Perhaps I could have done a more in-depth search but preliminary search results didn't show reliable coverage at the time. The article contains a few promotional wording and definitely needs to be cleaned up.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gehlee (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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Bands and musicians, Music, and South Korea. — Paper9oll (🔔 • 📝) 15:56, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Unis (group) per WP:BANDMEMBER.⁂CountHacker (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Unis (group) per WP:BANDMEMBER. AstrooKai (Talk) 08:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Unis (group). Fails WP:SINGER independently per nom and is not notable outside the group per WP:BANDMEMBER. SBKSPP (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sudan-related deletion discussions. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:46, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Aviation, and Transportation. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 15:59, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A scheduled passenger flight which ended in fatalities and safety recommendations. The requirement for sourcing here is difficult because this occurred in a very remote part of the world - deleting this would further WP:BIAS. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I'd also note that the article is currently adequately sourced. SportingFlyer T·C 18:16, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  None of this is based on policies or guidelines. There is no such policy that states that an event is solely notable if it was "A scheduled passenger flight which ended in fatalities and [resulted in] safety recommendations". WP:BIAS does not state that we should ignore notability guidelines simply because it happened in a country where coverage is limited. I've seen better articles than this get deleted and the mere fact that the article is well referenced does not make it all the more notable. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 10:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You're applying our rules too strictly. All of the sources in the article are American, but this happened in Sudan and the Sudanese performed the investigation. Furthermore it is fairly obvious that a regularly scheduled passenger plane service which ended in fatalities is likely notable - heck, multiple American sources picked it up even though it occurred in rural Sudan. The only possible reason to delete at this time is that there isn't demonstrated lasting coverage in English-language sources... SportingFlyer T·C 20:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  So? You have yet to actually mention a policy or guideline to support keeping the article. An investigation was performed after a plane crash - That is routine. The news covered the accident without any further coverage - WP:NOTNEWS/WP:EVENTCRIT#4. It's been more than a decade since the plane crashed and there clearly is zero continued coverage. If your only argument for keeping is the aforementioned, then clearly one could create hundreds of articles on non-notable passenger flights on the sole basis that they received coverage for less than a week and had a final report published. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course I've cited policy - the article as written meets WP:GNG as it was a plane crash on a commercially scheduled flight which resulted in fatalities, which received international coverage. The only reason to delete this is if WP:NOT applies, and I don't think it does - the nature of the event and the location of the event means follow-up coverage is likely to be local and in a language other than English, and the nature of this specific crash means that deleting it would further implicit WP:BIAS by excluding plane crashes from parts of the world where finding coverage is difficult, even if the crash which would otherwise be notable. Your other argument is wrong as well - this is very different from a general aviation crash in the United States, so keeping this wouldn't open any floodgates. SportingFlyer T·C 06:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Existence is not notability so the fact that a plane crashed, wherever in the world, is not proof of notability unless the sources demonstrate so. Your comment only precised "scheduled passenger flight" which basically applies to any type of aircraft that provides that service. Sudan is a country that speaks english and arabic, so that already makes it easier to search for sources, and the mere statement that there could be sources does not establish notability unless you actually give sources that provide significant and in-depth coverage after the initial aftermath of the plane crash instead of saying that "finding coverage is difficult". It doesn't matter whether or not a deletion would further implicit bias. So instead of citing WP:BIAS, which does not trump notability guidelines, please provide us with these notability-establishing source. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The article has already established notability with the sources in the article, we're just discussing WP:NOT. I disagree with you strongly here, and arguing further won't change anything. SportingFlyer T·C 16:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I agree with SportingFlyer. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 18:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Melissa Becraft (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)

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

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

delete per nom Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the first source is directly about the use of AI in TikTok videos but only tangentially related to her, and none of the other sources are reliable. Having lots of followers can be useful for assessing notability, but isn't always correlated. Bearian (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as advertising --Loewstisch (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mustapha Ado Muhammad (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)

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

Source assessment table

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 15:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As the table above shows, this isn't a notable individual. I don't see much beyond confirmation of employment. Oaktree b (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per nomination. He is a successful businessman but he is not notable to have a Wikipedia page. Ibjaja055 (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per the analysis of sources in the nomination. Lots of people are successful in their careers, but aren't notable. Bearian (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per the source analysis, no WP:SIGCOV; does not meet WP:NBUSINESSPEOPLE. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Based on the analysis provided in the source assessment table, which was a great addition to this nomination, it is clear that the subject of this article does not meet the necessary criteria for inclusion. Idoghor Melody (talk) 21:36, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The award from The Sun and Bank of Industry doesn’t help to meet the GNG? There’s a source from BBC Hausa, Daily Trust and Pulse.ng that are not on this article. Frank Ken (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I respectfully disagree with the nomination statement here because they probably didn’t look for more sources before nominating this. There’s this source from the the sun [42] which has some information about him and his company. There’s this source from BBC Hausa [43] which goes into details about him also. It’s an interview, so you would need a translator to understand this. There’s this from the sun again [44] with some biographical informations. Another one from the BBC [45]. There’s this interview from [46] Daily Trust in 2014 also. It has biographical information.

Pulse Nigeria is a very reliable source in Nigeria and it has this profile of him [47] and others. I think the barrier we have is search engines mixing his name with other northerner’s and the main coverage about him being in Hausa. The references I listed here are not listed in the source material above.

I don’t know why I feel like this nominator does not like this thing specific page. Honours234 (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC) — Honours234 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Honours234 Welcome old IP editor, you want to declare your affiliations with the subject? There is no way on earth your second-ever edit on your registered account as an old IP editor is to an AfD discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have any affiliation with the subject and even if I did, I dont see how this affects this discussion. I previously used a 97/ IP from CenturyLink tha is unfortunately bkocked as a proxy. I may have knowledge about P & G more than you if that's what you are worried about. Honours234 (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Honours234 You know, you sure do! Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, let's give a quick dive into the sources you mentioned specifically, this is utterly unreliable; it is a promotional nonsense and lacks a byline as a piece; this and this lacks a substantial coverage on the subject; this I already analysed above; this (original interview) is clearly an interview we cannot base on for notability; this? is ridiculously promotional Known for his keen business acumen and unwavering commitment to the region’s growth and also ridiculously AI generated.

With your experience as an "old IP editor", you should know better by now what it takes for a subject to pass GNG or for a piece to be considered reliable, don't get me wrong, I appreciate your "oldness" as an IP editor. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the first one you highlighted lcks byline. Interviews contribute to substantial coverage, did you watch the interview at all?

The line you highlighted from Pulse Nigeria is ridiculous in what manner please. I dont agree with your submission that the article is promotional because they wrote a 13 word praise. The article seems to be balanced to me. It seems you are cherrypicking words to show that an article is not reliable, since when? Honours234 (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I dont know if youre trying to have fun by calling me a old editor, that is not so good faith of you. I added the description because of the toxicity you are trying to show. Honours234 (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Theatre and Philippines. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and move relevant details (seating capacity, opening/inauguration date and so on) to the Meralco Building article. -Ian Lopez @ 15:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A WP:BEFORE search shows this is a clearly notable theatre. [48] and mentions in The Palgrave Handbook of Musical Theatre Producers, The Encyclopedia of World Ballet, Encyclopedia of Asian Theatre: O-Z, [49], has its own tag on Philstar for news about it [50]... should be easily notable, even if the article needs work. Notability isn't just about the citations in the article... SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Similarly the Philstar tags are just PR release for events happening in the theatre (watch this play now, get your tickets now! at contact number type of articles). LionHeartTV's reliability is being contested. I cannot comment whether the Meralco Theatre is substantially mentioned on the aforementioned book though. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - To clarify, having a tag on Philstar does not automatically make the theater notable. Tags, much like categories on Wikipedia, are intended to group news articles that may be related to the subject. While they can be a helpful starting point for finding related coverage, they do not necessarily indicate notability. Additionally, most, if not all, of the articles in that tag only talk about the events held in the theater, but they don’t talk about the theater itself, which I think does not establish WP:SIGCOV on Philstar’s end. Below are the first three articles from that tag that demonstrates the lack of significant coverage for the theater itself despite having a tag. Other articles with the tag are the same as these:

  • Cocoy Laurel leads 'Guadalupe: The Musical' in September - Only talks about the event, the only mention of the theater is, "Guadalupe: The Musical" will run at 8 p.m. from Sept. 28 to Oct. 14, 2018 at the Meralco Theater, with with Saturday and Sunday matinées at 3 p.m.
  • Halili 30th-year concert - Similar to the first one, this one only talks about the event and the only mention of the theater is, The Halili-Cruz School of Ballet (HCSB) celebrates Christmas with a dance concert titled HCSB 30th Anniversary: Isang Pasasalamat at the Meralco Theater tomorrow at 6 p.m.
  • The Horse and His Boy opens today at Meralco Theater - Literally the same as the first two, the only mention of the theater is, If you haven’t told your kids a story recently, take them to Trumpet’s The Horse and His Boy. The journey begins today at the Meralco Theater.

  AstrooKai (Talk) 13:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course not. At the same time, there are dozens of articles with that tag, only dating back about 15-20 years, and the "40 years" article is clearly SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 20:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree that this is a notable theatre. Bduke (talk) 00:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per SportingFlyer's sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-Flo27 (talk • contribs) 12:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @D-Flo27 sources that can be questioned. LionhearTV, in particular, is going to be treated as a generally-unreliable source very soon. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:44, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested by a local editor. I might check it out when I'm in Manila for my partner's family reunion. Bearian (talk) 04:45, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:GNG with sources presented by SportingFlyer. They're reliable and in-depth enough IMV. SBKSPP (talk) 01:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thiago França (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 who played 11 minutes of professional football in 2011. Other sources list this individual as Brazilian. Not notable and no significant coverage. C679 10:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Portugal. C679 10:53, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 10:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Blatantly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Radha Bhatt (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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers. -Mushy Yank. 13:54, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• She might pass WP:NACTOR for her roles in Sunflower and The Family Man for example, as the bylined presentation of this interview in The Hindustan Times states. A lot of interviews in more or less reliable media outlets are an indication that she could be considered a notable person. If NEWSORGINDIA applies (and how exactly please and to which sources precisely?) to sources on the page, the very general recommendations in that paragraph in an information page do not apply to all sources and should not prevail over the specific notability guideline. So (weak) Keep; Draftify if judged insufficient, please.-Mushy Yank. 14:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Delhi, and Uttarakhand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Looks like she passes Wp:NACTOR, multiple significant roles in notable films. No objection for redirect. Zuck28 (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete I'm not seeing evidence that she passes WP:NACTOR. The article says "she played a parallel lead" in Agar Tum Saath Ho, but she appears at the end of the cast list in that article. She's not listed at all in The Family Man or in Manikarnika: The Queen of Jhansi. I'm not sure how significant her role is in Sunflower - it's not mentioned in the plot summaries, though they may not be accurate. But even if it is a significant role, that would still be only one, not multiple. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:32, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jalal 3 (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)

Cited with only two sources, the one is more like an open sourced blogspot [51] in which the sources attached are full of dead links. The other [52] seems dubious to me. In any case there's not much of independent significant coverage to warrant this standalone article. Garuda ^Talk! 10:03, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of wars involving North Yemen (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete:Per nom. A mere content fork of List of wars involving Yemen, there's no consensus to split the list. CelesteQuill (talk) 06:09, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm not sure that I understand the part of the deletion rationale advocating against a merge. With the article now being well supported by sources, why would it not be possible? BilletsMauves^€500 13:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Simply because it is WP:SAMETYPEFORK. There's no consensus on List of wars involving Yemen to WP:SPLIT the list. Garuda ^Talk! 15:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah and let's ignore the explanation i gave above 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 07:45, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This does not answer my question about why it would not be possible to merge the article with List of wars involving Yemen. BilletsMauves^€500 17:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC) My bad, I did not see that this content used to be included in List of wars involving Yemen, but was removed after this AfD was started. BilletsMauves^€500 17:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as List of wars involving Yemen already exists. REDISCOVERBHARAT (talk) 15:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK and revert the change made on List of wars involving Yemen by Abo Yemen after this AfD was started. BilletsMauves^€500 17:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I have split the article on August 2023 but forgot to delete the stuff from the main article. If this gets merged then the south's article should get merged too 𐩣𐩫𐩧𐩨 Abo Yemen (𓃵) 18:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of wars involving South Yemen. However there's nothing to merge or redirect at List of wars involving Yemen as it's just a same type fork. Garuda ^Talk! 19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Repeating the same information across multiple pages does not serve the user effectively and goes against Wikipedia's goal of providing centralized, accurate content. gidonb (talk) 02:12, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled The Exorcist Film (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)

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

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

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

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

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

• Redirect to The_Exorcist_(franchise)#Untitled_The_Exorcist_reboot_(2026) per my comment above. Filming hasn't yet started, so it's premature to have an article at this point in time. I have no objection to anyone wanting to draftify this, but I would recommend that this title get turned into a redirect since it's a plausible enough search term. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:49, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect: as above to the 2026 film link is fine. This isn't quite ready for an article yet. Oaktree b (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:HAMMER, although I don't oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 04:47, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I figure that a redirect would be good here - notability hasn't been established but it's nicely written and if/when filming does start, editors would have a good base to start from. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:22, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Añjana (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)

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

• Delete. The only source, the website https://mandalas.life, is definitely not reliable for this. Bishonen | tålk 10:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Nepal, and India. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a reliable source and i'm not keen on these single referenced article. They are cack. It fails WP:V, WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 22:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Only one source is cited, and that is not a WP: Reliable Source. Taabii (talk) 06:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - legendary grandfather of the Buddha, but whom we can't even verify his existence. Bearian (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Fails WP:GNG. RangersRus (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete– Fails WP:GNG & WP:V.EmilyR34 (talk) 04:52, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmi Machine Works (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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 'Redirect to Lakshmi Mills, with a selective merge possibility. Bearian (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Brunero (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 TheLoyalOrder (talk) 07:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• The 1896 United States Official Postal Guide confirms the post office, which is all that the Baker placename book source actually says too, upon reading it; and like Mangoe I find zero evidence for the usual "unincorporated community" rubbish claim by the article that this is something other than an extinct post office or that there is anything verifiable to say other than that it was a post office. This should be in the 1895 edition of Lippincott's Gazetteer, but checking page 2583 there is no post office listed, nor anything for Indiana with this name other than Tanner's Creek. This post office must be truly lost to history not to even have made it into the contemporary Lippincott's. Both the Baber 1875 and the later 1884 histories of Greene County pre-date when this post office was supposed to have existed, so there's no documentation from them to be had. Uncle G (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siam-Patani War (1638) (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)

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Already PROD'd so Soft Deletion is not an option. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Arpad Furka (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)

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

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

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

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

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

• Draftify as suggested. The article is not ready. Bearian (talk) 04:55, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The single source provided is a passing mention. Unable to locate any sources which discuss this subject in detail. Lacks sufficient notability. C679 07:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Venezuela. C679 07:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. C679 07:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. GiantSnowman 19:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—Blatantly fails WP:GNG. Anwegmann (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Swan River Seaplanes Cessna 208 crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Aviation and Australia. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:35, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per reasons stated by nominator. No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and no expectation of lasting effects. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 07:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to note, this comment, "no expectation of lasting effects," is essentially a speculative comment since we don't know whether or not that will be the case. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, you're right. Noted. Hacked (Talk|Contribs) 19:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We'd need a crystal ball to justify notability today. If any lasting effects or other grounds for notability come to light in the future, the article can always be recreated. In other words, usual caveats apply. Rosbif73 (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Not notable per Wikipedia:NEVENT. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 12:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Transportation. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 12:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – No significant or in-depth coverage found that would demonstrate the event's notability, even if tragic. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at least Draftify. How can you claim no lasting impact when the investigation hasn't been completed? Surely it's too soon to claim that. Plenty of WP:GNG coverage to date. Another article appeared today about maintenance issues. The-Pope (talk) 16:02, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Antioquia Cessna 402C crash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

  On the article about Turkish Airlines Flight 981 (which I think every one would agree is notable) all the sources are either created shortly after the accident or are parts of the databases that mention every incident/accident including the 2025 Cessna.

  • I've already located more than 10 sources in the article that were published after March 1974, and even more while searching around.

  Some no-survivor crashes of similar-sized aircraft are labelled with lack of notability templates (see Thai Flying Service Flight 209 or 2024 Orbic Air Eurocopter EC130 crash) while others enjoy a free life on Wikipedia (see 2024 Gillette Pilatus PC-12 crash or 2023 Rio Branco Cessna Grand Caravan crash).

  • Simply because it wasn't tagged doesn't necessarily mean they "enjoy a free life". It's just that either there's evidence that it's notable or nobody bothered to place the notability template on either article.

  I know that I should not mention other articles in this discussion but it seems to me that as long as there is no rule to call a crash notable iff there are at least N (let us say, 15) fatalities (or other extraordinary reason), we will be stuck in these discussions forever.

  • The problem with this proposal is that it is basically saying that "regardless of whether or not an event meets WP:GNG or meets WP:NEVENT, an event is automatically notable if it receives a minimum amount of casualties," even though that is not how notability is established. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 11:23, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

nah, dont delete this — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndoMaja (talk • contribs) 11:47, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, it should be deleted. ThisGuy (talk • contributions) 00:32, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If the page of the December crash in Brazil exists then this should exist IndoMaja (talk) 01:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is just like those small domestic passenger flights operated by a small airline like Tara Air as an example,. IndoMaja (talk) 01:48, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DONT DELETE this is the deadliest crash of 2025 so far. If we delete this, why don't we delete stuff like the crash in brazil in december? or the argentine crash in december as well? It just doesn't make sense RIPSwissair (talk) 13:15, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! IndoMaja (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – Per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENTCRIT – Per WP:GNG, "sources should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability". None of the sources are secondary in nature since none of them contained analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the event itself, with none of them providing significant or in-depth coverage of the event. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 16:12, 25 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yossi Feldman (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)

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

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

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

Acid green (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 colour, fails WP:GNG A1Cafel (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. A1Cafel (talk) 06:17, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Chartreuse (color)? Hyperbolick (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, quite a few sources come up on a search. Here's one, and there are others. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Shades of green. I've searched and not sure there's enough sourcing to justify a separate article. Astaire (talk) 21:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are many sources in search engines. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This [53] source doesn't look reliable to me, it looks like someone's personal website project. I can't find reliable sources that have "acid green" as the primary topic. Astaire (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Mztourist (talk) 06:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Afghanistan, United States of America, and Colorado. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 07:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NCO with a third-level award. There are millions like him. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:39, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. No evidence of notability. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:31, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Topic does not meet WP:ANYBIO. I was not able to find significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to warrant an inclusion in the ‘pedia. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 07:01, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

World Baseball Classic Rules (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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Baseball rules as an WP:ATD. The rules here are really not that different from the MLB or Nippon Baseball League. Conyo14 (talk) 21:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  What would we merge? This is basically a close paraphrase of the rules; Baseball rules is an encyclopedic treatment of the rules. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:05, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Redirect and selective merge to World Baseball Classic#Rules and restore the "rules" section that was previously in that article. This article was created as a spinoff of the WBC article, though I do not consider that to be necessary due to relatively the small size of the article (as compared to other major sporting competitions). Frank Anchor 16:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That merge proposal makes more sense, provided the editor(s) performing it avoid the close paraphrasing of the MLB website that characterizes this article. (Outright copyvios have been revdel'ed.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree. Basically a simple summary of the differences between WBC rules and standard baseball rules is sufficient, assuming it is properly sourced and not the close paraphrasing of the MLB website that characterizes this article. Changing my !vote to a redirect/selective merge. Frank Anchor 14:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Meh, I'm in favor of whatever merge makes the most sense. Conyo14 (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I support the merge and redirect proposed by Frank Anchor. Please feel free to ping me to perform this if it is closed that way. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Comment. It seems like we all agreed on a selective merge that summarizes the rules but does not duplicate the entirety of the current content, which is a too-close paraphrase of the copyrighted WBC rules, and three of the four !voters agreed on a redirect to World Baseball Classic#Rules upon completion of the merger. As to how much to merge, I don't think we need to be too entirely prescriptive and Barkeep49, who has offered to execute the merger, is an experienced editor with good judgment on what would be appropriate to merge. Pinging Conyo14 and Frank Anchor since the closer apparently wants us all to be more specific than we've already been. Dclemens1971 (talk) 23:34, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I mean, I am in favor of the merge by Frank, I just didn't feel a delete was necessary. I was as confused as others were about this relisting. Conyo14 (talk) 00:53, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Doczilla or another closer, I think this can now be closed. We all support Frank's suggestion of target (World Baseball Classic#Rules) and the description of how much to be merged. Dclemens1971 (talk) 14:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Doczilla I don't think the level of consensus you're seeking is necessary at AfD. If there are content issues to work out later they can be worked out through normal editorial processes, which crucially may involve editors not present at this AfD (and thus any consensus at this AfD wouldn't necessarily stop future issues). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Education, and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as creator; modestly notable scholarship is what the org is known for. Perhaps only needs to be one article about both; I merged the article on the scholarship into the one for the institute (though I could see it going the other direction). – SJ + 16:50, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you share which sources meet GNG for the scholarship? Every source you've added in the merged text is affiliated with the Institute or is a primary source. I still don't see WP:SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:21, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTINHERITED. 3/4 of the page is promoting the foundation, without significant coverage in three or more independent, secondary sources, and using words that are subjective and impart no verifiable information. When I taught at a junior college, every student in their second or third semester was required to take a class on critical thinking, which included a module on distinguishing between primary, secondary, and tertiary sources. Students in my paralegal program also had to take a second course on how that applies to legal research. The other 1/4 of the page veers off into a discussion about a different foundation with a similar mission, but one entity's notability doesn't confer the same on a different entity. Bearian (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Science. PARAKANYAA (talk) 13:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I can't find anything that would substantiate the wiki-notability of this book itself. It might be possible to describe the "living textbooks" platform/series at German National Library of Medicine. XOR'easter (talk) 23:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could be one choice because ZB MEB is host of Living Textbook of Hand Surgery, but dosn't contribute to the content of this peer reviewed "platform". Woller (talk) 12:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I see literally zero secondary coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Keep and modify if necessary Woller (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Looking into WP refs you can find several citations of "Living Textbook of Hand Surgery". The online-Textbook is work in progress, so with coming chapters more and more citations are to be expected. Really "zero secondary coverage"? Woller (talk) 15:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Citations are not secondary coverage. PARAKANYAA (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is honestly a pretty difficult topic to judge notability on because it doesn't really fit any one given area. It's a website, but it's more like a book or academic journal. As such, this suffers from some of the same issues that an academic would when it comes to establishing notability because well, academic resources like this are far less likely to receive the typical types of coverage that say, a Stephen King book or non-academic website might. I do think that there's some merit in looking at the citations, as this could help establish that the resource has made a significant contribution to the sciences - we do somewhat the same when it comes to academics. However at the same time, we would still need some sort of prose accompanying those citations to show that the site has been viewed as particularly influential or important. Since it's not a person, we won't really have a h-index to rely on. I guess my point is that this is going to be tough to judge since it's not like your typical website and this doesn't really fit into either NACADEMIC (as it's not a person) or NBOOK (technically not a book). JOURNALCRIT comes the closest to potentially covering this, but it's an essay and not an official guideline/policy. We really do need to have some sort of notability guideline for academic publications, however since that's not really my area of expertise (and I'm on here so irregularly) I'll let someone else handle raising that discussion again (as I know it's been raised before).

Of note, there does seem to be some coverage in German. I found a brief mention here, but it's in passing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:01, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An alternative, if sourcing can't be found, is to redirect this to German_National_Library_of_Medicine#Open_access_publishing. This does seem like it should at least be mentioned somewhere. The GNLoM page does have a brief mention so that could suffice. As far as the other organization goes, it looks like it hosts the content but is not exactly responsible for the contents - at least not to the level that the GNLoM is, hence why I wouldn't redirect there. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I do think that we could expand that brief mention into a couple of sentences explaining the GNLoM's "living textbook" program and listing all five of the books they currently have. I might try to do that in a bit, as I can use a primary source for that. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to German_National_Library_of_Medicine#Open_access_publishing. Searching for this was frustrating. Quite a few hits came up. Few of them were junk hits, however at the same time none of them were really anything I could use to firmly establish notability. A lot of them were either citations, brief mentions like this, or were in places Wikipedia wouldn't see as usable even if it was in-depth. I've expanded mention of this and the general program (Living Handbooks) in the above mentioned section to a couple of sentences, so this could redirect there. I have no objection to this redirecting with history, in case more sourcing becomes available, but it might be a while. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Events, and North Carolina. LibStar (talk) 11:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Lazy nom - Nominator should have searched beyond google news. With a few minutes worth of looking, I added 4 WP:RS to put GNG to bed. WP:BEFORE seriously applies. Toddst1 (talk) 01:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please refrain from WP:ADHOM comments. I think an event needs non-primary and non-local sources as per WP:GEOSCOPE, otherwise every local barbeque would get an article.

  Out of the added sources "Taylor, Holly (23 August 2023). "Pork Fest Revived". Roanoke-Chowan News Herald." is a local source, "Whole Hog Barbeque Series. North Carolina Pork Council" hardly looks independent. this one is an event listing from a non-independent source and very amateur site which looks almost like a blog. this one is a line mention and not WP:SIGCOV. LibStar (talk) 01:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  as per WP:EVENT, there is no evidence of WP:LASTING effect or more broad national significance as per WP:GEOSCOPE. This is just a locally run barbeque event. LibStar (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. Virginia Pilot
2. Tidewater News
3. Roanoke-Chowan News-Herald
4. Eastern Living

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

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

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

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

Allegations of manipulated economic data in the Islamic Republic of Iran (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)

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

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

  I added another claim on fabrication of data [54]https://irannewsupdate.com/economy-2/iran-s-false-economic-statistics/

  I added new citations that claim problem with inflation data Razgura (talk) 12:19, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I added citations that claim problems with inflation data (https://djavadsalehi.com/2023/04/11/delay-and-discrepancy-in-irans-inflation-data/) (https://www.cato.org/blog/irans-lying-inflation-statistics) Razgura (talk) 12:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  https://iranfocus.com/economy/52975-unprecedented-inflation-and-rising-prices-in-irans-food-market/ also claims fabrication of inflation data Razgura (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The subject is notable, nobody disputes this. The page should be improved, but it is sufficiently informative and sourced already. The title probably should be changed by removing word "allegations". My very best wishes (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Murder of Kiaya Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Robinhood (2025 film) (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)

Robinhood (2025 film)

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

The guideline on future films says:

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

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

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

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

• Delete or Draftify as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Andhra Pradesh, and Telangana. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Note that this was moved back to draft on a different occasion as well, after it was created under a name variation to avoid scrutiny. I've reviewed the references then and unless something magical has happened in the last few hours, this fails notability. One thing not mentioned by nom is even if these references are seen as significant, many are unreliable under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draftify per source assessment. If the production isn't notable, there's no reason for this article to be outside of draft space right now. jellyfish ✉ 05:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or draftify per the above. The sources in the article (and similar ones found in a quick Google news search) aren't quite enough to support an article prior to release. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Antoine Rostand (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)

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and France. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think that the sources are from Energy sector and the positions etc. sounds notable in the energy sector. The page exists in 3 more languages and on French Google there's a lot of coverage in reliable sources. Statements in WP:NBIO aligns with the content and sources.NatalieTT (talk) 18:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Could you point to any WP:SIGCOV in secondary sources? Cause I haven't really seen it in my WP:BEFORE search. BilletsMauves^€500 13:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Kayrros. He does not appear to be independently notable. In particular there is a dearth of independent, reliable sources about him as opposed to written by him, quoting him, or mentioning him. The best I found were [57], [58], and [59] which isn't enough for a BLP even when you add a couple more interviews and plenty of business networking profiles. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:00, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Delete fails notability, no sources can be found. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 13:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Schützenpanzer (Talk) 16:07, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although I’m not sure why my prod was deleted as its not controversial •Cyberwolf•talk? 17:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Covered by Phoronix (Phoronix), but probably at best a redirect somewhere. IgelRM (talk) 23:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's the same source I linked above. Do you have a redirect target in mind? Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 03:36, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think if we did want to redirect, some target options would be OpenSolaris#Derivatives (only lists notable derivates so not a great option IMO), Oracle_Solaris#Open_source_derivatives (seems to be the most suitable target to me), Comparison of OpenSolaris distributions (would need to merge as it's not currently listed and I'm not sure whether it's notable enough for inclusion) or Illumos#Current_distributions (second choice). MCE89 (talk) 03:48, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my mistake but it would help if you had mentioned the name Phoronix instead of "this". I would say it's a reliable trade source. IgelRM (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Illumos. Based on looking at old email threads, this appears to be a significant toy port in the Illumos community. RS sourcing for this kind of niche FOSS stuff from this time is a bit hard to come by (lots of email threads etc but not a lot of concrete mainstream coverage) -- Sohom (talk) 06:22, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I support that and I think the phoronix source does as well. IgelRM (talk) 02:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starchess (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 independent sources in the article. Only independent mention I could find is:

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

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

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

Mohammad Karaki (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)

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and California. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: almost, but not quite notable. Some historical interest noted, but nothing we can use to build an article. If it gets some sort of listing, either local or in the NRHP, we can look at revisiting the article. Delete for now Oaktree b (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Some insight as the author - I saw it on the Conservancies' website and am definitely more of an inclusionist. It has a few mentions on various city and are historical society pages, and the architect had his own article which pushed me over the edge. I thought it was on the line but decided to write it and hash it out later if people disagreed. Blervis (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: See my reasoning above. I've seen buildings that feel less notable to me, I guess it just depends how much stock you put in the LA Conservancies opinion of what constitutes a historic building. Blervis (talk) 04:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:NCREATIVE works generally only one direction; being the creator of a notable/significant work can qualify for notability, but it's not really possible for a work to have WP:INHERITED notability from its creator. (The exception is articulated under WP:NBOOK for works by creators of such fame that every work they produce is considered notable (say, Shakespeare), but this architect is not at that level and buildings aren't covered by NBOOK.) So until we have more independent SIGCOV besides the LA Conservancy, there's not a GNG pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:04, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't mean to imply it was notable solely because of the article, just that a building on a recognized historic listing by an architect of note is more notable than one that isn't. As I said above, I agree that this is on the line, I feel that the conservancy and city sources elevate it to notability. With respect to the WP:ROTM comment, it clearly isn't since the Conservancy has designated it as of particular interest. Whether you think that particular organization is too free with designations is another question.

  If people feel that both city and Conservancy recognition doesn't amount to notability then I won't fight it - that's all there is at this time. I'm of the opinion that those two are enough to constitute notability - not every building is going to have books dedicated to it. It seems consensus is against me on this one. If it does get recognized by the city or other entity someday we can revisit this. Blervis (talk) 02:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm very pro NRHP buildings having a listing here, but the sourcing just doesn't seem to be there. I've been creating articles on and off on this subject, and it's a high bar to meet for inclusion, but it is what it is. Oaktree b (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wayne Walker (politician), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greg Sayers (2nd nomination) TheLoyalOrder (talk) 00:55, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Also nominated related councillor articles:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Delete Richard Hill: only SIGCOV I found is this: [69]
• Delete Chris Darby: did not find any SIGCOV
• Delete Shane Henderson: only SIGCOV I found is this: [70]
• Delete Ken Turner: only SIGCOV I found is this: [71]
• Delete Kerrin Leoni: only SIGCO I found is this: [72] [73]
• Redirect Julie Fairey to Michael Wood (politician) (her husband) as an ATD. The coverage of her relates to Michael Wood and the airport shares issues.
• Keep Josephine Bartley: there is SIGCOV that isn't just related to the election: [74] [75] [76] Traumnovelle (talk) 00:00, 14 January 2025 (UTC) (indented these "votes" to show that they are all arguments by Traumnovelle)[reply]

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

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

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

• Keep Richard Hills (politician) - plenty of additional sources available (e.g. [77][78][79][80]), many others have extensive additional coverage as well (e.g. Chris Darby [81][82] [83][84]). I'll integrate any additional sources I can for the pages shortly, hopefully to the point where the pages will meet GNG (and/or I'll update my comment if I don't feel that there is enough published about these figures). --Prosperosity (talk) 03:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• In general, I do not think local councillors meet NPOL and should by-and-large not have articles. So my views are:

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

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

  Consensus among kiwi editors should not override GNG and NPOL. If we want to define the supercity as being at the equivalent level of a provincial government that would make some sense to me. David Palmer//cloventt ^(talk) 10:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: Wiki projects do not get to set policies and guidelines, this is done by the whole community. For many years we had sports-related wiki projects setting notability guidelines with extremely low bars for sports biographies. This resulted in English Wikipedia being flooded with tens of thousands of sports biographies for individuals who would not meet WP:GNG. Thankfully these guidelines have been repealed. WP:NZ cannot arbitrarily say that councillors from their biggest city are notable. The arrogance. Obi2canibe (talk) 12:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is making the argument that a local consensus overrides a wider consensus, just that a persuasive argument was made in the past as to notability when notability was questioned (which I frustratingly still can't find). I would also like to remind you to assume good faith. Kiwichris (talk) 04:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]