Back

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 27

< January 26 January 28 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Kostyuk

[edit]
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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:53, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pretão

[edit]
Pretão (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)

Player played 25 games in Brazil's fourth tier in intermittent seasons, never playing double-figures amount of games. I'm finding absolutely no coverage of him, even when I search his real name (his nickname, if I am not mistaken, means "The Big Black Guy"). Soccerway's data implies he won the state league Campeonato Amapaense five times but offers no statistical proof; the state is the second least populated anyway so this is hardly the same as winning the Campeonato Paulista five times even if true. Unknown Temptation (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On ogol.com.br it shows that the athlete never even played outside of the Amapá state league [3] , and only gained prominence because he was presented alongside Beto Acosta at Santos-AP [4]. Svartner (talk) 23:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 22:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

William James Carson

[edit]
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]

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

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

The result was keep‎. Discussion of a possible merger can continue on the talk page. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Meralco Theater

[edit]
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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to German National Library of Medicine#Open access publishing. This has rough consensus as an appropriate WP:ATD. Sandstein 07:49, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Living Textbook of Hand Surgery

[edit]
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]

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]
What about a different category for "Living Textbook of Hand Surgery"? It could easily be categorized to "Open educational resources", better fitting for the item we discuss here. I already said it's not a book printed on paper, so relevance criteria for "old fashioned" books can not be applied to this product. Woller (talk) 09:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Woller And I said already that even if we don't count it as a book, it doesn't pass our other standards either. People have to have written about it. For us to categorize it it has to be notable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 09:24, 30 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect per ReaderofthePack. I wasn't able to dig up more sources either, and this is a convincing alternative I can get behind. (Also broadly agree with the comments on notability guidelines, but if others don't feel confident to start that discussion, I'm fairly sure I couldn't either!) Mlkj (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Privee AI

[edit]
Privee AI (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)

Literally every source is a copy of the exact same press release, which is WP:PRIMARY and doesn't count for notability. Only sources I could find with a quick WP:BEFORE were more press releases, nothing counting for GNG. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I use this app and similar competitors have their own page Rand34 (talk) 08:59, 28 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked for sockpuppetry. PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm a fan too of this app and it deserves its own page like others Kellys234 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked for sockpuppetry. PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wish to keep this page too MauriceDesmond32 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked for sockpuppetry. PhilKnight (talk) 20:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Was this AfD shared somewhere outside of Wikipedia? It feels hard to believe that three users would all coincidentally find it and !vote there on their first edit. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 15:49, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been shared in the discord server for this service, see this comment by the article creator. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP: GNG. Note that the sourcing comes primarily from several copies of the same press release, reposted verbatim on several different websites. The Keep votes were likely canvassed and should be disregarded. HyperAccelerated (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:07, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scooby Nero

[edit]
Scooby Nero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no good sources. Doesn't meet the rule wp:artist Pollia (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Smoking pipe. (non-admin closure) Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:24, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

International Pipe Smoking Day

[edit]
International Pipe Smoking Day (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)

Pollia (talk) 20:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsix

[edit]
Samsix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no good sources. Doesn't meet wp:blp, wp:artist Pollia (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete per G5. Girth Summit (blether) 13:48, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Desiré Inglander

[edit]
Desiré Inglander (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 one good source confirming the significance and matching WP:BLP or WP:BIO or WP:ARTIST Pollia (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Swedish Wikipedia's entry, sv:Desiré Inglander, has a little bit more information, but not much more (it seems there's more primary sources than not). Might be worth checking to see if anything is useful from there to potentially establish notability. Chew(V • T • E) 22:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is 1/3 finished and poorly sourced. Was this supposed to be a draft? It's literally missing text in two sort-of required sections, and the sources look like primary sources. I'm not against draftifying this with instructions to work on it more, a lot more. Bearian (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reza Pishro

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Reza Pishro (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)

Same reason as previous afd, no evidence of notability. It was moved to mainspace from draft without a review from a sock at some point, moved back to draft, and moved again without a draft review. Tehonk (talk) 18:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - He is a well-known Persian hip-hop artist. Below are some references: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17][18] Samanmb (talk) 07:59, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I put all of the above sources through Google Translate, and while that service is not perfect, it is obvious that most of those sources are brief publicity announcements from managers (or himself) promoting a new song, plus several brief reports of his arrest for being a stone cold thug. None of those are reliable or significant. #10 appears to be a more robust review of an album but it's not enough to support an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you DOOMSDAYER520. ILNA, Tabnak, and Baharnews are state-run websites, and hip-hop is banned in Iran, so they don’t promote illegal rappers. They mention them simply because they are publicly known. Additionally, these are just a few examples I’ve provided; there are many sources available online, so it’s better not to base your decision solely on these examples. Samanmb (talk) 14:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We have been through this before with Iranian entertainers. It may be true that they get little reliable media coverage due to the repressive regime, but that same reliable media coverage is the very foundation of a Wikipedia article. That problem will not be solved by giving this rapper or anyone else a free WP article out of sympathy. Censorship in Iran is the bigger problem to tackle. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 14:23, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your source analysis. The links posted here were already in the article and my evaluation of them before nominating was the same, none of them meets the WP:SIGCOV. Most are one sentence news about an arrest which doesn't make someone notable, and the ones about his actual job are just PR things, press releases etc. Tehonk (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Has lack of evidence supporting the notability of Reza Pishro. Despite claims of media coverage in Persian sources, the majority of the references are minimal and do not meet Wikipedia’s notability guidelines. Many sources consist of brief, promotional content or news reports that fail to provide substantial independent coverage. While the artist is mentioned in several outlets, these mentions are often limited to brief announcements or arrests, which do not contribute to establishing significant notability. Therefore, the article does not meet the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun Wilkinson (darts player)

[edit]
Shaun Wilkinson (darts player) (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 first reference is decent but a WP:BEFORE search only found passing mentions in crewe chronicle and nantwich guardian. Failing WP:GNG Canary757 (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Owen× ☎ 19:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Devendra Kumar Tiwari

[edit]
Devendra Kumar Tiwari (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)

Being a chief secretary of a state doesn’t inherit notability, on WP:BEFORE search i found some sources which are on his appointment news. Also lack of sig cov. In secondary sources, fails WP:GNG TheSlumPanda (talk) 17:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:16, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sepulveda Rose

[edit]
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, ~~~~

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Zee Marathi#Zee Chitramandir. Beeblebrox Beebletalks 23:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Chitramandir

[edit]
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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a contested redirect, this article is not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) ZyphorianNexus Talk 16:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shunga–Greek War

[edit]
Shunga–Greek War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:GNG, Mostly based on Original Research and Non–WP:RS, None of the sources refers the event as Shungha Greek War. Mr.Hanes Talk 16:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Obvious keep, since the sources cited, although meagre, do appear to indicate that such conflicts and relations are historical events involving the people and places described. There could certainly stand to be more sources to clarify where specific identifications come from, and explain where some of the material comes from. But that should be done through ordinary editing; it is not an argument for deletion. So are arguments that the article contains original research. The subject of the article is clearly not the invention of a Wikipedia editor.
What is left here is an argument that the title of the argument is not found in the sources, and therefore constitutes original research. Having seen this argument several times in other discussions, I now feel confident that it is erroneous. When there is a commonly accepted name for something in scholarship, we can generally use that name. When there is not, any reasonably descriptive name will do. Here, the best arguments would be that we have an indefinite number of conflicts of uncertain intensity, and so perhaps it should be titled "Shunga–Greek Wars", or "Shunga–Greek conflicts", or "Greco–Shunga Wars" or something else along those lines. That is not an argument for deletion. The article should be kept, though perhaps moved to a better title—and that too is part of ordinary editing. P Aculeius (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: WP:SOURCESEXIST. Topic is notable and has independent significant coverage. In my quick WP:BEFORE, it's quite clear that sources have established notability of the event:

There were internecine struggles between Eucratides I and Menander I when he was at war with the Sungas.[1]

Further sources:

  1. Narain, A. K. (1980). The Indo-Greeks. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-561046-8.
  2. Ghosh, Suchandra (2016), "Shunga Kingdom", The Encyclopedia of Empire, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 1–2, doi:10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe192, ISBN 978-1-118-45507-4, retrieved 2025-01-29
  3. Ghosh, Suchandra (2022), "Śuṅgas", The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 1–4, doi:10.1002/9781119399919.eahaa00551, ISBN 978-1-119-39991-9, retrieved 2025-01-29
  4. Stoneman, Richard (2019-02-05). The Greek Experience of India: From Alexander to the Indo-Greeks. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-15403-9. – Garuda Talk! 15:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that sources exist—some already cited, plus the ones you identified, is a reason to keep the article. But WP:SOURCESEXIST is not an argument for keeping or deleting—it's a shortcut to an example of an argument not to make, namely that souces must exist, even though none have been located or identified. That argument doesn't apply here, since several sources have been located and identified. Perhaps this is a "Mandela effect" argument—one cited because it sounds like it means something, even though it actually refers to something else. But your conclusions are still right! P Aculeius (talk) 04:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Mairs, Rachel (2016), "Bactrian or Graeco-Bactrian Kingdom", The Encyclopedia of Empire, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 1–4, doi:10.1002/9781118455074.wbeoe089, ISBN 978-1-118-45507-4, retrieved 2025-01-29
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Osho

[edit]
Stephen Osho (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)

Reviewed all 11 sources in the article as of the time of this nomination, none is a significant coverage. Most are statements or "Notes to Investors" issued by the company where the subject is quoted as a managing partner. A good number of the sources do not mention the subject but the company which cannot be inherited by the subject of this article. The subject does not meet any of the notability guidelines. Mekomo (talk) 16:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glooko

[edit]
Glooko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources for NCORP, forbes contribs removed and other original research NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was ‎ Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Chuks Joseph

[edit]
Chuks Joseph (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Reviewed all sources cited but none gives significant coverage to meet notability requirements. The subject does not meet any of the notability criteria Mekomo (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SK is not met here. Strong keep? Yes! Shoerack (talk) 19:00, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Complex/Rational 17:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Toku (company)

[edit]
Toku (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable sources, promotional content, paid publications like Tech in Asia and WP MILL. Not a source really meeting NCROP NiftyyyNofteeeee (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I could not find sources to establish notability. HyperAccelerated (talk) 20:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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

The result was keep‎. (non-admin closure) CR (talk) 15:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Tarco Air Antonov An-24 crash

[edit]
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]
  • Keep – meets WP:GNG for me. C679 10:33, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no idea what everyone else here saw but the sourcing present is not adequate to pass WP:NEVENT, it is neither lasting nor in depth nor anything we look for. A remote part of the world does not preclude the non-existence of secondary sourcing. GNG is not passed because all sources are primary. There is not a single secondary source in this article! PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:03, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Education Channel

[edit]
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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Work will be necessary to deal with the page's issues, however. (non-admin closure) CR (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Masam Project

[edit]
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]

*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 कीTalk 16:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Jfire (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cinder painter (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was draftify‎. (non-admin closure) CR (talk) 15:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jonty Bidois

[edit]
Jonty Bidois (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON. Sources are not independent or does not contain significant coverage about him - a couple of sentences at best. Geschichte (talk) 14:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to Trinamool Congress#Kerala. ✗plicit 14:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Democratic Movement of Kerala

[edit]
Democratic Movement of Kerala (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 political party founded 3 months ago by then Left independent Member of Kerala legislative assembly P. V. Anvar. The party is not recognised by the Election Commission of India and merged into Trinamool Congress later 3 months of its inception. TheWikiholic (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to The Five Ages of the Universe. (non-admin closure) CR (talk) 14:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmological decade

[edit]
Cosmological decade (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)

Old article created in 2004. As far as I see, the "Cosmological decade" is not a standard term used in astronomy/cosmology. It seems to be coined in pop science book by Fred Adams and Gregory P. Laughlin, The Five Ages of the Universe (see f.e. this NYT article [21]). Google Scholar returns only 21 matches for "cosmological decade". Of these, 1 is a book review, 3 are essays, 4 are articles by Adams and Laughlin, 2 are pop science pieces, 1 is a phd thesis in theology, 1 is an msc thesis in the history of cosmology, 1 is some old forum post (why is it even in GScholar?), 1 is a wiki article mirror, 1 is unreachable and doesn't show the term's usage, and only 6 are independent peer-reviewed works, of which 3 are by one author. And I haven't seen any usage of the abbreviation CÐ in reliable sources on cosmology. The article has two references: one is to the original book, another to a paper that has no words "cosmological decade". It might be notable enough to warrant an entry to the glossary of astronomy, but I see no notability for a standalone article. Artem.G (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to the book. Nothing wrong with making up your own units in a book, but if nobody else is using them, there's nothing to build an article out of. ApLundell (talk) 03:44, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as per ApLundell. This is a phrase that has hardly been used outside of a book, and other publications by the authors of that book. This is just another way of saying "lack of significant coverage." Bearian (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Because the universe will continue to exist for a very long time to come, we need very large numbers to describe its future. To keep these large numbers manageable, Adams and Laughlin introduced the concept of a cosmological decade as 10x years, in which x indicates the number of the specific cosmological decade. This is an exponential scale, which means […] This period will last until the 14th cosmological decade […] in the the 35th cosmological decade […] in the the 131st cosmological decade […]

    — Spier, Fred (2015). Big History and the Future of Humanity (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 9781118881729., p. 299

    A cosmological decade η is defined simply as η = log10(t⁄1 year) where t is the conventional cosmic time […] Although it may seem a trivial exercise, the labelling of epochs by cosmological decades is in fact quite [a] useful tool for intuiting the great size of the cosmological future […] We are currently living in cosmological decade roughly η ≈ 10 […]

    — Ćirković, Milan M. (2019). "Stranger things: multiverse, string cosmology, physical escchatology". In Kragh, Helge; Longair, Malcolm (eds.). The Oxford Handbook of the History of Modern Cosmology. Oxford Handbooks. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780192549976., p. 486
    I am pretty sure that a lecturer in Big History at the University of Amsterdam writing in a Wiley science book and a research professor writing in an OUP handbook both count. Uncle G (talk) 13:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the book. The available literature, including the items pointed to above, treat the topic as a thing Adams and Laughlin introduced and do not add significantly to it. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flag for the Confederation of the Rhine

[edit]
Flag for the Confederation of the Rhine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability. It is actually stated in the article that this flag does not exist. TheLongTone (talk) 13:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. Clearly incomplete, but notability might be established if RSes can be found. CR (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It’s not finished. It’s meant to be about possible historical flags for Rhine confederation, aswell as give context to the white green blue flag and discuss its origins tae prevent misguided edits to confederation page itself ToadGuy101 (talk) 13:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 14:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Knox, Henry County, Indiana

[edit]
Knox, Henry County, 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)

A "no there there" name on a map about which we have nothing to say. No evidence of what this was that I find. Mangoe (talk) 13:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Draftify‎. (non-admin closure) CR (talk) 14:03, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of manipulated economic data in the Islamic Republic of Iran

[edit]
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. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Doczilla@Explicit@MCE89@My very best wishes@Richard Yin@Timtrent
I put some work into the article and I would appreciate your feedback and comments. Those of you recommend draftifying, may I ask you to reconsider? Razgura (talk) 13:28, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Great! You really put a lot of effort. My vote remains the same, i.e. "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote out some lengthier feedback and suggestions for improving the article, but I think I'll leave them on your talk page to avoid clogging the AfD. In short, I think you've done a lot of good work on this article, but it still has some issues that mean it's probably not quite ready for mainspace in my view. But I hope you aren't discouraged if the consensus ends up being to draftify — the article definitely has promise, I just think it needs a bit more work that can best be done in draftspace. MCE89 (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It suffers from significant issues that prevent it from meeting Wikipedia's standards. It seems to rely heavily on original research (WP:OR) and synthesis (WP:SYNTH), blending various claims and sources in a way that isn't appropriate for an encyclopedia. Additionally, the article's tone is not neutral and reads more like an essay. Although the topic might be notable, the article should not have been moved from draft space in its current form. It needs substantial revision and fact-checking before it can be considered for inclusion. Given these issues, the most appropriate action would be to delete it under WP:TNT, allowing for further work in a controlled draft space. Taha Danesh (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

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

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:59, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Draftify seems to be the consensus. This is a well-written essay by someone with a 9th grade command of English. No insult intended, but it's not written by someone with a professional level of English; I made basic copy edits as if I'm teaching high school students again. The sources look reliable, but it's on the verge of synthesis, as I wrote above, what seems like months ago. I'm not sure what to do with what could be turned into an encyclopedia article with some more work, but in user space and help from friends, this is workable. If the creator insists on keeping it in main space, then it could be deleted as per WP:TNT. A more neutral tone is needed. I think its value depends on how much information is in the article not readily available anywhere else in the Internet. I notice from the author's talk page that there's already several articles that have been put back into draft space, but that happens sometimes. Bearian (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Bearian. I see your points, and no insult taken. It does need some more work, so I will work on it today and tomorrow, and I will be glad to update you when I finish. Razgura (talk) 09:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearian I did some work to improve the article. May I request that you read the article again, and let me know what you think? Razgura (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:06, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Siam-Patani War (1638)

[edit]
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]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since sockpuppetry is involved, let's get a clear consensus before taking action to avoid an easily contestable soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:45, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tanner, Indiana

[edit]
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]

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Hexagonal chess#Starchess. (non-admin closure) CR (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Starchess

[edit]
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:

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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 12:38, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Redirect back to Hexagonal chess#Starchess. This article was originally just a redirect to this location, and this entire article is what is already found in the article. No need for it to be its own article. Chew(V • T • E) 00:21, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Hexagonal chess#Starchess per Chew -Samoht27 (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 11:57, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Akram Ahmad (researcher)

[edit]
Akram Ahmad (researcher) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am not able to find a single reliable independent source with SIGCOV on this subject. A WP:BEFORE search shows multiple sources from media bureaus with no bylines. If anyone proficient in NPROF can evaluate his works, I might change my mind, as almost all the coverage about him is WP:PRIMARY. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 11:37, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus‎. We rarely see passions rise to such levels by so many in an AfD outside highly contested areas such as war crimes, American politics, or lower league soccer players. Kudos to all here who spent time and effort looking up relevant policy and guidelines, and arguing their case coherently and with aplomb.
While the Delete views carry a numerical majority, many of them rely on the WP:FANCRUFT essay, which is not a valid deletion criterion, while some others claim WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. The basic claim of meeting WP:CSC Criterion #2 was not adequately refuted by the Deletes, which leaves the question of whether this falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE undecided in this AfD, despite the many here asserting so with little proof.

I commend Ritchie333 for relisting the discussion, but in the end, I can't say it better than he did. While both sides brought up P&G-based arguments, neither side managed to gain any ground with the opposing side. The broad participation makes it unlikely a second relist would present a clearer consensus. As this is likely headed to DRV regardless of how it is closed, I'll skip my usual recommendation for when this can be renominated, although I think most of us would be relieved if this were to be given a rest for at least a few months. Owen× ☎ 19:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaths of Kenny McCormick

[edit]
List of deaths of Kenny McCormick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This whole list is just WP:FANCRUFT, I don't think this list satisfy WP:LISTCRIT (the article is mainly supported by a fandom source) and WP:LISTPURP. This feels like a violation of WP:INDISCRIMINATE Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:32, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Lists. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 14:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets CSC point 2, RS coverage for the phenomenon is in the Kenny McCormick article, verification for each death is uncontroversially sourced to the relative primary source i.e., the episode listed. Jclemens (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That Kenny died repeatedly is well recognized as part of the character and of the show itself. However, documenting every single death is absolutely inappropriate for WP without secondary sources showing that the manners of death are just as important. Using only primary sourcing as the primary supporting information for the list is a violation of WP:NLIST as well as WP:V. --Masem (t) 19:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Masem. Wikipedia is not a directory, and we cover topics based on what secondary sources say about them, ideally in prose. This lacks the quality of sources to meet WP:NLIST, let alone WP:V. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Masem. The running gag of Kenny dying is a notable part of his character, and is covered in a large section of his article. That does not automatically mean that a list detailing every example of it happening is an appropriate spinout. This is essentially just a list of trivia that runs afoul of WP:NOT. Rorshacma (talk) 01:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comparable to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Simpsons couch gags (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of one-time The Simpsons characters. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:41, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:NOTTVTROPES or some meme site. At best this could be merged to Kenny McCormick, but there are limits to listicles on Wikipedia, or at least - there should be. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:22, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, a functional and understandable list (and please don't degradate its usage by portraying essays as anything but an essay) the meme of Kenny's death and resurrections has been a vital part of the long-running series. Nominated just hours after its creation, this excellently presented list is about a topic known to all fans of South Park. Such lists are essential to the full coverage of both an iconic character and long-running show (I see above it took three attempts to remove the couch gags, no article should be nominated for deletion three times, or be criticized-to-extinction by citing essays). As a compact one-subject list it does not "run afoul" of WP:NOT. And per both Jclemens above and commonsense definable characteristics of major characters. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, The page "List of Deaths of Kenny McCormick" serves as an integral and well-established part of the South Park series' cultural legacy Thats why i made it in the first place. Kenny McCormick's recurring deaths are a defining characteristic of his character, and the page dedicated to cataloging these deaths plays a vital role in understanding both the show and its influence on popular culture. Deleting this page would not only disregard a significant aspect of South Park's history but also diminish the cultural relevance it holds in various discussions surrounding the show.LuanLoud 15:08, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a collection of fancruft that violates WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It frankly is trivial to list every individual episode and way this character died. The main Kenny McCormick page already provides a decent summary of the gag, which is more appropriate than needlessly splitting off the deaths into their own list. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:10, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I find the arguments in favour of keeping this article wholly unpersuasive; it is not in dispute that this character dying repeatedly is a noteworthy aspect of the character (or the show, for that matter), what is in dispute is whether covering this in list format separate from the main article about the character is appropriate. In other words, the argument for keeping needs to be a WP:PAGEDECIDE one, namely that covering this in list format in addition to (the already-present) prose coverage in the article about the character is preferable to just covering this aspect in the latter form. I don't see any such arguments that I think hold up to scrutiny. More generally speaking, Wikipedia should pretty much never have a stand-alone article for listing in-universe events in a work of fiction, and I don't see a strong reason why this should be an exception. As Masem notes, there are in principle ways that sources could cover this topic that would make a stand-alone list article appropriate; it is up to those who think the article should be kept to show that such sources exist (and then they would need to be incorporated in the article). As it stands, this is just a bunch of WP:RAWDATA about fiction absent meaningful properly-sourced context/analysis, making this a WP:NOT violation for which WP:DELREASON#14 (Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia) applies. As I've said before, compiling raw data about works of fiction is not Wikipedia's purpose, nor is analysing the same (it is, however, TV Tropes' and Wikia/Fandom's purpose). Compiling analysis about works of fiction made by others is, however. Or as the essay WP:CARGO says: Fiction is not fact and Collecting raw data does not produce an analysis. If there are sources that by their coverage demonstrate that not just the overarching topic of this character dying repeatedly is significant (already covered at Kenny McCormick, and no reason to cover this in list format in addition to prose), but specifically that the details of each individual instance are significant to the overarching topic, please ping me and I'll reconsider. TompaDompa (talk) 21:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per the rationale of TompaDompa. Failure of many different guidelines here, and arguments to keep are ignoring the obvious Wikipedia:INHERITED issue here. Notability of Kenny's deaths are not granted notability from Kenny himself; these need to be separately notable. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 00:33, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Masem and TompaDompa. This is WP:INDISCRIMINATE and primarily sourced. The notable aspects (that are covered by the reliable sources at play) are at Kenny McCormick#Deaths, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so this article needs to meet the standards on its own. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 09:15, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, as a presumably SIZE-required split, the topic of the article is 'Kenny McCormick' which is notable, and the primary sourcing to the individual episodes is just fine because, again, the topic is notable. This is textbook WP:CSC point 2. Jclemens (talk) 08:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's wrong on several fronts. Firstly, this is not a split at all; the article was created de novo. Secondly, the topic of this article is not the character Kenny McCormick but that character's deaths—and even if it had been a split, the new article needs be appropriate for a stand-alone article per all the usual requirements and considerations (WP:AVOIDSPLIT; WP:NOPAGE). Thirdly, while this arguably meets both WP:CSC 2 (Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria. These lists are created explicitly because most or all of the listed items do not warrant independent articles: for example, List of Dilbert characters or List of paracetamol brand names. Before creating a stand-alone list, consider carefully whether such lists would be better placed within a "parent" article.) and 3 (Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group.), that does not in itself mean that the topic is appropriate for a list but merely defines what entries the list can contain; put differently, proper list criteria is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a list to be appropriate. I'll also note that WP:Writing about fiction explicitly says Avoid lists of fictional events; that is precisely what this is. TompaDompa (talk) 10:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    "For fiction, such spinout articles are typically about characters or other elements that appear in multiple works", from 'WP:Writing about fiction' (Kenny's deaths are a major element of both the character and the show), and other rules-and-regs go towards keeping this list. There are many sources that could be used on this page for individual shows and overall coverage at the Kenny article. Lists such as this give encyclopedic attention to notable elements of the topic, nothing at all broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That segment of WAF is appropriate for why we have an article about Kenny McCormick, which has an extensive discussion of his per-show death as a notable aspect of the character. That doesn't mean listing each and every single death is appropriate, also from WAF, absent the demonstration that the individual/specific means of deaths have been discussed extensively in secondary sources. I would anticipate that one could find a recap here or there for some of the deaths, but nowhere close to all, and if it is just a recap, that remains a primary source (no transformation of information). — Masem (t) 12:33, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability is not inherited. Kenny is notable as a character, the list of deaths are not automatically notable and has to be demonstrated separately. — Masem (t) 12:34, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see this or any related search engine page. The topic 'Death of Kenny McCormick' is well-covered on its own in many sources, there seems no question per sourced material that it's a notable topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    As well you know, notability does not necessarily mean that something should have a stand-alone article (as opposed to being covered as part of some other article). What is the WP:PAGEDECIDE argument for covering this topic/aspect in list format in addition to the prose coverage at Kenny McCormick#Deaths, especially in the light of WP:Writing about fiction specifically saying to Avoid lists of fictional events? TompaDompa (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good list of a recognized topic. I don't know about the 'writing about fiction' page except that over the past two months it has been edited so much by an IP and another editor that I don't know what's recognizable in it. Way too many edits to read through, and probably should just be reset to before the overhaul. Any rule-or-reg that says to 'avoid lists' is way outside the standards of Wikipedia where lists are functional, informational, and enjoyed by editors and readers. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a non-answer. WP:Writing about fiction has said Avoid lists of fictional events for years and beyond that you are just making the bare assertion that the list is good without even beginning to address the substance of the matter. TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I've reviewed the sources that I get with "Death of Kenny Mccormick" and I cannot find much beyond things like Cracked.com and Comicbookresources.com as sources, both which are extremely weak to justify RSes for demonstrating that the full list of mannerisms of Kenny's death is separately notable from the character itself. Masem (t) 15:41, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree the article does lack sourcing, only 1 is currently listed, but I believe this is a nicely laid out list on a character that definitely has notability. OhNoKaren (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
— OhNoKaren (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I closed this as "no consensus", but was challenged, so I am relisting for a further week instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The character is notable, but that does not mean that creating a list of deaths is a good idea. This list shows zero signs of meeting LISTN and is pure fancruft. Kenny's deaths can be covered sufficiently in the article on Kenny, we don't need a list of every single one. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: WP:FANCRUFT that better belongs on a fan wiki. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs 01:58, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. BilletsMauves€500 13:36, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reminder that FANCRUFT is an essay and has nothing to do with, or hold Wikipedia weight with, deletion arguments pro or con. There are plenty of good sources if typing "Kenny McCormick deaths" or similar in any full-net search engine, so the topic is viable as a stand-alone topic and not an indiscriminate collection of unrelated information. The close of "No Consensus" seemed an accurate portrayal of the discussion, even though some delete editors used essays without mentioning they were essays and thus just additional personal opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:55, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    But things like WP:V, WP:NOT#IINFO and WP:NLIST are P&G. No one questions that Kenny's death-per-episode wasnt a notable aspect of the character, what is in question is whether, as a whole, the explicit manner of death each episode was notable. And that us where I am struggling to see sources to discuss the manners as a group to support this list. Masem (t) 14:22, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to mention that WP:Writing about fiction, which is an actual guideline, explicitly says Avoid lists of fictional events—a point that nobody in favour of keeping this list of fictional events has addressed (or even really acknowledged). TompaDompa (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Being discussed as a group is the essence of this list and the backbone of the ability on Wikipedia to create and keep lists. What people know most about Kenny is that he dies in (almost) every early episode. That's what people write about when discussing his character. Just google the name in any search engine, things like this 'The American Retiree' page come up. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, this is a significant joke they make with Kenny, so I think merging to the main article on Kenny McCormick would be optimal. -Samoht27 (talk) 18:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:45, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gurudwara Bibi Veero Ji

[edit]
Gurudwara Bibi Veero Ji (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:NBUILD. No coverage in secondary sources. Junbeesh (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note that page creator deleted all maintenance tags (once again) and moved it to Draft:Gurudwara Bibi Veero Ji, probably hoping the redirect would be deleted before we noticed. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:05, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note, I've moved back the draft to mainspace since there is an ongoing deletion discussion for this article. Galaxybeing (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alka Tiwari

[edit]
Alka Tiwari (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 may warrant deletion due to insufficient evidence of notability under Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. WP:NOTCV. This is a promotional page of the entity WP:PROMO. B-Factor (talk) 09:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to Datel. The article section recommended as a Redirect doesn't exist. Liz Read! Talk! 07:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MaxPlay Classic Games Volume 1

[edit]
MaxPlay Classic Games Volume 1 (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)

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

There are references on the talk page which should be sufficient to mention it at Datel, but aren't enough from WP:GNG. That feels like a more useful redirect target even if it's not currently mentioned (note that CodeJunkies redirects to Action Replay currently). --Pokechu22 (talk) 07:08, 20 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
From talk page
Nintendo Official Magazine had a review of MaxPlay.[1] (Unsurprisingly, it's fairly negative.)

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

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

References

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or Redirect? Let's also get a consensus on the redirect target too.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Datel, which can be sourced with the Nintendo Official Magazine article linked above. IgelRM (talk) 02:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to The Spine (album). Liz Read! Talk! 07:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Experimental Film (song)

[edit]
Experimental Film (song) (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)

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2004 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. This article is mostly cited to primary sources (including an interview), as well as a review of the album. I cannot find any reliable sources that discuss the song in depth. This article should be redirected to The Spine (album), and the adequately sourced content could be merged into that article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:52, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:50, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Factory Showroom. Liz Read! Talk! 07:35, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S-E-X-X-Y

[edit]
S-E-X-X-Y (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)

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2005 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The article is a very short stub that only cites two primary sources. RSes only mention the song briefly in recaps of concerts. This should redirect to Factory Showroom. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:14, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:11, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect‎ to John Henry (album). Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snail Shell (song)

[edit]
Snail Shell (song) (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)

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This song does not pass WP:GNG or WP:NSONG. The article cites only one RS, which only mentions the song briefly; the other sources are primary or user-generated. I can only find RSes that mention the song briefly, mostly in recaps of concerts. Article should redirect to John Henry (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:22, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Apollo 18 (album). Liz Read! Talk! 07:34, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Statue Got Me High

[edit]
The Statue Got Me High (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)

Relisting after a failed bundled nom of TMBG songs. This article was created in 2006 and does not hold up to contemporary notability standards, failing WP:GNG and WP:NSONG. The only RSes cited in this article are on chart positions; the other sources are primary or user-generated. Secondary sources only mention the song briefly (e.g. PopMatters). Article should redirect to Apollo 18 (album). — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:26, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previously at AFD, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 06:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep‎. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 02:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of baseball nicknames

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
List of baseball nicknames (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 list is full of OR and tagged as such for 13 years now. Not every single nickname need be included in this list. If a nickname is legit, it belongs in the player's article. "Mr. October" is a well documented nickname; "the Milkman" is not. An alternative to deletion would be to cull the list dramatically and merge/redirect to List of sportspeople with nicknames#Baseball. Rgrds. -- BX (talk) 04:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe draftify is a practical option if the article is much older than 90 days, per WP:DRAFTNO and the RfC for it. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over that RFC, it seems to me that it would allow a draftify if there was consensus at AFD. You just shouldn't make the move to an article over 90 days old without consensus first. Esolo5002 (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing to be gained from draftifying the article, though - draftification is mostly used when notability hasn't quite been shown, whereas this is a notable list which has turned into a monster. SportingFlyer T·C 03:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the article has potential, but needs additional refs to verify some nicknames, as well as an update to players listed (i.e. those who have retired or since elected to the HofF). A possible renaming to something like List of Major League Baseball player nicknames may also make sense. Nearly all players listed have played in the MLB at some point, and the history of the Negro leagues (i.e. John Jordan O'Neil) has been incorporate into MLB record-books and history in recent years. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The topic of baseball nicknames is notable, having been covered in multiple reliable sources. Indeed, there are several entire books dedicated to the subject. E.g., here. If there are entries that are not sourced, they should be tagged for sourcing (and delected if no sourcing is added after a reasonable time period). But the fact that the article needs cleanup is no a reason to delete. See WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP: "Consider that Wikipedia is a work in progress and articles should not be deleted as punishment because no one has felt like cleaning them up yet. Remember, Wikipedia has no deadline. If there's good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted." Cbl62 (talk) 01:17, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. With improvements spurred by this AfD, the article now has over 400 in-line citations, making it one of the most heavily cited articles within the scope of the Baseball Wikiproject. Further cleanup is needed, but per my comments above, the need for further cleanup is not a sufficient reason to delete. Nor is merging a desirable outcome, as baseball has a long tradition through the 19th, 20th and 21st century with the copious and colorful use of nicknames, such that this large volume of material is best treated as a stand-alone list separate from other sports. I do believe that a better organizational structure may be desirable (team-by-team may lead to unnecessary duplication), but that can be discussed at the article's talk page. (Alphabetical by player's last name may make sense. For common nicknames, e.g., "Dutch", "Doc", "Heinie", "Bud"/"Buddy", "Whitey", "Chick", "Kid", "Pop", "Red", "Rube", "Lefty", "Chief", a separate chronicling of those may also be desirable.) Cbl62 (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, [30], [31], [32]. The set is notable. Also, AfD is not cleanup. However, the list needs to cut down the OR or even the nicknames that do not have sources. Conyo14 (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this page requires WP:TNT but I do not believe that deletion is the way to achieve that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - certainly can be cleaned up but, on the whole, its well referenced. Also don't think merging is a good idea since, even if it is cut down, it will likely still be far too large to do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My intention was not to use AfD as a method of cleanup. Rather, this article is so completely unwieldy that it is a burden to read. My intention was to dramatically pare it down and merge it. As cleanup seems to be the better route, consider the nom withdrawn. I will join the cleanup at the talk page later this weekend when I have time. Much thanks to Cbl62 and others for looking at this. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 06:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge‎ to Jonathan Keeperman. Liz Read! Talk! 07:21, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Man's World (periodical)

[edit]
Man's World (periodical) (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)

Don't think it passes WP:GNG, only a casual mention in one independent secondary source (The Guardian), can't really find any additional secondary sources via Google search Reflord (talk) 03:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to its publisher Jonathan Keeperman (well, he owns the publisher) since the only good source used is about him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 11:06, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did the merge basically. Well, I added the due weight content from there to Keeperman's article. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OK, actually I have now realized Raw Egg Nationalist is notable. I may make that article. If I do I will merge the content there instead, but until then Keeperman's article is OK. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:47, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the mind that all of these total upendings and movings of articles are way too hasty. Whether the Man's World article should exist and whether the Raw Egg Nationalist article should exist are separate questions, as is Keeperman and Passage (which, too, can should, and now has to be remade). Bluetik (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why not keep them separate? Bluetik (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ✗plicit 03:41, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tabaghat Aa'lam Al-Shia

[edit]
Tabaghat Aa'lam Al-Shia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to identify any third-party references to this work that qualifies this work as notable under WP:NBOOK. --Eelipe (talk) 02:46, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Resident Evil characters. ✗plicit 03:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rebecca Chambers

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Rebecca Chambers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As to someone who is very familiar with the Resident Evil series, I feel like Rebecca is pretty much on borderline when it comes to notability. I was hesitating about this article and asked Piotrus. [35] is the only sigcov, while this one [36] just only states that the creator hates her. Others were just listicles/rankings and passing mentions. I couldn't find even more sources per WP:BEFORE. I know this is GA, but I don't think this one passes unlike Barry Burton. I do promise that I will bring this article back from the dead after the rumored Resident Evil Zero remake is dropped. I want your opinions about this if this should be kept or merged. No hard feelings! Thanks! 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 02:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of Resident Evil characters. Given the nominator's extensive history with Resident Evil characters (Nice job with all the FAs, btw), I trust they have done adequate research and a BEFORE on the character, and the current sources seem largely trivial. The few non-trivial sources, as well as what conception info exists, can be merged to the character's entry on the list as an AtD. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all. User:Boneless_Pizza! has been doing a lot to improve this topic area and I agree with that most of the reception is built from WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs. Merge is an WP:ATD that leaves the door open should we find something better than a listicle, after a future game maybe. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CupidDB

[edit]
CupidDB (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)

Open source project with no claim to notability, article was created by the project author.

By the numbers:

  • 7 commits
  • 4 stars on GitHub
  • 1 contributor

Brandon (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Brandon,
Thank you for reviewing my article and providing feedback regarding its notability. I understand that the project was marked for deletion due to having only 7 commits, 4 stars on GitHub, and one contributor, which you mentioned might be too small to meet notability standards.
However, I would like to clarify that the project has actually been worked on by multiple contributors, including my coworkers, and there have been several additional commits prior to its GitHub release that were not reflected in the current commit count. The project is also being used in production as part of the data caching infrastructure at a notable bank in Thailand. I believe these contributions, combined with the project's history, may provide a fuller picture of its development and significance.
In light of this, I’d also appreciate it if you could provide further clarification on what level of GitHub stars or other criteria would be considered sufficient to meet the notability standards. I want to ensure that I can revisit the article in the future, should it be deleted, with the necessary improvements and information.
Thank you for your time and understanding. I look forward to your feedback. I'm very new to Wikipedia, so your guidance would be highly appreciated.
Cheers! Wiamsuri (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's definition of notability requires significant coverage of the subject in independent, reliable sources (e.g. news media, books written by authors who have no connection to the project). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: you should generally not edit about topics that you have a personal connection to. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 03:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep‎. Liz Read! Talk! 07:19, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malibu Feed Bin

[edit]
Malibu Feed Bin (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)

random store whose only claim to notability is that it was destroyed. harrz talk 01:32, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. Consensus is clear, and thanks for the CU assist. I'm not going to SALT this because it's clear it's not working, but if someone else feels it should be, feel free. Star Mississippi 14:06, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Susovan Roy

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Susovan Roy (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 actor, doesn't passes WP:NACTOR. I got a mail from User:Xegma, they written, Hi Taabi, this is my article https://en.m.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=Envato&lang=en&q=Susovan_Roy why you tag deletion for it. Please remove it. I'm that actor pls withdraw it. They also closed the discussion and drafted the page. It's a clear WP:COI. The closing admin can ask me for the proof of their mail, I'll be happy to share. Taabii (talk) 07:56, 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! 08:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 03:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aerography (meteorology)

[edit]
Aerography (meteorology) (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)

Stub that has been unsourced since its creation and largely consists of definitions of terms that have their own pages. Noah, BSBATalk 00:04, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- (strong) -- uncited stub. As a (former) military meteorologist, the only time I've ever even heard this term is in-reference to the U.S. Navy's 'aerographer's mate' rating. My policy argument would likely be NOTDICT.
MWFwiki (talk) 00:13, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect‎ to Overwatch. ✗plicit 03:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gameplay of Overwatch

[edit]
Gameplay of Overwatch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is a consensus at the Video Games WikiProject that we shouldn't create this type of WP:REDUNDANTFORK between a game and its gameplay (the same thing). This is already covered elsewhere, and otherwise violates WP:VGSCOPE. The characters section has already been turned into an article at Characters of the Overwatch franchise. The complete list of levels/maps is a violation of WP:VGSCOPE and WP:GAMEGUIDE, with mass amounts of unsourced information. That leaves nothing left to WP:PRESERVE. Even if we added a reception or development section, it would duplicate what we already have at the game article. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, or if anything Merge to the Overwatch franchise article. The claim of "mass amounts of unsourced information" is exaggerated, and while there are several paragraphs that need sourcing, this should be obvious they can be fixed or trimmed down with how much coverage Overwatch has gotten. Further, things like lists of levels are not forbidden per VGSCOPE or GAMEGUIDE, but rarely do you see every game level get discussed in anything more than name drops, which is why we normally don't have such lists since the bulk will only be sourced to primary material. However, all the maps in Overwatch have been discussed to various degrees in secondary sources, which doesn't immediately disqualify those lists; obviously this is the exception, not the rule. Masem (t) 00:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I think a list of Overwatch maps would be feasible, but the article is too detailed like a WP:NOTDATABASE. IgelRM (talk) 02:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per NOPAGE. "Gameplay of X" simply does not work as a standalone article, for the same reason that we couldn't make a "plot of X" article for a book or film. The gameplay essentially is the game, and therefore can't really be covered separately. I do think that this title could make a useful redirect, but I disagree that there is anything here worth merging. QuicoleJR (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are some standalone articles which do work for games where keeping gameplay/rules in the main article would result in a too large article. For example, Rules of chess has a good article rating. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that is the same thing. Chess has had a thousand-year history and the rules have changed over the years, and are somewhat customizable. Overwatch, however, has had the same set of gameplay the whole time, and there can't really be discussion of one without the other. I simply think that this article does not work as a split, since it does not have any independent development or reception. Any attempt to make such a section would essentially just be a copy-paste of the relevant section of the Overwatch article, showing how this doesn't work as a separate article. Most of the information in this article is also not suitable for merging into the main article, which is why I instead chose Redirect. Also, as a final note, there is recent precedent against keeping these articles. See here, here, and here. QuicoleJR (talk) 13:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are enough secondary sources for a standalone article and merging back would run into WP:TOOBIG issues. There are parts that can be trimmed/removed (per Masem above) and more critical analysis could be incorporated so this feels like a cleanup issue instead of a deletion issue. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two main prose sections, the beginning of Fundamentals and the Game modes. It might be a bit lengthy, but I don't think that counts for WP:TOOBIG. IgelRM (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment given the article's large amount of sources to wade through, would those arguing Keep be willing to share examples of SIGCOV per Wikipedia:THREE? I feel a more valid argument can be generated if it's made more clear what sources are being considered as major coverage in this case. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 05:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone is (or should be) questioning the subject's notability. Rather they are questioning whether or not the page should exist per WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:GAMECRUFT, WP:NOPAGE, and more. λ NegativeMP1 02:11, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Overwatch. Despite a large amount of sources for this article, larger video games with far more detailed content on their gameplay do not have standalone articles about their gameplay. A good 90% of this page is just the history of Overwatches gameplay changes and its maps. I see no reason why any of the notable content in this article requires a stand alone article. Clubspike2 (talk) 09:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per others. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 12:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and/or redirect to Overwatch. Sushidude21! (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia · View on Wikipedia

Developed by Nelliwinne