Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Yesterday

WP:AFD/Y

Purge page cache if page isn't updating.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 14	January 16 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Sommer Ray

AfDs for this article:

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

Her page is barebones and you can't expand it with anything that isn't promo content. She clearly isn't notable enough. Strawberries1 (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Sport of athletics, Internet, and Colorado. SK2242 (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Strawberries1: For future AfDs, you may want to make sure that this is transcluded on the log page and that you notify the article's creator. I’ve done that for you this time, but there are also instructions on WP:AFDHOWTO. SK2242 (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - The sourcing isn’t amazing (People Magazine being the best one there) but it scrapes past WP:GNG. SK2242 (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:38, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per SK2242. A hard one to assess because there's so much coverage of her, it's just than 99% of it is useless garbage. But agree that there's enough in marginally reliable sources that she probably scrapes past WP:GNG. Hard to tell whether all of these meet WP:RS, but here are a few more articles about her that at least have a bylined reporter and seem not terrible: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] MCE89 (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Two of those links are just about who she dated, which is irrelevant. She dated MGK, so what? And Taylor Holder is a nobody. Her having a dating podcast that she no longer goes on isn't relevant, either. The Seventeen article is probably the best link there, but it's not like there's a page for Imaraïs. If there was actually "so much coverage of her" (relevant coverage, anyway), then you'd actually be able to expand this article with credible sources. Strawberries1 (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow what you mean by the subject matter being irrelevant or useless, Strawberries1? As long as it is SIGCOV of her, it doesn't matter what we think of the subject matter - the fact that there's coverage about who she's dating or that she had a podcast is fine to count towards WP:GNG as long as it meets the other requirements. And your personal beliefs like Taylor Holder being "a nobody" definitely aren't things that we can consider when assessing notability. The only requirements are that that there is significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Is there one of those requirements that you think isn't met here? MCE89 (talk) 01:20, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as these are Weak Keeps. Thanks to participants for reviewing some sources a formal assessment would be useful. Personal opinion is not relevant.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep The subject passes WP:GNG's multiple non-trivial guideline, and that's all there is to it. This may be the most common debate on AfD: Whether an article that is barely notable is instead not notable...but "barely notable" by definition means notable. This article is about a very minor celebrity who nevertheless has made the news. -Markeer 01:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Markeer, WP:N says even notable topics can be deleted if they fail NOT or aren't encyclopedic. BLP also requires we use the highest-quality sources. I would argue an article that can only really contain a timeline of someone's dating history based on pure tabloid churnalism does not warrant inclusion. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't really a hill I'm going to die on as I'll re-iterate that I believe the celebrity to be a minor one, but to address your argument that BLP requires highest-quality sources, I'll remind you that, intuitive or not, both People Magazine and the Hollywood Reporter are listed in green ("reliable") on Wikipedia's list of Perennial sources (and Cosmopolitan is yellow for situationally reliable). I happen to personally agree that I would not trust those news sources on e.g. critical political news or world affairs, but Wikipedia consensus judges them to be reliable sources when discussing celebrity news.-Markeer 01:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not particularly attached to this either, I just wanted to point out that per NOPAGE and NOT the existence of coverage doesn't mean we have to include the subject of that coverage in a standalone. I interpreted your !vote as leaning toward the "sigh, I guess we have to have an article" direction and figured the above was worth pointing out. I think a decent argument can also be made that the depth of the coverage is also very lacking (gossip about IG posts suggestive of relationships). Regarding People, the last major discussion on it was in 2014, about the magazine rather than the online posts, and the gist of it was leaning more toward "probably reliable for straightforward facts, gossipy material on celebrity relationships is likely UNDUE". I'm of the opinion that there's still a difference between RS and high-quality RS, and articles on BLPs should be based on the latter. JoelleJay (talk) 20:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The People article is basically entirely just relaying what she's said, no secondary discussion. The Seventeen and Cosmo "articles" are tabloid trash—essentially nothing encyclopedic in either of them. Nine has almost zero info on her that isn't in quotes. THR has about one sentence on Ray, the rest is announcing a podcast she cohosts. Same with WWD, about some "vitamin gummies" racket she's the "face" of. Per NOPAGE, coverage existing does not mean we have to have an article! JoelleJay (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete little to no serious third party coverage.-KH-1 (talk)

Kebba Sowe

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

I can’t find any in depth coverage of this footballer, just stats and passing mentions. Mccapra (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football, Africa, and Tunisia. Mccapra (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, young player and reasonable to expect that something might come up. Geschichte (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 19:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cheryl Moana Marie Nunes

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

Subject is only notable due to her marriage with Antonio Sabàto Jr. - see WP:INVALIDBIO. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Women, and Entertainment. Martey (talk) 23:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree with the comment on her notability tied to her husband. The only section that has sourcing is her Personal life. The career section is totally not sourced, but that section shows her notability. — Maile (talk) 01:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Advertising, Beauty pageants, American football, California, Hawaii, and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soner Baskaya

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

Fails to satisfy WP:NPROF. Very low h-index and no indication of WP:SIGCOV (alternative criteria when there's no indication of notability per WP:NPROF). TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:53, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Economics, and Turkey. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Not my field but there are several fairly highly cited papers in GS[6] (201, 198, 116). Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not my field(s) but he's economics department chair at the university that is named after the guy who invented modern economics, and is well-cited. Bearian (talk) 03:25, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being a department chair is not a criterion for WP:NACADEMIC, and the fact that the school is named after Adam Smith is a red herring. I don't see that he passes any other criterion; his H-index is indeed low for someone of his career level. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kampala Sun

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

The article has 8 references, all of which provide only passing mentions. Does not satisfy WP:SIGCOV in multiple RS. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 20:04, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media and Uganda. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:19, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Beyond the 8 mention in the article with one being entirely about Kampala Suna, I found the news outlet mentioned in multiple other reliable sources like AllAfrica which mentions the EiC, ~~BBC,~~ and countless mentions in the New Vision which is one of the biggest news organisations in Uganda FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: Could you please elaborate on what the BBC article says about Kampala Sun? TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, “sun” in Hausa means “central”. I confused Kampala Central with Sun. Comment deleted above FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing as I was digging I found that a Kampala Sun article was used as an evidence by the International Criminal Court during Dominic Ongwen trial FuzzyMagma (talk) 06:43, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

More, the self-published book UgLish: Dictionary of Ugandan English by Ugandan analysts Bernard Sabiiti mentions “Kampala Sun , written by Jay Pinto is one of the most popular gossip columns in the tabloid press in Uganda” in page 34. Similar passage was written in Africa An Encyclopedia of Culture and Society, 3 Volumes

It was mentioned in Insights Into Uganda published by Fountain Publishers FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Engine

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

Appears to have significant original research and I do not see how the notability concerns on Talk:Retro Engine were resolved. IgelRM (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 23:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christian Whitehead. The engine's developer is notable, and the engine itself has received enough coverage that full deletion would be silly. I created this article when I was still pretty inexperienced and think it'd be better off to dedicate a section of Whitehead's article to it, and then possibly split it off in the future if it becomes too big/unwieldy to contain everything there. JOE BRO ⁶⁴ 00:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. (Shame on me for forgetting to pursue this years back. I thought I had.) Sergecross73 msg me 00:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Future Supply Chains

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 15:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nippon Express, which has a controlling interest in this NN company. Bearian (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 17:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Let's see if the Redirect option has any more support.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only the third source is borderline. The first two are not worth considering. guninvalid (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not enough RS sources to prove its notability. Conducted a search for possible more sources but found nothing as the company's name is generic bringing results very unrelated to the company. Mekomo (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Creation Myth by Tom Otterness

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

I for the life of me can't find any reliable sources. the place and sculpture exists, but I don't think that it's notable. The only source I can find is

https://brooklynrail.org/2014/12/artseen/tom-otterness-creation-myth/

but I don't think this is particularly reliable. Everything else I could find online was not independent, or was covering a replacement of one of the sculptures with a bronze copy. I think this is a WP:TNT, WP:GNG, and is full of WP:PROMO in current form. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:03, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and New York. Heart ^(talk) 18:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it now includes its Memorial Art Gallery page as a reference. Artworks usually are verified as notable if they include their sourced holding museum reference, so please check for these if you make further artwork AfDs (thanks). Additionally, the museum website page includes its own list of references. The museum page and its references, along with many of the other cites such as newspapers and The Brooklyn Rail reference included in the nomination, meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's simply untrue that a holding museum page for an article typically establishes notability, as many museums have brief data pages for most all their artwork and even this one lacks significant coverage needed to pass GNG. But the linked [7] in addition to the Brooklyn Rail is certainly enough for notability of the sculpture series. Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, museums have pages for their artworks. Please look at the museum link again, it contains further references towards the bottom. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right, that's how I found the link I mentioned. But having a museum page doesn't mean a page is presumed to be notable, many don't have a bibliography or substantial analysis. Reywas92^Talk 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete for weak coverage. My opinion is that Brooklyn Rail is mostly reliable for its arts coverage and its articles with bylines. The author in this piece wrote two articles for the Rail 10 years ago, and then disappeared. Museum websites are also available for use on Wikipedia. The problem for me is that the artwork isn't automatically notable because of the artist. Please feel free to try to convince me this is notable on its own. I'm not strong for deletion. Bearian (talk) 04:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, please have a read of the museum link. It's a full presentation with multiple photographs and its own references. Museum pages are not primary references, they are simply recognition that a particular artwork (or in this case, group of works) both exists and is prominent enough to be brought into and remain in the collection of their prominent museum. Museums don't just take in any work, they closely and expertly judge notability for inclusion, which is why a single museum source is usually enough to provide notability to an artwork. In this case the artwork is also fully in public space, to be visited at any hour of the day or night, and was granted this exposure by the museum which, of course, puts its own reputation on the line when making such decisions. Thanks for asking for further discussion, an exchange of points-of-view. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant coverage" generally means three or more reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of thousands of museums that have judged millions of artworks to be in their collections. Significance to display at a university gallery – or even the Met, with 1.5 million works and perhaps as many webpages about expertly judged objects – is not the same as notability on Wikipedia or the need for a standalone page here. No, a single source is not acceptable, and there is no basis for this claim in WP:N. Reywas92^Talk 22:16, 11 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!} 23:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, absolutely over done, over the top article about a run-of-the-mill sculpture in a park. I laughed out loud at the line about "Despite being a world famous artist." If it is necessary to have 9 of the 16 sources be the person who made the sculpture, then that is not a "world famous artist" and this is not a notable sculpture. There is clearly not enough coverage in independent sources to support a separate article about this sculpture. This sculpture can be covered in probably two sentences in the article on the artist. Asparagusstar (talk) 00:16, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have removed "world famous artist", good catch. Aside from that, it's not one sculpture, or a "sculpture in a park", as you imply throughout your comment. It's a series of sculptures. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed you "upgraded" your delete to 'Strong delete', even after I fixed your main objection. Pointing out again, the sculptures are not just a "sculpture' in a park but a series of sculptures placed in the outside public space of the major art museum in Rochester, New York. Aside from the museum cites the sources seem to easily meet GNG. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is at least this editor's 5th comment here. Their incorrect claims have already been addressed by multiple editors. Their multiple attention-seeking comments are adding nothing to this conversation other than filibustering and wasting other editors' volunteer time. Asparagusstar (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreeing so it’s not just from one person.

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 22:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jenson Kendrick

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

Snooker player who fails GNG and SPORTBASIC, No notable success during short career. Canary757 (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cue sports, and England. Canary757 (talk) 17:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to 2022 Q School as ATD.
Shrug02 (talk) 17:18, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Benison (Beni · talk) 18:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom

Firecat93 (talk) 20:59, 8 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!} 23:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of ICC country codes

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

No evidence that these country codes are themselves notable - none of the three sources even mention them. I cannot even find an official list, much less any discussion. Merger into List of International Cricket Council members would be an AtD, but I don't think that's necessary unless there is evidence that these codes are notable whatsoever. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Lists. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep and I'll be honest I don't really have a strong argument to make following default wiki-guidelines, but this strikes me as a data resource that was spun out of another article and contains useful information in a specific subject area. BUT if you want a more formal AfD article, I'll say two of three citations (as of this writing) look marginally passable for GNG. And I would also like to know how many articles link to this data resource. -Markeer 01:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Markeer: While the citations would be passable for List of International Cricket Council members or International Cricket Council, they don't even mention the country codes that are the focus of this list. Thus far, I cannot find any reliable sources that even list these codes, much less discuss them, so even a merge would be original research unless a source is found.

Currently, 5 articles link here: four through {{International Cricket Council sidebar}}, and one as a see also. None link in the prose. All five articles have several orders of magnitude higher pageviews (hundreds or thousands versus less than 10 daily), so it's clear very few readers are actually following the links. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of International Cricket Council members This feels like a data point easily added to the full and associated member grids in that article and the lede can be a sub-heading there too, so nothing is truly lost. Nate • (chatter) 02:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, perfect. I second this. -Markeer 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Azuredivay (talk) 17:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a column in a table for these is fine, a separate article is not. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosthunting.dk

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

This entire unreferenced article appears to be mostly promotional in tone. Interestingly, the article seems to say that it has significant coverage in the Danish media, but zero examples of this supposed coverage are actually cited. -Samoht27 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Organizations, Paranormal, and Denmark. -Samoht27 (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. From a quick google search of "ghosthunting.dk" I find no sources worth considering, ignoring the Danish articles that I can't read. guninvalid (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced since 2013, still nothing out there to prove this is notable. Mekomo (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Spøgelsesjægerne. The group has received some coverage in Danish media. However, these sources are almost always about the show Spøgelsesjægerne, on which they appear. I have yet to find a source on Ghosthunting.dk or any of its members that focuses on them more than the show. I don't think it's worthwhile to merge the article's unsourced content, but a redirect could help readers. Uffda608 (talk) 17:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

44 VA Hospital/Orange Station-Newark Penn Station

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

No evidence of notability. Current sources are non-independent and/or trivial mentions. See also ongoing AfDs for routes 13, 30, 40, and 70. I suggest a redirect to List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect >>> List of NJ Transit bus routes (1–99) Djflem (talk) 07:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Big Scandia Creek

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

Page was PRODed just yesterday. Author keeps recreating this article without providing any claim of significance, and it isn't clear why this place merits a standalone article. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and Washington. CycloneYoris ^talk! 23:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I just expanded the article with some statistical and some non-statistical information. There's plenty more available, and I'm quite sure this meets WP:NATFEAT. Cremastra (u — c) 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome Engine

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

Prose is entirely original research. Does not appear to have standalone notability, suggesting redirect to Techland. IgelRM (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. IgelRM (talk) 23:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Techland. This is not notable for a stand alone article. Mekomo (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zaxploitation

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

No indication of notability; only source is an IMDB article — Moriwen (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and South Africa. — Moriwen (talk) 17:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Exploitation film, if there is anything due here it can be built out there at first as a number of other exploitation subgeneras are. I don't see enough for a stand alone topic as of now, but significant coverage may exist in languages other than English. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xenia Benivolski

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

This art critic and writer does not appear notable. She has written a lot as a writer which is in the article but that is all. 🄻 🄰 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Women, Russia, and Canada. 🄻 🄰 16:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The extant sources already demonstrate WP:GNG. Benivolski has been doing collaborations with one of the most significant galleries in the world and has coverage in multiple major publications. Frankly the article sources, as they exist currently, also seem to support notability under WP:NPROF criterion one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article meets Wikipedia’s notability guidelines for writers and critics. Benivolski has contributed to major publications such as The Wire and Frieze, received significant recognition through the national Gallery of Canada, and been involved in notable projects. There is coverage of her work in reliable sources, such as Artforum and e-flux Journal. I am happy to improve the article by adding these citations to address the concerns raised. Adeline2018 (talk) 01:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see lots of writing by her, and interviews of her, but not references about her, which would constitute significant coverage. Please clarify and "ping" me. Bearian (talk) 04:20, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Like Bearian, I'm not seeing the coverage ABOUT Benivolski. Also not seeing anything that satisfies nprof 1. duffbeerforme (talk) 05:15, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I find many of her own writings and interviews, but significant coverage requires independent references about her, which are insufficient.Gedaali (talk) 10:11, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete. No improvement after requesting it. One added source was the same as the first one. (I combined them.) The others are either literally just one line (Tate Museum) or interviews, which can be used, but the consensus is that they don't count towards minimum notability. So she has some coverage, but it's not quite significant. Bearian (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm giving this another week on the off-chance that those source improvements are in the mail.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Falken (bulletin board system)

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

Fails WP: GNG. I could not find any sources to establish notability. This article was dePRODed without sourcing improvements. HyperAccelerated (talk) 14:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Software. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:31, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: Falken was not a major player in the BBS scene, but it definitely had its spot. However, this article is a mess that needs to be cleaned up and hopefully sourced better before being published.

Themoonisacheese (talk) 09:40, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brasher warning

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

Does not seem to be independently notable. ~~Level bust seems like a likely redirect/merge target.~~ Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A level bust is only one type of pilot deviation out of many, and therefore not a good redirect or merge target. It is like redirecting Banana to Fruit. I've heard ATC issue Brasher warnings for things like departing in the opposite direction and landing on the wrong runway. Polygnotus (talk) 08:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Polygnotus: Thanks for the clarification. Are there any other plausible redirect targets? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: I've watched a lot of VASAviation and played around with MSFS but I am not an expert. I don't think there are any plausible redirect/merge targets. I think the WP:COMMONNAME would be pilot deviation. While Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary it is probably possible to write an article about pilot deviations (but I haven't done a full WP:BEFORE check, and I am not qualified to write such an article). Perhaps someone from the Aviation wikiproject can help? Polygnotus (talk) 19:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

GoBolt

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

Fails WP:NCORP, sourced to press releases (fail WP:ORGIND) and funding reports (fail WP:ORGTRIV). ~ A412 ^talk! 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Canada. ~ A412 ^talk! 19:44, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rework. On a pure WP:GNG basis there seems to be enough reliable sourcing here to meet notability. Certainly the sourcing is pretty bad and the author may need to be trouted and/or reminded of WP:SELFPUB, but other than that it's fine as I see it. guninvalid (talk) 10:47, 9 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!} 23:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James T. Fishback

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. "known for" is being the CIO of a tiny hedge fund, which fails WP:NBUSINESSPERSON Reflord (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Businesspeople. Reflord (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - See career section. This is a Florida friend of Donald Trump's, who "declared his intention to serve the state of Florida as a Senator after Donald Trump won the 2024 United States presidential election". Otherwise there is not much in this article. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Finance, Florida, and Washington, D.C.. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Smith (Vicar of Great Paxton)

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

No evidence this individual passes WP:NBIO, WP:GNG. No pass on WP:NAUTHOR either; there's a published response to Smith's polemic on Quakerism but nothing else verifiable. (The Bockett letter does not appear to have been published and thus would not count as a review.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Christianity, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again not finding anything about him except for a short blurb of the same book you mentioned on the Quaker archives of Canada. ❤History Theorist❤ 00:48, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There some book reviews, but they are all polemics for one side or the other. FWIW, I am an Episcopalian. Can we get input from folks who know more about Quaker history? Bearian (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

De De Pyaar De 2

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

Fails WP:NFILM. Not scheduled for release until November and nothing notable about the production. References are announcements or other churnalism. Attempted redirect but that was disputed. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. CNMall41 (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the PROD initiating editor to redirect instead of deleting. But since that was disputed, I don't think it should be deleted. It's a continuing sequel of an already existing article on wikipedia. The page should be redirected until release. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameremote (talk • contribs) 19:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which was the original intention but now here we are unfortunately. I still think a redirect would be an appropriate WP:ATD but would need to protect the title so we don't wind up here yet again. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep is vote by me. this film was supposed to release in May 2025, but due to certain unavoidable reasons, the release has been deferred to November 2025. Now the editor who has nominated the film wiki page for deletion says the film is too early and nothing substantial, and I also get to see a comment that says redirected. For both my request is please look into the below wiki links of Hollywood films set to release in 2025 & 2026, as well as Bollywood films set to release in 2025.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2025
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_films_of_2026
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hindi_films_of_2025

As you can see Hollywood films like Avatar: Fire and Ash OR Avatar 3 is releasing in Dec 2025, Now You See Me 3 is releasing in Nov 2025, Mortal Kombat 5 is releasing in Oct 2025, Even untitled films have well-established wiki pages even a Shrek 5 releasing late 2026 has a well established wiki page. As for Bollywood films is Jolly LLB 3 set to release in July 2025, Baaghi 4 releasing late 2025 has a well established wiki page. All these films have well established wiki pages, now if delay in release is the reason for deleting this wiki page, what is the 'guarantee' the above films will be released on said dates. Or if 'too early' is reason to delete this wiki page, same logic needs to apply to wiki pages of above movies mentioned. As for 'redirect', I find no reason for it as the film was delayed due to reasons beyond the makers control, so this film was delayed, otherwise the fim would have released on earlier mentioned dates. Will those voting to redirect or delete apply the same logic to above films. think about it. As for material as b when it comes that can be added. I hereby rest my case. Bonadart (talk) 07:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument seems to be based on WP:OSE. Can you show how this meets notability under WP:NFILM?--CNMall41 (talk) 07:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this film is a direct sequal to a superhit movie with almost the entire crew taking part once again, is that reason not enough for notability. you call it argument unfortunately today people when have no answer to reason they call it argument, sigh. Bonadart (talk) 09:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The term argument in that context does not mean anything negative. It means your "contention," "point," or "reasoning." Please don't go down that road. Now, as far as notability, I am unaware of anything in WP:NFILM that says direct sequals of a superhit movie are inherently notable. --CNMall41 (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete. Too early to pass WP:NFILM that has not even reached post production. Better to keep it in draft or recreate the article once significant coverage is available after post production or close to release date. RangersRus (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'that has not even reached post production.' how do you know? can you show anything that says so. makers have not specified any reason for delay as for shooting afaik mumbai, punjab and london schedules are already done, so invariably the film is in post production, must be there are some delays here. how i know!! well remember 'singham again' where ranveer singh made the famous dialogue 'parivar bhi badne wala hai' and deepika delivered her baby before filmn released. 😀😀 this clearly meams shooting was clearly over when she took maternity leave. normally bollywood films complete shooting within 6-8 month. so filmn is obviously in post production. so draft or delete dont stand. if you insist check Baaghi 4 Jolly LLB 3, Avatar 3 Now You See Me 3 or Mortal Kombat 5, and do share opinion on them. ciao Bonadart (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Post-Production is the stage after production when the filming is wrapped and the editing of the visual and audio materials begins. Please do not bring other pages for discussion in this AFD. RangersRus (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
you still havent answered my questions

1.'that has not even reached post production.' how do you know?

2. check Baaghi 4, Jolly LLB 3, Avatar 3 Now You See Me 3 or Mortal Kombat 5 based your assertion about this film, shouldnt these pages be removed as well

😀 i get it you got no andswer, period!!😀, or is it that if you try to delete these pages bigger players may come after you.

i say again, just bcoz this film has been delayed doesnt call for deletion or draft or redirect, you cant raise notability flag everytime without reason.

06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) Bonadart (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are attempting WP:BLUDGEONING and crossing WP:UNCIVIL behavior. You are also attempting WP:CANVASSING by asking other editor to vote in your favor. I answered your question already but you do not understand and gave you a definition of what Post production is. Source on the page shows the film is in the making and no other sufficient coverage to show otherwise and if you have concerns about any other pages on the films, you can file an AFD for them. RangersRus (talk) 10:03, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer. Bonadart attempted WP:CANVASSING requesting other editor to vote in his favor and bringing more votes to do so. RangersRus (talk) 12:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
chill i didnt know requesting for help is considered canvassing here, as soon as i was made aware of such i removed the help request, btw i have no interest in requesting for other page deletion/afd. i have problem with the way the editor CNMall41 behaved, the editor simply removed the entire page saying 'too soon' in edit note, when the makers changed the release date without giving any reason from 1/5/25 to 14/11/25. when i reinstated it the editor becoming aware of it, immmidiately went for deletion request saying notability issue. how come too soon becomes notability in a jiffy? it is for this reason i thought seeking help from anyone will help stop such disruptive editing n nomination. btw i am involved in film industry so i know a bollywood film takes 6-8 month to finish shooting and around same time to post production. as such in all sense n purpose this film is in post production even if details arent there. i hope i make myself clear. ciao Bonadart (talk) 13:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, how were you made aware of WP:CANVASSING? Off-wiki communication? RangersRus (talk) 14:07, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I actually notified them with a warning for such on their talk page but they removed it. It's heading towards ANI unfortunately. --CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Wiig

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

as an actor, fails WP:ENT, having only one notable named role in Milk (2008 American film). all his remaining credits are unnamed, often uncredited roles, with even his most notable appearance in Into the Wild (film) being an unnamed ferry ranger. only one local source is used as evidence for this "notability", alongside IMDb which is not reliable per WP:IMDBREF. as a musician, he fails WP:NMUSIC; his most notable accomplishment is playing in a band that Metallica's bass player also played in. once again, the "notability" for his music career is established with only one source. jeschaton (immanentize) 20:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Film. Heart ^(talk) 20:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Other named roles include Into The Wild (as Lee's Ferry Ranger), Milk (as McConnelly), Yosemite (as Michael), Sacred Blood (as Buck), Waiting For Wiig (as Wiig), All The Others Were Practice (as Amir) and I'm Charlie Walker (2022) as Dan Wallace.

Recorded two albums with Jason Newsted's (Metallica) on Chophouse Records: Unipsycho (2002) and Live Lycanthropy (2003)

https://www.discogs.com/artist/2154086-Papa-Wheelie

Also released several albums with Shrakys, The Martichora and soon Radio Incognito Nagalist (talk) 07:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Member of the Screen Actors Guild since 2011. SMCLL (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Article updates Nagalist (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: "Lee's Ferry Ranger" is a job description, not a name. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 03:21, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Lee's Ferry Ranger" is the name of the character. Nagalist (talk) 19:32, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable appearances updated SMCLL (talk) 20:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out the comment above because SMCLL had already entered their view below (duplicate !vote). Schazjmd (talk) 21:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSICIAN, or WP:GNG. I found one independent source not already used in the article[8] but like the others, it's merely local coverage, and even it says "Wiig's path to what you might call U.P. superstardom -- he's still relatively unknown in lower Michigan, but is becoming a household name in the U.P.", indicating a lack of notability outside of the area where he grew up. That was in 2014, but I cannot find any significant coverage since then either. Schazjmd (talk) 20:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Of the additional sources that Nagalist just added to the article, most are trivial mentions, a piece in a school paper, plus a few blogs and imdb. There is the cineSOURCE article, however cineSOURCE is a niche online site for the Marin area (where Wiig lived at the time), so it still seems like local coverage only. Schazjmd (talk) 20:35, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hollywood Reporter, San Francisco Chronicle, SFGate, Blabbermouth, Loudwire, Guitar World & Inside Pulse are NOT local niche resources SMCLL (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination and above comment. Go4thProsper (talk) 23:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References updated Nagalist (talk) 19:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per updates SMCLL (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2025 (UTC) — SMCLL (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Sources updated SMCLL (talk) 21:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting so that editors can review sources added recently to the article. I'm not optimistic though.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Krishna McKenzie

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:NBIO from a Google search and so should be deleted or redirected to Samayal Express. Sahaib (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article is a stub being expanded. Google News has credible sources. The individual's notability does not exclusively come from Samayal Express, thus should not be redirected there. EelamStyleZ (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Television, Tamil Nadu, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I apologise for violating WP:NPPHOUR, I am new to the job and was a bit too eager to reduce the backlog. Sahaib (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think the article should be kept? Geschichte (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:44, 2 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!} 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clearly, this would benefit from a bit more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Husam Zaman

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

This person does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, for being a university president! Sabirkir (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, and Saudi Arabia. Sabirkir (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Less than 200 cites in GS fails WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep. There has been some recent talk about college presidents being notable if they pass WP:SIGCOV, even if they're not notable as scholars. Can we get some consensus? Bearian (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they can be notable if they pass some other criterion, but it has to be shown that they do. I do not see it here. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:05, 11 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Keep It would be better for creator to introduce the subject as the ″university president″, not just an ″academic″. The subject seems to satisfy WP:NPROF#C6 based on serving as a president or chairman of universities. I believe the stated reason for nomination is inaccurate: This person does not meet WP:ACADEMIC, for being a university president!. WP:NPROF#C6 specifically addresses this matter. Additionally, his role as president of a governmental organization (ETEC) in field of education could be considered him as a politician. Also, the article mentions local/national awards received by the subject, and other Arabic sources may be consulted to pass other criterion for notability. Gedaali (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to https://seu.edu.sa/gs/en/admission/, the Saudi Electronic University offers bachelors and masters degrees only, and therefore cannot be construed as satisfying C6 of WP:NPROF. Taif University might qualify at first glance but the cited sources list him as a "Director" and the Wikipedia page says that the highest level official is "President." Being an appointed member of an evaluation board does not connect to any of the WP:NPROF criteria. I cannot tell from the citations for the awards whether they are notable enough for WP:NPROF; if I became convinced of that I could change my recommendation to "Keep" but right now all I see is a page about a career administrator. Qflib (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Sports Radio

AfDs for this article:

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

This article not meet Wikipedia notability guidelines. Israel Sports Radio has not received significant coverage. Furthermore, the consensus of the first AfD for this article, Articles for deletion/Israel Sports Radio, was deletion. Firecat93 (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Israel. Shellwood (talk) 21:52, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There is sufficient coverage such as Jpost, Jpost Drushrush (talk) 14:21, 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!} 22:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per above (first comment).

🗽Freedoxm🗽(talk • contribs) 07:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOTNEWS. I don't see how this show made a lasting impact. There was sort of a media blitz when it came out, then it folded. Could have been redirected to the creator's article and even enriched that article a bit. Yet even that potential target was borderline and below. Now that it has been deleted, deleting this show makes the most sense. gidonb (talk) 23:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tony McGuinness (English musician)

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

Soybean46 (talk · contribs) tagged this article for deletion and added the nomination subpage to the daily list, but did not actually create the subpage. Nonetheless, a rationale was given in an edit summary: Nominated article for deletion, doesnt meet SIGCOV. I note that there are other tags since October 2015 that also indicate COI and OR issues, but my involvement here is entirely procedural and I offer no actual opinion. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Current sourcing in the article is terrible. Having said that, there is no option to delete here; per WP:BANDMEMBER we need to either redirect to Above & Beyond (band), or keep as a seperate article. To keep as a seperate article then evidence is needed to show McGuiness is notable independently of the bands he plays in. On a quick search the following are evidence supporting independent notability: DJ Mag Germany, DJ Mag Latin America, EDM.com. I will look for further sources when I have time. ResonantDis_tortion 09:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Arya

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

Self promotional article about a civil servant. I have struggled with trimming the uncited text. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Politicians. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Delhi and Uttar Pradesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:38, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Promotion can be trimmed or improved. Prior to nominating this article you should do a WP:BEFORE. Your rationale should be emphasize notability and Significant Coverage. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I've further trimmed the text to match the sparse citations. No Swan So Fine (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trump Oil Corporation

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

Non notable company could not find many sources and does not meet WP:SIGCOV also notability is not WP:NOTINHERITED Is la🏳️‍⚧ 22:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business, Companies, and Canada. Is la🏳️‍⚧ 22:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:SIRS. No valid & multiple secondary sources to prove notability. This looks like WP:INHERITORG, so that's a no for me. Mamani1990 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bala Wunti

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

The article doesn't meet WP:GNG. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 21:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Africa, and Nigeria. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 22:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There's no source currently cited or from a cursory search that is independent of the subject, provides substantial coverage and is reliable. They are mostly satisfying only one of the three and not the three, which is required to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: To weight in, I think this is the second time this article is deleted. But personally, I believe this subject meets all NG's, as a quick Google search would reveal independent publications and news about the source. He is the group director of NAPIMS, the second order of NNPC. As such, he makes news appearance many times to declare Nigeria's assets. Infact yesterday, he was on national tv Channels TV. I made a quick search about him, and I could see many reports about "Being considered as the managing director to NNPC" itself. infact, there was numerous publications about him, right from when he is appointed in 2020 by President Muhammadu Buhari, former president of Nigeria. He still serves in the capacity as of 2025. infact one of the publication headline is Bala Wunti: The new head of Nigeria’s oil asset, NAIPMS Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 19:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cameremote Nothing you just said is WP:GNG worthy, perhaps it's best to familiarise yourself with relevant policies and guidelines before venturing into participating in AfD discussions so that you can make comments you can be proud of in say five years time. But yeah, being the managing director of NNPC, group director of NAPIMS, etc, etc, coupled with the sourcing found, does not satisfy GNG. See my original !vote that there's no source currently cited or from a cursory search that is independent of the subject, provides substantial coverage and is reliable. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment "so that you can make comments you can be proud of in say five years time." is generally uncalled for :). I did not vote, rather provided a comment of opinion. Basically uncalled for and talking about familiarizing myself with guidelines? like for real tho? I did not join Wikipedia based on your counsel or to impress you, or yours. I will provide my opinion where necessary and there's nothing you will do about it.Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 22:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Being a general manager of NNPC does not make him notable without different reliable sources with significant coverage. All the sources provided cannot count toward WP:GNG. Ibjaja055 (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of X-Men: The Animated Series and X-Men '97 adaptations

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

Beyond being a largely WP:INDISCRIMINATE list that is only supported by a few sources (largely for the X-Men '97 portion) and can be considered trivia, this information seem better suited to note, if applicable and notable, in each series' respective articles rather than its own article (I do believe X-Men '97 already has some of this information in its "Writing" section). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy and Television. Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, and Lists. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Lorstaking (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nasher Miles

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

Falls well short of the sourcing standards set at WP:NCORP. Sources are either WP:CORPTRIV fundraising notices or plain churnalism lacking a byline. The article content is also overtly promotional. Yuvaank (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Travel and tourism, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've Lost My Head (Ntobela)

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

This textile artwork fails WP:GNG. There is no WP:SIGCOV of it in independent, reliable sources. It is mentioned once in this profile of its creator and on the website of the museum that owns it. Otherwise, this article is a pile of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. The cited source for the "Description" section is literally the artwork itself; the creator has just added his or her own description. Other sources include the artist's beadwork collective, other museums' description of beadwork that don't include this artwork, and citations to reference sites that do not discuss the subject or the artist. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, South Africa, and New York. Dclemens1971 (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 TikTok refugee crisis

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

This article's contents should be folded into Xiaohongshu. Amigao (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's too big of an event and article to be folded into Xiahongshou as a sidenote Viceskeeni2 (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't really think it's a crisis, people have looked for another social media app. Likely too soon to see any lasting notability, but I wouldn't draft this. TOOSOON at this point. Oaktree b (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well if it's not a crisis I can simply rename it Viceskeeni2 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There you go I renamed it Viceskeeni2 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

An article about how over half a million people protested on the internet against an important government decision, leading to those people switching a whole app and turning it upside down, is enough for it to be considered a good article. It's a spectacular internet phenomenon and too big of an event to just be put in a different article as a side note like "oh yea this also happened btw"
I gave over 25 sources about it, meaning that it was internationally documented, especially on the English side which is what we need, to be an event that's popular enough to have a Wiki page, there are events with far less popularity that still have Wiki pages, and most of the sources are also reliable and the given points in the article are mostly proven by several sources to prove its authenticity.
It's definitely an important internet event, I don't think that anything like thhis has ever happened where over half a million and soon probably to be over a million people have switched apps in protest to a government decision. It's literally a protest, just online, why shouldn't it be an own article.
If the article was implemented into the REDNote article, it would be too big of an event and probably take up like half or quarter of the article, if an event takes up so much room in one single article, it's definitely enough reason to have it as its own article.
You can not deny that this will have a big political consequence and definitely do something to the US-China relations. The US trying to ban an app for being "a spying tool of China" and then half a million Americans switching over to literally a spying tool of China in protest will have its consequences and is a big event, just like I proved in the points above
Not only has it been widely reported in English but also:

I do think these reasons are more than enough to keep this article. Viceskeeni2 (talk) 21:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I honestly don't see any way this won't be notable. I get that we don't keep articles based on that, but I thinks its a waste of time to delete or draftify something that's clearly going to be notable. If I'm wrong, well, there is no deadline. Ping me if it is kept and later re nominated. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is already significant sourcing about this phenomenon (although I'm not sure of the best title). Nikkimaria (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please do not move this article until this AFD is closed. Then you can have a discussion on a possible name change. But moving an article to a different title creates problems when closing an AFD or relisting it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge of the two paragraphs under "Mass migration" to Restrictions on TikTok in the United States.-KH-1 (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Needs a new title if kept. Otherwise, I would not be opposed to a merge to TikTok or Restrictions on TikTok in the United States. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Selective merge, I back KH-1's proposal. I don't believe this needs an independent article. Kaotao (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to TikTok, Restrictions on TikTok in the United States, and Xiaohongshu. Nothing here needs to be an independent article. Astaire (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

San Marino at the 2012 European Athletics Championships

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

Utterly insignificant. No possible merge target at San Marino at the European Athletics Championships, which would be a questionable page in itself, given that athletics lacks a high status in this micro-country. Geschichte (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sport of athletics and Europe. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into San Marino at the European Athletics Championships, which I just created. There's enough here for an article, for example "Eugenio Rossi dreams of first medal for San Marino at Euro Athletics Championships". --Habst (talk) 14:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robin del Castillo

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:SINGER. His supposed international tour has been unsourced for years, and he clearly doesn't pass GNG. Badbluebus (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Bands and musicians, Latin America, and Colombia. Badbluebus (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Azhar Attari

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. Clear WP:NSPORTS fail as the only source cited is the Cricinfo database. No sources cited in the Urdu Wiki article. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE going through to the 10th page of GHits. FOARP (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Pakistan. FOARP (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This isn't someone who has played one or two matches: he played 76 FC matches and took 245 wickets. I have no doubt that there will be dozens and dozens of offline sources in Pakistani newspapers. In any case, the Cricinfo page referred to links to four articles itself. St Anselm (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NSPORTS2022 deprecated claims of notability based purely on participation (i.e., “they’re notable because they participated in X matches”). None of the Cricinfo articles give Attari significant coverage - they’re all match reports where he gets a passing mention. Attari is a 21st century player and Pakistan is now a country where more than half of the population has internet access: if there was significant coverage, it would be online. FOARP (talk) 06:39, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of miniature sheets from India Post

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

This page is just a plain a list and should be deleted and I'm not even certain this list of almost 300 miniature sheet from one country warrants a listing because they are not really notable and none appear to have their own article. Besides which, the prose does not directly even address the title of the page in any significant way. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but fairly weakly. It seems to me that these are an important commemorate feature in India and have been noted in various journals for Philately in India. Indeed it would be odd if they didn't. Second we have this kind of thing for various other countries including for example United Kingdom commemorative stamps 2010–2019 and whilst I understand WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I don't really see a strong reason to either !keep or !delete this kind of thing. JMWt (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JMWt I agree that similar WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but this and the similar lists are essentially just extracts that exist in stamp catalogue with a few sources and wikilinks added. IMHO they really don't have much, if any, real encyclopaedic value or individual notability.

Ameen Amshi

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

Fails WP:NPOL and most of the sources are either pass mentioned or unreliable sources. Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politics, Engineering, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Senior special assistant to the vice president is not an elected position, nor is the career notable. Sourcing is simply confirmation of various activities, nothing we can use to show notability. Being a member of the Youth Wing does not impart notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per reasons echoed by Oaktree b. Best, Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 13:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rinaldo Capuzzi

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

Mass created article by Lugnuts. DeProdded by BeanieFan11 with the comment "feels like there'd be coverage here". With the greatest respect to Beanie, whilst PRODs can be removed for any reason and none, "feels like" ain't enough to keep a page.

Fails WP:NSPORT since the only coverage is in a database and a passing mention in a wordpress blog. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE paging through the four pages of GHits. No other sources found in the IT wiki page. FOARP (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Italy. FOARP (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. -Samoht27 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Schantz

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

Fails WP:BLP1E.4meter4 (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Police, and Ohio. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Policewoman Centerfold. Insufficient coverage outside of the event for individual notability. Schazjmd (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect: to the movie, that's about all the notability is derived from. Oaktree b (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Praise Akinlami

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

The only source attached to the article fails WP:GNG and a cursory search on the internet could not yield anything than social media handles. Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Businesspeople, Engineering, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Noting to establish WP:GNG here. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: NIGERIANPROMO... Ungh, another one that is a "mastermind" [9] and a consulting founder [10]. Flowery language for nothing to show. I don't see any critical reviews of anything written by this person. Entrepreneur isn't notable, civil engineer by training implies he doesn't work as one, which is also non-notable. Oaktree b (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This profile meets notable criteria if you contextualize within their regional and industry specific impact. With very substantial online following and at least 7 national level publications, it is important to recognize that documentation standards often reflect systemic biases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinschukwudera (talk • contribs) 21:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The subject does not meet WP:GNG due to the lack of reliable, independent, and significant secondary sources. The provided references, including social media handles and promotional articles, fail to establish notability. The article appears to be promotional in tone and content, and the achievements cited do not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion.--Jaypung (talk) 16:46, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward E. Lyon

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 16:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military and California. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe Medal of Honor recipients can be presumed to be notable, unless there's a discussion somewhere that's found otherwise. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@SarekOfVulcan WP:SOLDIER was deprecated at an WP:RFC. At that point, we lost a policy that addresses this issue directly. Not sure honestly how it's viewed at present.4meter4 (talk) 18:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANYBIO #1 should cover it, then. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting note, but I don't think it's relevant for the article: https://medalofhonorkillednomedal.com/Page1.html --18:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep Considering the MoH is the highest military decoration the US can award, I think it's safe to assume automatic notability. Also, for many MoH winners prior to World War I there's simply not going to be much out there that isn't print or otherwise difficult to access. Intothat darkness 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, wouldn't the award recipients be better covered in a list when there are no sources? We can only really write on someone when there are materials to build an article.4meter4 (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lyon isn't mentioned by name (but neither are the other MoH awardees), but the action is discussed in Brian McAllister Linn's "The Philippine War 1899-1902" on pp 114-115. They apparently routed a force almost ten times their size. Intothat darkness 19:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The MOH would give notability, it was given out a long time ago, so that's probably why there are few sources. I found this [11], but I can only see a snippet view due to copyright restrictions... Oaktree b (talk) 21:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If anybody is anywhere close to 'automatically notable', it's MOH recipients. Offline sources can be presumed to exist given the award. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while WP:BIO states under Additional Criteria that "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included." Anybio #1 states "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." The MoH is definitely "a well-known and significant award or honor", although it should be noted that MoH criteria have tightened over the years and they were handed out more freely in the past. Looking then at WP:BASIC he fails because he hasn't "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." He just hasn't received significant coverage and doesn't meet WP:SUSTAINED. Some will argue that given that the award was 125 years ago its not surprising that sources can't be found, but if he was truly notable you'd expect there would be RS available. Mztourist (talk) 03:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC) Actually a redirect to Young's Scouts might be best as all 11 seem to have received the MoH, but only a few of them are independently notable. Mztourist (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You'd need to nominate a number of them for deletion, then, since the majority appear to have articles. As for the MoH, it was the ONLY valor decoration until reforms prior to World War I, which in some ways make it more notable. It was also only awarded to enlisted men for a significant period (you'll notice officer awards prior to 1890 or so are all retroactive). And if we eliminate the majority of these articles, the Young's Scouts article will need an overhaul. As an aside, when you're looking at older MoH awards, notability is a can of worms. Some winners are only covered because of the unit they served in or the action the award resulted from. Intothat darkness 12:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that's not a bad idea to merge/redirect these people to Young's Scouts and work to expand and improve that article. Presenting each MoH recipient in the Young's Scouts page in context would probably be the best editorial way to cover the topic. We could still leave cats in place on the redirect pages for navigation, and in the end I think we would end up with a better central article in this content area. That said, that type of editorial decision would probably need to be proposed through a WP:MERGEPROP. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually a bad idea, since it's enshrining the source bias that exists regarding MoH winners. Sourcing for MoH winners prior to 1900 tend to revolve around two things: the unit of the winner and specific battles. For example, ANYONE who happened to be involved in any way in the Battle of the Little Bighorn is going to have copious amounts of sourcing, even if most of it is repetitive and the individual did nothing of note other than winning a MoH as part of either Reno's or Benteen's battalions. And anyone who happened to be part of one of the "Buffalo soldier" regiments is going to have lots of coverage because of their service with those units...even if they did nothing of note after leaving the service. This can also extend to many modern MoH winners as well, although the expansion of the awards system means they likely have more notable decorations and the proliferation of media sources also creates more accessible coverage. Intothat darkness 15:58, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's nonsense, and distracting because it has nothing to do with the specific context of the Young's Scouts MoH recipients. There might be cases where there is no valid target location to bundle to, in which case those articles should remain standing under an WP:ANYBIO logic as people have pointed out here through majority consensus. We can still make editorial decisions about how to cover topics like the Young's Scouts and its associated people in the most logical way. Sometimes we present people articles bundled because they are so intertwined it doesn't make sense to separate them out. There are very good editorial reasons to cover these people in the same article outside of notability issues.4meter4 (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not nonsense. It's pointing out a specific issue with the majority of MoH winners prior to 1900. Eliminating articles simply because the winners didn't participate in well-covered battle X or belong to famous unit Y doesn't feel like a valid option and ignores the inherent nobility of the MoH. Intothat darkness 16:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But that isn't the logic about why these particular men are being editorially lumped together. All of the men are known for collective action within a particular unit and within the same events. It doesn't make sense to cover these events and these actions in multiple places. It's much better to cover them together for editorial reasons; particularly when most of the articles lack WP:SIGCOV of the individual person. The sources are covering them together in many cases, and for the same editorial reasons I am suggesting we do so as well. Obviously, if any one of the men were notable for events outside of this unit then they should have a standalone article as well, but it doesn't make sense to have a bunch of independent pages with largely duplicate content otherwise. It's better for the reader and the encyclopedia for us to cover these people together, and have a better developed central article on Young's Scouts. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Medal of Honor recipients are clearly notable per WP:ANYBIO #1 and any other standard of notability. It would be ludicrous to start deleting these people piecemeal just because some have less coverage than others. It would serve no useful purpose to Wikipedia whatsoever other than to stoke the insufferable smugness of the "we do everything by the book and tolerate no deviation from the non-existent rules" deletionist lobby. Like Victoria Cross winners, Medal of Honor winners are people who are generally considered by most sources to be notable merely by dint of their award. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel Cruz Darwin

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

Apart from co-producing some movies, the subject hasn't accomplished anything noteworthy for an article. All the sources are mostly promotional about the movies which he produced. Fails GNG. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, India, and Kerala. Thilsebatti (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, no in-depth coverage about the subject in question. TheWikiholic (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mihir (title)

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

The very limited information provided by this article should be included, if anywhere, as a few words in any relevant page. That might be suggested to the author if it agreed to delete. Lukewarmbeer (talk) 16:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do see Your point, and I do agree that secondary research on the topic is missing therefore if the page was to be deleted I wouldn't disagree Nothingbutthetruth2006 (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maharashtra-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Haryana, Punjab, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Gilmer Hernandez

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

Fails WP:BLP1E and WP:PERPETRATOR.4meter4 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Police, and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very minor crime without longstanding significance. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Reads like a rather minor incident, a year in jail. I don't think this meets notability for criminals. The lack of any other career information shows this is a routine law enforcement officer. Oaktree b (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Nalimi

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

Autobiography of a non-notable actor. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers and Tanzania. Bobby Cohn (talk) 15:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails any of the WP:NCREATIVE criteria, fails WP:BIO, this is WP:ADMASQ 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 16:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moshe Chalava

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

Non notable rabbi. From my searches only one source (an obscure one) accounts for his existence. On google, searching him up only nets 25 results, with the majority of them copying the en-wp article. Plasticwonder (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Judaism, and Spain. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soodabeh Davaran

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

This is a deletion request filed on behalf of the subject who has contacted us via VTRS 2025011410006473. Professor Davaran states "The page contains inaccurate information that could harm my reputation. By Wikipedia’s policies and my right to control my personal information, I kindly request the page's removal."

I am satisfied that the request received is from the subject. Nthep (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Women, and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Marginal notability as WP:NPROF. The lead and infobox both focus on a number of retracted papers, which I presume is what upsets the subject. pburka (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- might pass the WP:PROF notability guideline, might not, that doesn't really matter: the request is from the subject and is reasonable given she is not a public figure of clear notable standing. The overriding focus on retracted papers without evidence that they were retracted for newsworthy reasons reads almost like an attack page. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because of the high number of retracted papers, I think that trying to rely on WP:PROF#C1 for notability would be problematic, and there seems to be no other positive claim for notability that would meet our standards. As for the retractions: the subject does appear to have them, but I see no evidence that they are notable for having multiple retracted papers and my searches did not find any. There are other sites devoted to publicizing retractions and the academic misconduct that some retractions are associated with (notably Retraction Watch); that is not the purpose of Wikipedia and the mere existence of many retractions does not make for notability. Indeed, while the negative information about the subject may be accurate, collecting it in this way without basing it on sources that publish similar collections creates the appearance of WP:SYN and of an attack page. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nashville, Hancock County, Indiana

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

Here we have an object example of how WP:GEOLAND has us writing articles that aren't really true. The 1882 county history says quite a bit more than what it is cited for, but what it says, reading between the lines, is that this place never took off. And indeed, that is what you see on the ground: there's no street grid and only a couple of buildings that don't constitute any concentration of population. I don't see how we can say it IS a settlement, but the source doesn't come right out and say that by the 1880s there wasn't a town and may never really have been a town, and in any case we have a 140 year lacuna of information beyond what the maps and aerials tell us. And before someone says, "well, redirect it to the township/county", what's the point? Said article isn't going to say anything about this place, at least, not anything demonstrably true. Mangoe (talk) 14:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Indiana. – The Grid (talk) 14:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

This history on an Indiana government "blog", written by a highly reliable source, indicates this was very much a town, with stores and services and people. This history was repeated in a local newspaper.
This book calls it a "small town".
This government website calls it one of three "established areas" in the early township. --Magnolia677 (talk) 19:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found by Magnolia677...but once those sources are added, someone please edit the article so that it no longer says this place "is" anything, because right now it just looks like a couple of farmhouses: [12]. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Grand Switzerland 2024

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

I would draftify this, but it is too old. This page cites zero independent, reliable sources to demonstrate notability, and I could not find any in my BEFORE search. Toadspike [Talk] 14:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The most appropriate alternative is probably a redirect to Miss Grand International 2024. Toadspike [Talk] 14:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Lists of people, Events, Organizations, Beauty pageants, and Switzerland. – The Grid (talk) 15:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 23:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Modular Operation Theatre

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

Previously draftified, but was reverted by the creator. The entire content seems to be promotional and advertorial. Limited sources cited do not talk about the Modular Operation Theatre at all from my understanding of them. ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 11:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete Reads entirely like an ad brochure. Even if this were a thing, it needs WP:TNT. Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article just looks like an ad. As @Wcquidditch said, even if it deserves an article, it needs to 'blown up'. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 15:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think you meant to second Mangoe there. My only contribution (until this comment) to this discussion was purely deletion sorting; I did not (and do not intend to) express any opinion on this article. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:51, 15 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.

Raja Raghuraj Singh

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

Freedom activists are not inherently notable. The subject fails WP:ANYBIO, no indication of WP:SIGCOV or notable contributions to the independence movement. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 10:00, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, History, and Uttar Pradesh. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Meets WP:NPOLITICIAN as a member of the United Provinces Legislative Council, a precursor to the modern-day Uttar Pradesh Legislative Council. From this PhD thesis, "Kiriti Vardhan is the scion of Mankapur royal estate, and he is the fifth-generation representative of a powerful family which had direct influence in the district’s politics even before independence. His great-great grandfather Raja Raghuraj Singh and great grandfather Raja Ambikeshwar Pratap Singh won elections for the provincial assembly (of the United Provinces) in 1920s and 1930s." [13] This article from the Pioneer Mail in 1923 seems to confirm that he was a member of the provincial legislature.[14] ⁂CountHacker (talk) 18:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out that if the article is kept, it should be moved to Raghuraj Singh per WP:TITLESINTITLES. Raja seems to be his title as the Raja of Mankapur, not part of his actual name. ⁂CountHacker (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indranil Banik

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

Orphaned article about a fairly junior academic who does not meet academic notability guidelines: WP:ACADEMIC OSmeone (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. OSmeone (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- per WP:TOOSOON -- on his way up, but at the postdoctoral fellow level notability requires articles from major sources about the person not about the person's research. -- Michael Scott Asato Cuthbert (talk) 18:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Astronomy, England, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. His current academic post and citation record do not convince me of a pass of WP:PROF. We cannot use the Hindu coverage of his work in mainstream media because it was written by him, leaving only a couple of paragraphs mentioning him in NewScientist. I don't think that's significant coverage, and even if it were it would only be one source. My delete is weak largely per WP:TOOSOON: he appears to be on the way up and could well meet our standards for notability in a few years. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TRENDnet

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

Nominating for deletion for failing to meet WP:NCORP; and passing mentions media coverage Villkomoses (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of tech reviews to be found about their products in RS. The one source in the article about the FTC enforcement helps, as does this one [15]. Oaktree b (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Computing, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Verge (cite) and CNET (cite) provide significant coverage. I suspect that a proper WP: BEFORE was not conducted before this nomination was made. HyperAccelerated (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Völkisch Ideology and the Roots of Nazism

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

Redlinked author, no sources in article, I wasn't able to find any on Google. Prezbo (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, History, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, looked, found nothing. Cited a few times but nothing discussing it. Though it is of note that Google is bad at finding sources for these kinds of books. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Declined PROD; not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

delete There is no claim of notability and this case identifies Exposition Press as a vanity publisher. Mangoe (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Arthur_Moeller_van_den_Bruck#Further_reading: that (short) book is quoted in a lot (I do mean a LOT) of books on the origin of Nazi ideology. (Hitler: Profile of a Dictator - oage 119; The Third Reich: Politics and Propaganda - page 237 etc) so not opposed to Keep. -Mushy Yank. 16:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also not opposed to Keep if sources can be found to build an article—reviews, etc. But the article has persisted in its current form for a long time. Prezbo (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis

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

Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources, of the specific topic of five-wicket hauls by this specific cricketer. Not viable as a split-list because split-lists have to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. This appears to be a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR from primary sources. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - seems to me that this is somewhat similar to the AfD we had a while back on WG Grace, see WP:Articles for deletion/W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870). The difference here appears to be substantive in that we are talking about a sporting achievement rather than trying to write a full autobiography. I've not yet come to a conclusion where I fall on this one but thought other contributors might appreciate seeing the other discussion. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I feel like a proposal to delete a Featured List needs a stronger argument than this. In any case, it meets the long-agreed upon threshold of 15 fifers. St Anselm (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A stronger argument than it not meeting our most basic PAGs? FOARP (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added a couple of references to the article, establishing the significance of his fifers as captain. St Anselm (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you added here. It’s a passing mention in an article about Joe Root/Pat Cummins. Not significant coverage of Bob Willis. FOARP (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge necessary content to the main article. Lorstaking (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the subject meets NLIST requirements for IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weidner Communications

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

This article is confusing. Is it about a marketing company, a machine translation software, or the brothers (who have last names spelled differently)? 🄻 🄰 11:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Language, Companies, Technology, and Software. 🄻 🄰 11:13, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@लॉस एंजिल्स लेखक: I can't identify a deletion rationale in your nomination statement. Could you please provide one, else this nomination should be closed under WP:CSK#1. This appears to be a reasonably sourced article on a company, the machine translation software it produced, and its founders, which appear to be a reasonable set of topics to cover together. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:55, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:CSK#1 (nom has been editing, but has not provided any deletion rationale). ~ A412 ^talk! 18:13, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to open a discussion on this article because I don't think the company is notable, everything I can find about "Weidner Communications" seems to point back to this article. Note also the varying spelling of Weidner and Wydner.

In the entire article, this is the portion about the company called "Weidner Communications":

"During the mid-1980s Weidner Communications, Inc., (WCC), was the largest translation company by sales volume in the United States. (Margaret M. Perscheid, 1985) Later the Japanese sold Wydner's technology to Intergraph Corporation of Alabama who later sold it to Transparent Language, Inc. of New Hampshire. Bruce Wydner, the principal agent for the Inns of the Temple Inc., that retained the research and development rights to the Weidner Multi-lingual Word Processor, separated himself from his brother in early 1979 and no longer supplied any updated software developments. Weidner had offended his brother over a matter of having Eyring Research Institute send their bi-lingual employee to remove Wydners intellectual property from his home, of which Wydner claims was stolen from him."

Everything else is about the software which mentions "Translation Associates" "Bravis International" "Eyring Research Institute" "Transparent Language, Inc." "Intergraph Corporation of Alabama" as all owning it.

My rationale is that the article as it is currently written does not seem to be primarily about "Weidner Communications" and Weidner Communications itself seems to be a non-notable company that was one of 6+ to have something to do with the software. 🄻 🄰 13:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the nomination qualified for a speedy keep, lacking valid deletion reason, a subsequent comment by the nom provides the missing rationale.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 13:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ArcGIS Urban

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

Cannot find WP:SIGCOV to establish WP:COMPANY, none such provided in the article and my googling does not turn up any seefooddiet (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture, Products, and Software. seefooddiet (talk) 13:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with ArcGIS since Urban is a product within Esri's ArcGIS line. Not sure if WP:COMPANY applies here since it's a product and not a company, but agree that this should be deleted due to poor sourcing. Artwhitemaster (talk) 17:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Balurghat Lalit Mohan Adarsha Uchchya Vidyalaya

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

Non-notable high school (Fails WP:NSCHOOL) --☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, India, and West Bengal. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 13:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well the school has created so many results. But the lack of media coverage made this school so infamous. My point is go search about other school page in west bengal where the pages are not so well organized and not even famous. So what is the point of delete this page even after so much of hard work to create it? If anyone can suggest to decrease the amount of writings, I will do it but please consider this page. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 13:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, with no significant coverage found online. This is a copy of Draft:Balurghat Lalit Mohan Adarsha Uchcha Vidyalaya by same editor, declined at draft four times. Wikishovel (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So, is there any solution to fix it? Hypothetical Painter (talk) 19:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody consider to delete this school page which have created results but the writing in wiki is bad for you judges then please go through these schools which have no records of results, does not cite any sources and the writing even bad than this article:

1)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baidyapur_Ramkrishna_Vidyapith

2)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begri_Girls_High_School

3)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aligunj_Rishi_Raj_Narayan_Balika_Vidyalaya

4)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhogpur_K._M._High_School

5)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birsingha_Bhagabati_Vidyalaya

6)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdwan_C.M.S_High_School

7)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chakdwipa_High_School

8)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charghat_Milan_Mandir_Vidyapith

9)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deshabandhu_Vidyalaya

10)https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digha_Vidyabhawan

I can go on and provide more school list which does not have good writings and results. If you consider my argument, then this school must also be existed in wikipedia just like these schools. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. In fact, it suggests maybe even some or all of those other articles should also be deleted. Go ahead...try WP:BEFORE and then maybe nominate them for deletion. DMacks (talk) 06:50, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article. Hypothetical Painter (talk) 07:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Fernando

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

Non-notable person. The editor submitted this page for afc and once it was declined, they just did a copy-paste move from Draft:Jerome Fernando to mainspace. Vestrian24Bio 13:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Vestrian24Bio 13:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: He said some things that people didn't like [16], [17], which led to criminal charges, but I don't think that makes him a notable criminal. The sports career isn't notable either. Oaktree b (talk) 14:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:ANYBIO. Nicely done bio, but it amounts to free publicity for one more person of faith. Nothing out of the ordinary about his ministry. These types get a lot of press coverage by saying all other faiths but theirs are fakes ... which is essentially what he did. He got a lot of press coverage out out of it. None of that makes him rise to notability in Wikipeda. — Maile (talk) 17:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Christianity, and Cricket. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kenechukwu Ambrose Nwankwo

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

This subject is not eligible for an article here based on the references supplied. There are no sources elsewhere with which their notability can be demonstrated. And the subject is the creator of this article. There is a significant COI in the article Centuristic (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Africa, and Nigeria. Centuristic (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:PROMO Wikipedia is not a means of promotion. — Maile (talk) 13:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:SPORTBASIC. Mamani1990 (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Another "entrepreneur" that doesn't appear notable (being mentioned in media). Being a flag football player doesn't meet notability requirements. Another attempt at PROMO that falls flat. Oaktree b (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG or WP:NATHLETE. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 14:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, recreation of Kenny Nwankwo which I moved to draft, and was declined on 9 January. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NATHLETE and WP:GNG. Wikishovel (talk) 15:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails Wikipedia general Notability guidelines. Ibjaja055 (talk) 17:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:AUTO and fails notability. DACartman (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: American football, Florida, and Virginia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the fact that it's an autobiography that's triple orange-tagged (validly) is enough reason for me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Played some Division III college ball and is now playing in a flag football league in Nigeria. Neither of those comes lose to showing notability. Cbl62 (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE due to insufficient coverage in reliable sources and lack of notable achievements. The article is promotional, likely an autobiography, and recreates previously declined content. WP:PROMO and WP:COI also apply.--Jaypung (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think we've piled on enough here guys. I suggest someone close this. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Academies

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

Non notable academy, fails WP:NORG a before shows no independent coverage. Theroadislong (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Schools, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wesean Student Federation

AfDs for this article:

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

notability KabirDH (talk) 12:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, this fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. Without significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources, the article does not meet the standard for inclusion. Chegouahora (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— Chegouahora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education, Fraternities and sororities, Bangladesh, Myanmar, and India. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: The article violates Wikipedia’s Neutral Point of View (NPOV) and Verifiability policies. There are multiple Extreme POVs trying to link the group with insurgents by using “seemingly” valid reliable sources, but these have nothing to do with how the term is used by the organisation itself. Stating this the Etymology section is excessive and unsupported by reliable sources discussing the term in the context of the organization, violating WP:UNDUE. Also Newspaper sources merely repeating the organization’s claims do not meet WP:RS standards as independent, third-party references. I don’t feel the lyngdoh paper is reliable as it’s written by a high schooler and newspaper articles mostly just repeat what the organisation has said. So this article needs to be further cut down and taking all the sources into account I don’t feel it will should be more than 1-2 paragraphs long ZoUnified (talk) 18:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: All the sources listed are Third Party and Reliable. There is also considerable coverage on the organisation that would support keeping the Wikipedia article on it. Flyingphoenixchips (talk) 14:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: there's at least one article on the page that meets WP:GNG as an independent secondary source and WP:SIGCOV from other sources. The Lyngdoh source, the currently used Haokip source and the Mokokchung times source would each, by themselves, fulfill GNG. By policy, this article's content may need better verifiability but clearly meets standards for inclusion as an article.

As an outsider to WP:INDIA, I've additionally observed bludgeoning with citation tags that have been mostly resolved as well as a lot of wishywashy claims of a lack of notability over the last day. If these stem from an objection to the WP:POV views on the term Wesea, wikipedia is not censored and it's merely an uncomfortable fact that Wesea is in the organisation's name. All of this is, of course, irrelevant to this AfD but is perhaps relevant context to consider given that the nominee did not explain at all what their concerns are. EmeraldRange (talk/contribs) 14:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fringe topic SN bastion (talk) 17:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

— SN bastion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I am very surprised that there is this much coverage for a student group founded less than a year ago, but the sources narrowly get it over the line IMO. The best by far is the Haokip article, which seems to be a proper peer-reviewed journal article focused entirely on this group. The other sources are much less convincing. The Lyngdoh source is by a high school student and I'm sceptical that the site is a WP:RS. The other sources, including the Mokokchung Times, EastMojo, Shillong Times, and Hub Network pieces, don't have bylined reporters and seem to essentially repeat the group's announcements, so I think they should be discounted somewhat. But the Khasi language source is good, and the sources I can find make me strongly suspect there is much more out there in little-spoken northeast Indian languages that I'm just not able to find. I would also note that this group split off from Northeast Students' Organization, which seems to be unambiguously notable. So at worst I think this is potentially a case of WP:TOOSOON. MCE89 (talk) 02:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article clearly meets the inclusion criteria, contrary to the nominator's claim. The sources cited such as Lyngdoh,Haokip, Mokokchung Times and the Morung Express article strongly support the article's compliance with WP:GNG.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 08:29, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of 1980s people

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

Seems like an endless list topic, containing tens of thousands of people with Wikipedia articles. Perhaps topical sublists may in some cases be useful, but this indiscriminate dumping ground has no use as a navigational aid or anything else really. Fram (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Entertainment, and History. Fram (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Ill-defined inclusion criteria. Geschichte (talk) 14:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was brought up at Talk:1980s#List of people, but I'm surprised this experienced user saw the obvious flaws of including this list in the main 1980s article yet thought it would be acceptable as a standalone list. It's funny how US-centric this is, as well as how many of the entertainers would also be considered 2020s people. Reywas92^Talk 14:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on condition ONLY that this alphabetical list is never under any circumstances merged or restored or reinserted to 1980s, and that no further attempts are made to insert an alphabetical list of people into that article ever, for the rest of eternity. I created this page because it appeared to be the only way to stop the repeated pattern of insertion, removal and re-insertion of this list into 1980s, which is simply an excuse for editors to insert their favourite obscure celebrities into that article. (Carmel McCourt would be an apparent example). If we cannot agree to keep this kind of list out of the decade article, then moving it to a standalone page does serve one useful purpose, namely being a content trap to keep this kind of list out of the main article. James500 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SALAT, i.e. far too broad to be useful. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete inclusion criteria are very unclear (how much fame is enough?). Polygnotus (talk) 08:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mwijaku

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

After observing the article being too promotional (still is), I moved the it back to draft space hoping for improvement that would follow a regular review at AFC but the original editor moved it back direct to the mainspace also nowhere in the references show subject's (important claims) like date of birth or number of children they have, where did the editor get them? That's WP: PROMOTIONAL, WP:COIEDIT and tries to use wikipedia as WP:SOAPBOX.

No any notable work listed show subject's importance, just a bunch of gossip blogs. Just a reminder, Wikipedia isn't a gossip blog/newspaper WP:NOTGOSSIP.

Refs: Only The Citizen is a reliable source, the rest are blogs that cannot be trusted on WP:BLP. ANU^writes 01:26, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Radio, Television, Internet, and Tanzania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No indication of notability. --John B123 (talk) 20:20, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As the editor of this article, I have made improvements by adding additional information from sources that I believe are credible. Please review it to see if it is satisfactory and help me by correcting any mistakes. 3L3V8D (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 02:13, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As there is an unbolded Keep here, I don't think that a Soft Deletion is an option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: re-relisting because XFDCloser broke again
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: speaking your mind on social media isn't notable, nearly everyone does it these days. If we had better information on the acting career, could perhaps be notable. I don't see this either, so we don't have notability. I can't find any kind of sourcing. Oaktree b (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stephan Kuhl

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

Mass-created article by Lugnuts. On the same day they created this article, they created at least 63 others (some will have been deleted in the meantime). Fails WP:NSPORTS. Prod declined on the grounds that an interview on the German Badminton Federation website (i.e., clearly not an independent RS), talks about media exposure, but since the subject was a commentator on TV for a short period that's probably what they were talking about, not actual media coverage of them per se. Nothing found in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. FOARP (talk) 11:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton, Olympics, and Germany. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Huidi

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:39, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:39, 1 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!} 08:46, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Individual is notable according to WP:Sportsperson and deleting this individual would leave 18 red links across the site on other skating pages Nayyn (talk) 19:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would create zero redlinks; the links are removed. If you believe this person qualifies as notable, please provide evidence. Bgsu98 (Talk) 23:19, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flow-through share

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

Orphan (except for link from DAB), no refs, notability not established Laterthanyouthink (talk) 08:52, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance and Canada. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Enough coverage in books and research studies to pass WP:GNG: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] (the studies can be accessed through the Wikipedia Library) Helpful Raccoon (talk) 10:00, 1 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!} 08:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 13:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Carly Henderson

AfDs for this article:

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

Fail WP:JOURNALIST and WP:ENT. No indication of WP:GNG. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Journalism, Television, and Colorado. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:49, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 11:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article heavily relies on YouTube videos as citations, which is not in line with policy guidelines. You will need to replace these with reliable and credible sources, so fails WP:GNG. Baqi:) (talk) 12:24, 15 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.

A Closed Book (novel)

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

A short book with the only reference on the page being a one-paragraph review of a film based on it. I'm not seeing much else to suggest this meets the notability criteria for inclusion JMWt (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 10:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:
A book is presumed notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:
1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
Sources
1. Romney, Jonathan (1999-09-29). "Do you see the point? A Closed Book by Gilbert Adair". The Guardian. ProQuest 245430652. Archived from the original on 2025-01-15. Retrieved 2025-01-15.
  The review notes: "As for the Christie-like twist, there are in fact two: one a self-consciously grating "shock" revelation, the other a purely textual bit of trickery. Anyone averse to heightened self-consciousness will probably grind their teeth to discover that Paul's work is also to be called A Closed Book. Although Adair's one sometimes comes across as an all too knowing example of the all-is-not-what-it-seems thriller, its sense of paradox always gives it the edge."
2. Hutchings, Vicky (1999-10-25). "A Closed Book". New Statesman. Vol. 128, no. 4459. p. 57. ProQuest 224359534. EBSCOhost 2436580. Archived from the original on 2025-01-15. Retrieved 2025-01-15 – via Gale.
  The review notes: "As an exercise in the evocation of claustrophobia and terror, it is excellent; but one is left to imagine how Hitchcock would turn Sir Paul's growing fear - that he has been figuratively blinded through hiring the mysterious Ryder to be his eyes - into a genuine chiller. As in all Adair's novels, you feel he thinks more of design and arrangement, of sending signs to members of an insider audience (and often the same signs), than he does of entertaining the reader."
3. Sanderson, Mark (1999-09-20). "Horrors of the unseen". Evening Standard. ProQuest 329387993. Archived from the original on 2025-01-15. Retrieved 2025-01-15 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "The novel is constructed almost entirely out of dialogue. Consequently, Sir Paul and the reader are faced with the same problem: who to trust. They are both at the mercy of a stranger. The writer has to rely on what Ryder tells him. Similarly, the reader "cannot peek over the tops of the words on the page, as he might endeavour to peek over the bobbing heads of a crowd of sightseers goggling at a passing parade, in order to get a better view of the world beyond them, for there is, of course, no world beyond." In such a nightmare scenario what remains unsaid is just as important as what is unseen. The ingenious, macabre result may leave a bad taste in the mouth but A Closed Book is a page-turner par excellence. And it makes you laugh as well as think. "
4. Seaton, Matt (1999-10-24). "Open verdict on a closed book". Sunday Herald. ProQuest 331276852.
  The review notes: "A Closed Book is essentially a jeu d'esprit, a good workout for Adair's wit muscle. It is not deep: it eschews the exploration of any moral dimension of the author's blindness; rather, it mocks Sir Paul's ponderings about the existential implications of sightlessness. What it is a very knowing novel about two men whose mutual destruction is assured precisely by the ways in which they are unknowing."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow A Closed Book to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 13:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Enough above to meet NBOOK. More reviews in The Spectator (here) and Times Literary Supplement (here). ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 14:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, snow/speedy/suggest a swift withdrawal. Found yet another review in The Independent on the first page of google hits. Also found [https://www.complete-review.com/reviews/adairg/closedb.htm an index of even more book reviews, including in Germany. Geschichte (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NBOOK per sources given above. Procyon117 (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ayyubiyeh Agriculture Department

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

"Ayyubiyeh Agriculture Department (Persian: گروه كشاورزي ايوبيه – Garaveh Keshāvarzī-ye Āyyūbīyeh) is a village"

I mean, the first sentence by itself tells you exactly the problem here: it clearly is not a village. It is patently some kind of farming establishment. It has a population of 28 logged in the 2006 Iranian census but according to the FA wiki article no population logged in 2011 and 2016, again pointing to it being a place where people were resident temporarily and not an actual community. Since the Iranian census counts people at locations that are not necessarily communities, but which can instead be e.g., places of business, this probably is not a surprise - by the way the Iranian census is far from the only one that does this and Iran is not the only country with this problem.

Carlossuarez46 created tens of thousands of articles like this one. On the day he created this article he created at least 267 others (some of the ones he created that day will since have been deleted and so won't show up in this search). Despite multiple clean ups over a period of five years, deleting in excess of 20k articles, we're still dealing with them. The biggest barrier to doing that is the assumption under WP:GEOLAND that places like this are notable just because they're mentioned as a single line-item in a long list of locations on some government document. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. FOARP (talk) 09:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: If a user spent no effort creating an article, we should spend no effort deleting it. Not notable per nom. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Metalics and Energy

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and West Bengal. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

IdeaForge

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

Consensus has been that notability is not automatic in WP:LISTED (or any other) case. Fails to meet WP:NCORP, WP:CORPDEPTH. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Maharashtra. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Chu Sports Park

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

It's the fourth sports centre in Taichung. The sources on the page do not suggest notability. I am not seeing the coverage in reliable secondary sources which would suggest this is a notable place. JMWt (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. JMWt (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Found numerous sources through a cursory Google search, including sources that report on the Park's history and construction from China Times[23], ETtoday[24], Central News Agency[25], and The Storm Media[26]; the Park's opening from China Times[27][28], Liberty Times[29][30], and ETtoday[31]; and criticism on the Park from TVBS[32], Central News Agency[33], and Liberty Times[34]. There are also recurring media coverage about the Park and events held there, including sources from Yam News [zh][35], Yahoo! News[36], and China Times[37]. More than enough to pass GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 09:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources are much more than WP:ROUTINE coverage, many appear to be little more than repeating press releases. JMWt (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from the few articles about the park's opening, which I can agree that they are ROUTINE, I do not share your assessment of the other sources listed above. Also, my search was a brief one and limited to the first few pages of Google News, where many more articles exist from what I saw. I doubt that any BEFORE was conducted prior to this nomination using the park's Chinese title, and I suggest a more thorough search be done before concluding that none of the coverage is usable. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 11:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Which two sources are you suggesting meet the notability criteria? There's no point in providing a handful of sources in this discussion then agreeing that many are ROUTINE. OK, which ones aren't. There's no inherited or inherent reason why a local sports facility should be considered notable, so !keep needs to make a strong case. Thanks.JMWt (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, you misunderstood me. The reason I listed the sources above is obviously because I found them to provide SIGCOV. I was merely taking a step back to assert that even if your argument holds, there are still a large number of available sources, instead of actually deeming some of the sources unusable. (as I said, I can agree, not I agree) I also have no idea how a suggestion for a BEFORE is related to INHERENT. So yes, I know about WP:THREE, but all the sources look good to me and I do not feel the urge to select a few sources when everyone can take a thorough look at them and make their own judgments. I believe we have both made our points clear: I think the sources are adequate, while you think they are not. So perhaps we can back down first and let others assess and comment on both the sources I have listed and any others that may not have been included in this discussion. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 13:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my earlier point, all the sources offered above are WP:ROUTINE and do not, individually or in total, meet the notability criteria. JMWt (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kamalakanta Nayak

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

Fails WP:JOURNALIST. Subject works for Argus News, so the reference article mentioned is not independent of the subject. Online search results show coverage of another person, Kamalakanta, who is a para-athlete. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, India, and Odisha. Junbeesh (talk) 08:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination, cannot find any coverage too. Article was speedy deleted in 2021 as created by a sock, but I don't know whether the article was about another person like the mentioned athlete. Anyways Kamalakanta777 should disclose their WP:COI. Killarnee (talk) 11:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Li Xuantong

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and China. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Here's a full-fledged biography on Sina.cn: [38]. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One more article → [39].
I don't know what this is, it looks like a very lengthy print magazine article plus an interview. Changing my vote to "Strong keep"--Moscow Connection (talk) 02:25, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles talk about her and her partner Wang Xinkang. He is also nominated for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wang Xinkang. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did a very, very quick Google News search for her name in Chinese. You can search more if you want, also for her partner's name. But that's enough for me. --Moscow Connection (talk) 02:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Sina.cn article looks good, the second one is quite interview heavy which are generally unpopular on AfD but there is a short bio about them as well so leaning towards a keep at the moment. Given the age and the fact that this skater is active there is a reasonable chance that more GNG sources may appear in the near future,.Canary757 (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Keep Significant overage found by @Moscow Connection which they will hopefully add to the article itself to give readers further insight into this skater and avoid any future AFD.
  
  Shrug02 (talk) 11:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you! (I did save some articles after all.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources provided by Moscow Connection appear to have the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 15:19, 11 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!} 08:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kim Yu-seong

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and South Korea. Bgsu98 (Talk) 08:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This → [40] and this → [41] are lengthy articles about her and her twin sister (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim Yu-jae).
That's enough for me. But if you aren't satisfied, you can search like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=김유성+2009&tbm=nws. I've only looked at the very first page of results. --Moscow Connection (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentThis has originally been created as a WP:TOOSOON but the first article provided provides a good amount of info (the second seems to focus more on the sister) and as she is likely to enter senior events imminently I think it might be too hasty too delete the page so Draftify may be an option here unless more sources are found.Canary757 (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Concur with Canary757 that while the first source appears to have some decent coverage there isn't nearly enough elsewhere for this subject to meet the guidelines. Per WP:YOUNGATH, athletes such as Yu-seong are only notable if "they have received, as individuals, substantial and prolonged coverage that is: (1) independent of the subject; and (2) clearly goes beyond WP:ROUTINE coverage." I don't think that is the case yet, but as it appears to be a likely possibility I think it makes the most sense to draftify for the time being. Let'srun (talk) 16:07, 11 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!} 08:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Mahmudul Hassan

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPOL. A civil servants with a non notable position at Dhaka North City Corporation TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians and Bangladesh. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:36, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The subject is essentially the city manager of a city of almost 6 million people (in United States math). Are there any precedents to guide us on any clear line for NPOL? Bearian (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: The Dhaka North City Corporation is responsible for administering the northern part of Dhaka, not the entire city. Dhaka city has a total population of 10.2 million (as mentioned in the lead section of Dhaka). The city is governed by two mayors, representing the Dhaka North City Corporation and Dhaka South City Corporation. A civil servant serves as the city manager for each specific administrative area (i.e. north and south Dhaka). Assuming an equal distribution of the total population among the two parts, each part would have an estimated population of approximately 5.1 million. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:52, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on the information from TheBirdsShedTears. Bearian (talk) 06:32, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the person is a senior secretary of the government and director general of Local Government Division. He is maintaining two roles simultaneously in the government (with Dhaka North City Corporation administration) and it is clear that the subject is notable. Mehedi Abedin 09:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Source? Also, the Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development and Co-operatives and the Local Government Division are two different entities. Local government div is responsible for the development and supporting local government bodies which still fails to satisfy WP:NPOL. Also, he is not secretary to the central/union ministry. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@TheBirdsShedTears The sources on the article say that he is a secretary. Mehedi Abedin 08:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, could we get a review of sources here?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 8 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!} 08:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Inner West Bulls

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

Redirect to NBL1 East as I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV for this semi-pro basketball team. JTtheOG (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Basketball and Australia. JTtheOG (talk) 06:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 8 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!} 08:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey Transit Fairview Garage

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

Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. No indication of notability for this bus depot. The sources barely mention the subject and are thus not examples of in-depth coverage. Another option is to merge the info into a new article, as was suggested to the article creator here. JTtheOG (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New Jersey. JTtheOG (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to NJ Transit Bus Operations#Divisions, facilities, and operators. Djflem (talk) 07:59, 8 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!} 08:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ram Krishna Bantawa

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV as per Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!}. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Bands and musicians, Hong Kong, and Nepal. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:38, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rahmatula786,

I hope this message finds you well.

Thank you for raising concerns about the article on Ram Krishna Bantawa. I firmly believe the article meets the requirements outlined in Wikipedia’s WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV guidelines. Below is an explanation supporting this assertion:

Notability as an Author (WP:NAUTHOR):

Ram Krishna Bantawa is a recognized author and lyricist in Nepali literature. He is known for his novel Saghan Tuwanlo (Shrill Mist) and novel Amalai Chithi (Letter to Mother-whose English translation is forthcoming.) His work has made a significant cultural impact, particularly within the Nepali community.
His lyrics and songs are available on platforms such as YouTube.
Saghan Tuwanlo is included in the curriculum of Tribhuvan University, highlighting its academic and cultural significance.His novels address meaningful societal issues such as women’s rights, untouchability, and Sati Pratha (the practice of widow immolation), further emphasizing his contributions to literature and social discourse.

Significant Coverage (WP:SIGCOV):

Independent and reliable media outlets, including Kantipur, Annapurna Post, and various Hong Kong-based Nepali newspapers, have provided coverage of Bantawa’s work. This demonstrates his influence in Nepali literature and music.
He has been featured in interviews and podcasts that delve into his life, literary contributions, and societal impact, providing further evidence of significant independent coverage.
Bantawa has received several awards and certificates from reputable organizations, including:Nepalese Literary Academy Hong Kong , Heavenly Path Hong Kong , Charu Sahitya Pratisthan , Hong Kong Nepalese Federation , Lyricist Association of Nepal

The article references independent and verifiable sources that discuss Ram Krishna Bantawa’s work in detail. Taken collectively, these factors satisfy the standards for inclusion in Wikipedia under WP:NAUTHOR and WP:SIGCOV.

If additional information or sources are required to further support this assertion and enhance the article, I would be happy to assist.

Best regards, Rasilshrestha (talk) 09:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you know the person very well so you are aware of so many information. When i search on internet , I hardly find anything of significance covered in reputable media outlet about him .

regarding references, plz go through all the references, and let me know if a single source in reputable Nepali media from NPOV meeting WP criteria. If your have such sources plz put it here other than what you have kept in references. Plz note that sources in reference are not of significance. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:06, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Rahmatula786,

Thank you for your message. I want to clarify that I do not personally know the person. The information I’ve provided is based solely on my research.

I understand your concerns regarding the importance of meeting Wikipedia's notability criteria. Unfortunately, there is limited online information due to the lack of archived articles in Nepali media. However, I have collected pictures of old newspaper articles about the author, including coverage from Nepali Hong Kong newspapers during a book launch press meet.

I believe the article is written from a neutral point of view. While I cannot attach the offline sources here, I’d be happy to share them via email. Additionally, I can provide relevant YouTube(https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Ram+Krishna+Bantawa) links of his Songs, Interviews. Please let me know how you’d like to proceed.

I look forward to your guidance and support, as I am currently gathering resources and information for my next article of Nepali Singer "Kuma Sagar" . Your insights will be invaluable in helping me refine my work. Please let me know how best to proceed.

Best Regards, Rasilshrestha (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia's guidelines, contributors are discouraged from writing about individuals they personally know to maintain neutrality and avoid conflicts of interest. I can assure you that I have no personal connection with, nor do I know, the author.

In my case, I refrained from including details about the author's awards and certificates, as I was unsure about their accuracy and could not verify them through reliable sources all i had were photographs of certificates and some mentions in newspapers. However, I conducted thorough research and included information about the author's books, song lyrics, and album, as these are well-documented and publicly available.

I can provide you with ISBN of the books they were published through Sajha Publications and ASIA 2000 Ltd. Also you can search in youtube for his songs and interviews. I can additionally provide you with offline sources(Newspaper Articles, Magazines) relating to the author. Rasilshrestha (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there appears to be some sourcing not available easily online (the "surface" of the Internet). I'm going for a dive. Bearian (talk) 03:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I searched under three different names for this author and his book, Shrill Mist. I also reached out to a Nepalese friend. I've come up with zero reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:26, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

Thank you for letting me know.I am actively working on gathering reliable links and additional information to support it. I’ll share them in refrence of the article.

The reason your friend might not have found information about the novel could be because it is an older work, first published in 2008. The author is not as widely recognized as prominent Nepali literary figures like Parijat, Laxmi Prasad Devkota, or Bhanubhakta Acharya, whose biographies are included in school curriculum. Additionally, the novel hasn’t been published online, limiting its accessibility to a broader audience. However, I’ve heard that the author’s new book is being published or translated into English, which might bring more attention to their work.

It’s also worth noting that the author has spent a significant amount of time outside Nepal, particularly in Hong Kong. If you search for his name on YouTube, you’ll find his songs, which might provide some additional context.

For now, I can provide the ISBN number of the book or any other available details. I’m actively working on finding more reliable sources and digging through news archives to provide further information Rasilshrestha (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

I have posted the photos of news archive i have clicked (Ram Krishna Bantawa News Articles : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive) in archive.org Rasilshrestha (talk) 17:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the link to external site as Ram Krishna Bantawa News Archive. Rasilshrestha (talk) 18:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. There is an unbolded Keep here and a previous visit to AFD which means that Soft Deletion is not an option. It usually all comes down to sources so a source analysis of what is present in the article would be helpful at this point.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment.

Ref 1 : non neutral source ( media with no reputation has review of some book not a notable work , no findings on search on internet )

Ref 2 & 3 - not active link, neither found on google

Ref 4 - not at all a media of even minor entity

Ref 5&6 - he attends book inauguration program ( that’s all . Just his name mentioned)

Ref 7. Controversial piece about some legal issues being taken. Doesn’t support the article in any sense.

Rest sources - all are either repetition of above news or your tube material or some small contributions not covered in any genuine source. Rahmatula786 (talk) 15:02, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Ram Krishna Bantawa News Archive in external Links. They consist of photographs from old newspaper(offline Source). Rasilshrestha (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

From what i heard, his book "Aamalai Chitthi" is currently being translated and is expected to be published soon. Once it becomes available, I believe I will be able to provide you with more relevant online sources for further reference. Rasilshrestha (talk) 14:45, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is now clear evidence of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources newspapers as shown in the news archive link mentioned above in the external links section of the article. Passes WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - COI - looking at the Archies i wonder how so much personal info (like old newspapers copies) and he is planning to make an English version of some book , can be gathered unless editor knows and have approach with the subject. Recent update in the article also describes the same thing. Nothing but a Desperate attempt.Rahmatula786 (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I appreciate your concern, but as I mentioned earlier, I have photographs of offline sources that I have used for my research. Regarding the English translation, it is based on news related to Aamalai Chitthi (https://annapurnapost.com/story/451773/), where the translator Devi Panthi has spoken about it.

I assure you, this is not a desperate attempt, If it were, I would have included additional details of the author. Instead, my article focuses primarily on the subject's songs, novels, and books that he has written. For example, I have read Shrill Mist and am currently reading another work. The song I referenced is also publicly available on YouTube.

Thank you for understanding, and I hope this clarifies any confusion. Rasilshrestha (talk) 05:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How did u get all photographs , newspaper cuts , u kept in archives. What kind of research ur doing on him, can u clarify. Rahmatula786 (talk) 05:23, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I collected photographs from various sources, including a news archive where old newspapers are stacked. Unfortunately, I couldn’t obtain any materials from Gorkhapatra, as they dont allow. Some of the newspapers I used were already in my possession at home, while others were gathered during my visit to a book launch event.

The event was held to celebrate the author’s return from Hong Kong and his book launch. It featured displays of certificates for his awards and documents with official letterheads. However, I chose not to mention these certificates or documents in my article, as I wasn’t entirely certain about their authenticity or relevance Rasilshrestha (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you are related with him, how come you find or keen to find those stuff. Have you ever done such efforts to make any other article in Wikipedia. So far i can see , you are here just to make this article. If ur a genuine editor. You might have participated in various other articles, agenda . Did you understand it now. U have altogether 63 edits and almost all for this article only since May 5. That clearly shows what you are looking for . I guess u will come with some other explanations. Rahmatula786 (talk) 10:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

Thank you for your concern. I’m currently a student in my final year, and I have a deep interest in Nepali literature, arts, and culture, especially Newar traditions and history, as I am a Newar myself. I also enjoy learning about historical topics and sharing knowledge.

I want to clarify that I am not connected to the author mentioned in the article, nor am I being paid for my contributions. If this were a paid effort, I believe the author would have hired someone more experienced than me. As a newcomer to Wikipedia, I am still learning and this article has been my starting point.

I plan to work on more articles in the future and am currently gathering resources for my next article as i have already mentioned earlier. Regarding the current article, my intent has been to present information in a neutral tone. If I were biased or paid, my contributions would likely reflect that, but I have strived to adhere to Wikipedia's guidelines.

Wikipedia encourages contributors to improve content where they can, and I believe my contributions are consistent with this principle.

While it’s true that I haven’t contributed extensively to other articles yet, everyone starts somewhere. My current focus on this article does not diminish my genuine intention to support Wikipedia’s mission of providing accurate, unbiased information.

If you have specific concerns about my edits, I’d be happy to discuss and address them transparently. I value constructive feedback and aim to contribute positively to the platform. Rasilshrestha (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your explanation doesn’t justify how you gathered all those photos and newspapers pieces put in archives . Anyway i leave it for now. And want to see how other editors put their views. Rahmatula786 (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,

I respect your concerns and your efforts to make Wikipedia a reliable and comprehensive source of information for everyone. As a newcomer, I would greatly value your feedback on how I can improve my article. Could you please guide me on how to make it more effective? Also, do you think there are any changes I should consider?

Thank you for your time and assistance in advance. I truly appreciate your support and feedback. Rasilshrestha (talk) 04:40, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Uday Narkar

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

Fails the notability test for politicians, and of course WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG. A cursory search doesn't bring up anything useful. Also, peoplesdemocracy.in would be very much unreliable in this context, because it is not independent of the subject and would hardly be unbiased. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Theatre, and Maharashtra. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : Without resorting to WP:OTHERSTUFF, I will like to draw attention to the amount of blue-links at Template:Democratic_State_Chairs. State chairs in Democratic Party are generally less important than state secretaries/presidents in Indian political party like CPIM which is one of the only six national parties. State presidents/secretaries are highest position in state unit of a party.

Multiple reliable media have covered Uday Narkar. What this article needs is improvement, not deletion. Besides People's Democracy is indeed a reliable sources for this because the citation covers just the event of state conference and election of Uday Narkar as state secretary. Besides he is also the member of Central Committee of CPIM. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of universities with BDSM clubs

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

Fails WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:LISTCRITERIA - this is a directory of universities with a specific type of club with no encyclopedic merit past that the club exists. We could perhaps merge the lead into the main article (BDSM). ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Lists. ~ Matthewrb ^{Let's connect · Here to help} 16:04, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no merge/redirect. This is simply something that we shouldn't be cataloging here and is certainly not for a general reading audience or anyone actually attending a school. Nate • (chatter) 17:18, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Plenty of pages here aren't written for a "general reading audience", whatever that might be; the people joining these clubs are attending schools; Wikipedia is not censored. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NLIST due to multiple sources (starting with the first three currently given in the article) discussing the set as a set. XOR'easter (talk) 18:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources alluded to immediately above might justify an article for the overarching topic of BDSM clubs at universities, but not a directory (WP:NOTDIR) of universities that happen to have one at the moment (or ever?). WP:IINFO applies here as well -- even in such a hypothetical article, I'd argue against the inclusion of such a listing within it. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's "indiscriminate" about this list? It's not a list of all student groups of all types. WP:NOTDIR points to WP:LISTCRITERIA, which is an easy standard to meet here. XOR'easter (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This doesn't do that, nor is there any particular way that could be done here. The fact that random college X has random student club Y isn't noteworthy. Again, notability of an overall topic is not an automatic license to compile a list of every single example that can be found. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree that the sources could justify an article about BDSM at universities. My problem with this list is that student clubs are so temporary and informal that it seems impossible to produce a useful encyclopedic list of universities that "have a BDSM club" in any real sense. The sources in this list range from very credible (e.g. Columbia University) all the way to the many entries that may well have been jokes (universities often make it really, really easy to 'register' a club!), or that appeared in a student media outlet or directory years ago and probably didn't exist for long. One citation is a full twenty years old - surely it's doubtful whether that club still exists? And several entries seem to be for one-off events rather than actual clubs. I think the nature of student clubs just makes it impossible to have a verifiable, objective inclusion criteria for whether a given university "has a BDSM club" in any meaningful sense. Does the club have to have members? Does it have to hold actual events? Does it be more than one person's short term project? At the moment this is really just a list of trivia about universities where something vaguely BDSM-related has ever been reported, not a verifiable list of universities per WP:LISTCRITERIA where you would actually find a BDSM club. MCE89 (talk) 09:29, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NLIST, like List of countries with McDonald's restaurants or List of typefaces included with macOS does. I Agree with MCE89, that the criteria is a bit vague and should be defined better, but I think that is possible. In opposite to List of chemical compounds with unusual names having a BDSM club is objectively check-able by specified criteria. Nico Düsing (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just because WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, doesn't mean this one should too. The McDonald's list is...middling, because there's at least some background info along with the list entries, but the primary sourcing to the company itself is troubling. It would be better off in prose about the company's activities around the world generally. The typeface list is terrible and I would strongly argue for its deletion as well. You're merely stating that it passes NLIST without really explaining why, or addressing the concerns about NOTDIR, IINFO, etc. that have been raised. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "universities with BDSM clubs" has been treated as "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

Sources
1. Johnson, M. Alex (2012-11-30). "50 Grades of Grey: Harvard becomes latest college to accept BDSM club". NBC News. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "While Harvard's club drew widespread attention this week, it's far from the only BDSM club officially recognized by, or at least tolerated at, U.S. colleges. ... At the University of Minnesota, Kinky U is Student Organization No. 2370. ... At Tufts University in Medford, Mass., Tufts Kink started meeting this semester. ... There's no national registry of campus BDSM groups, but consensus is that the oldest is at Columbia University, in New York, where Conversio Virium meets on campus every Monday night at 9. ... The point is to "raise general awareness of kink and to promote acceptance and understanding of BDSM," according to the bylaws of Risk-Aware Consensual Kink, or RACK, at the University of Chicago."
2. Grasgreen, Allie (2012-12-04). "Fifty Shades of Crimson: Harvard is just the latest campus to sanction a kinky sex club, which students and experts say is a healthy and positive educational tool". Inside Higher Ed. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "For all the ruckus it’s causing, you’d think the new BDSM club at Harvard University was actually a new idea -- and a controversial one, at that. Not so. A lot of people seemed taken aback by last week’s widely reported news that – gasp – Ivy League students like kinky sex, too. But clubs for students interested in BDSM – short for bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, and sadism and masochism – have been around for quite some time, at least on a handful of campuses (including Cornell, Tufts and Yale Universities). And sex educators say that’s a good thing."
3. White, Rachel R. (2012-11-16). "The Story of 'No': S&M Sex Clubs Sprout Up on Ivy Campuses, and Coercion Becomes an Issue". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "The popularity of 50 Shades of Grey has accelerated a mainstreaming of the BDSM subculture already underway—the initials stand for bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism—and the trend has been especially pronounced in our more elite institutions of higher learning. Columbia has a BDSM group. So do Tufts, MIT, Yale and the University of Chicago."
4. Křivánková, Lucie (2024). BDSM Communities in Central Europe: Societal Perspectives. Cham: Springer Nature. p. 159. ISBN 978-3-031-75618-4. Retrieved 2025-01-06 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "The interest of university students in activities related to alternative sexual practices is also evident from the increasing number of official events at universities in the USA and even the establishment of clubs dedicated to BDSM and other sexual activities under the auspices of universities such as the University of Columbia, University of Chicago and Vassar College (Crocker, 2012). In Europe, academic and university activities devoted to BDSM can be found, for instance, in Ghent University (2020) in Belgium and the University of Helsinki in Finland (2020)."
5. Coslor, Erica; Crawford, Brett; Brents, Barbara (2017-08-01). "Whips, Chains and Books on Campus: How Organizations Legitimate Their Stigmatized Practices". Academy of Management Proceedings. 2017 (1). doi:10.5465/AMBPP.2017.12142abstract. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The study notes: "We examine the intersection of core stigma and strategies in emergent, purpose-driven organizations through the provocative case of official university student organizations focused on kink and kinky sexuality."
6. Meeker, Carolyn (2011). "Bondage and Discipline, Dominance and Submission, and Sadism and Masochism (BDSM) Identity Development". Proceedings of the Tenth Annual College of Education & GSN Research Conference. Florida International University. p. 158. Archived from the original on 2025-01-06. Retrieved 2025-01-06.
  The article notes: "Iowa State University Cuffs is an educational group through which students learn about BDSM and safe, consensual, and non-exploitative human sexuality. Their educational topics include how to safely meet a play partner; bondage; negotiating a scene; and preventing sexual assault (CUFFS, 2010). Risk-Aware Consensual Kink (RACK) is the University of Chicago BDSM club. As a registered student organization, RACK raises awareness about kink and provides resources to interested students (RACK, 2010). Though such groups seem to be safe forums in which students choose to explore and develop their identities, not all colleges have similar groups."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list can be improved by removing entries that are not sourced to reliable sources. The list can be improved by modifying the inclusion criteria to be "former and current" clubs so that entries can remain even when the clubs no longer exist. The policies say that articles containing flaws should not be deleted if they can be improved. Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion says, If editing can address all relevant reasons for deletion, this should be done rather than deleting the page. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required says, Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress. Collaborative editing means that incomplete or poorly written first drafts can evolve over time into excellent articles. Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome. Cunard (talk) 13:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

None of these sources addresses the concerns raised or demonstrates notability sufficient for creating such a list, rather than for general topic itself. Also, please stop spamming walls of text into deletion discussions, as it's generally disruptive. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given Cunard's late addition of sources this seems worth a relist of what would otherwise be weighted (weakly) towards deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the issue is having a list, rather than an article for the general topic itself, then we could resolve that by changing the title to something that doesn't say "list of" (and some ordinary editing within the article text). Per WP:ATD, that's an argument for moving, not deletion. The issue of information growing out of date (student clubs are known to shut down on occasion) could be addressed by, for example, including "as of" dates in the article text. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. The topic is notable, but the list is sorta kinda just a directory. Conyo14 (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The list passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists through the significant coverage in reliable sources, so I think a title with "list" in it is fine. An article about the general topic of "universities with BDSM clubs" possibly could be written but care must be taken to write it in a way that complies with Wikipedia:No original research#Synthesis of published material. The list could be improved by adding more information about each entry and possibly converting it into a table. The "Description" column of List of selfie-related injuries and deaths is an example of a list that provides more context. I agree with you that per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion and Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required, an article having room for improvement is not a policy-based reason for deletion. Cunard (talk) 13:46, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per 35.139.154.158 Buffs (talk) 15:34, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profoundfrustration (talk • contribs) 17:30, 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!} 08:14, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 328

AfDs for this article:

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

I nominated this page at AfD 4 years ago because there was no significant coverage of the bus route itself and it failed GNG. The consensus was to delete and redirect to List of bus routes in London.

The page was recreated in 2023 by Garuda3 but the notability issues have not been addressed. I was not able to find anything of note in a WP:BEFORE search.

The references in the article do not establish notability. They mainly concern trivia "tender" news regarding bus companies winning contracts to operate bus routes, the sale of a bus depot which hosted the route at one point from one bus company to another, local news about planned changes to several bus routes, or operating incidents and traffic accidents that occured on a route 328 bus.

None of this constitutes significant coverage of route 328 itself. The article still fails GNG, and should be redirected back to List of bus routes in London. SK2242 (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Travel and tourism and England. SK2242 (talk) 07:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect back to List of bus routes in London. Still not seeing evidence of notability since it was reopened, at least nothing like plenty of other bus route articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in London. Sources don't establish notability. Procyon117 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

B. K. Goenka

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. Just a detailed resume WP:NORESUMES. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There was an AfD discussion in the past Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Balkrishan Goenka, which should be considered for this discussion. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 08:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Source 5 is a RS, briefly mentioning him in relation to the company. 8 is about his housing, 11 is about a lunch conversation with him, 15 is him giving his opinions... Some coverage about the Welspun company. I don't see notability for this individual with the sourcing used, nor can I find much else. The rest of the sourcing aren't in RS or don't help notability. Still not seeing enough to build an article with. Oaktree b (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Space Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology program

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

This article lacks inline cites and the topic is already covered in Space-based_solar_power#Exploratory_Research_and_Technology_program No objection to merging if you think the refs at the end of this article are sufficient. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Spaceflight, and United States of America. Chidgk1 (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manish Kejriwal

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

A promotional biography of a businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:NBIO. None of the sources constitute WP:SIGCOV. Majorly citations are WP:NEWSORGINDIA, WP:ROUTINE, and WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople and India. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the whole page resembles a detailed resume WP:NORESUMES. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Just routine and trivial coverage that doesn't stand out. Procyon117 (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Heptalogy

AfDs for this article:

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

While trilogy is notable, subsequent (longer) concepts are very rarely discussed in depth in literary dictionaries, encyclopedias or other academic woks. This is a "4th" nom but as far as I can tell the previous noms were mass noms including, among other, better known tetralogy. Let's start from the most obscure end of this spectrum. My BEFORE as well as the quotations used for refs here do not show that 'heptalogy' has WP:SIGCOV anywhere, this is just a rarely used dict-def term) that can be redirected to Series fiction (which I am writing now) per WP:ATD-R. The article is just a dict def plus a list of notable heptalogies. Frankly, as I have recently begun incrasingly reviewing and writing about literature, I very much doubt we need more than the article on trilogy, as from the perspective of literature studies, there is no significance difference between the number of installments in a series outside 'short' and 'long'. For now, however, let's cut some dict-cruft. And if anyone wants to keep this - pleas show us how this meets SIGCOV. PS. Perhaps the list could be split into the list of heptalogies, if WP:LISTN can be shown to be met... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature and Lists. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take it you're bringing this here because of prior AfDs, rather than BLAR'ing it when your new article is ready? Jclemens (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also called septology, cf. Jon Fosse. Geschichte (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
delete I have to say that the division of serial novels according to the number of volumes really makes no sense except as part of a general discussion of the class. Maybe. It's particularly obvious when you have something like the Earthsea books where for a long time there were three, then a fourth, and I lost track at how much further Leguin went after that. Does anyone refer to the series as an N-olgy where N is greater than three? And does anyone care what N equals? I'm just not seeing this as a meaningful class. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Nice work on the Series fiction article! Obviously the exact number of works is not a defining characteristic that connects a series to others with multiple volumes. A curated list may be good for the main article, but not sorted by number of works. Reywas92^Talk 14:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: obviously a notable topic and a useful entry (See the three precedent AfDs, please; lists of notable works that are considered so include https://www.babelio.com/liste/6017/Les-plus-belles-heptalogies (in French)). -Mushy Yank. 16:46, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (an edit-conflict with the above response), no, I disagree. Several of the sources currently used in Heptalogy discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series, stating that there is special significance to the author's choice of seven. The C.S.Lewis references are the obvious ones. These are rock-solid evidence that the concept is wikinotable. The same applies to trilogies, with even more force. The problem here is that our articles on both trilogies and heptalogies are rather poor, lazily producing lists rather than discussing the underlying concept as covered by literary scholars. But AfD is not for clean-up, and the lists aren't awful enough to merit TNT. Merging is a possibility, but I think it might unbalance the Series fiction article; trilogies, for instance, merit an absolutely enormous discussion because three has been seen as super-significant by many authors. There's also a strong need to distinguish, in series-fiction, between those series that are 3/4/5/6/7 by accident, with no underlying significance beyond the author's getting bored and moving on, and those where there is real meaning in the number. I think it's safer to cover this by having articles on the significance of a trilogy/heptalogy etc. rather than repeatedly trying to work out which series are "true" trilogies/heptalogies in the series fiction article. Elemimele (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Elemimele I am happy to be proven wrong, but could you expand the article with a few sentences based on the sources that "discuss specifically the seven-ness of these series"? That would help make it more than a list. That said, I expect most n-volume long series, including heptalogies, are that long simply because that's when the author run out of steam, without particular planning to reach that particular target number. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Madhu Azad

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

Being a mayor does not pass WP:NPOL, Fails WP:GNG. GrabUp - Talk 05:44, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom on the basis of failing WP:SIGCOV. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 07:56, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, and Haryana. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 08:37, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete : Lacks notability. Gauravs 51 (talk)
Comment: I would like clarification from the community about whether we have an arbitrary cutoff for automatic notability of mayors; in this case, of a city that is almost 900,000 people. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : Being the first women Mayor of a major municipal corporation (though a reserved seat), she got good coverage and also during her stint as mayor... I feel, she passes general notability criteria. I am adding some more references. Davidindia (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:HEY. I don't see any discussion on bright line tests, but I do see some improvement in the article. Bearian (talk) 02:46, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided. There has been substantial editing activity since its nomination so a source assessment would be welcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: I have concerns about the sources because most of them fall under WP:NEWSORGINDIA. Also, WP:NPOL does not mention mayors, so the subject does not have automatic notability.--DesiMoore (talk) 16:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep She is an elected politician; therefore, my vote is weak keep. However, it fails to meet the criteria for significant coverage. Most of the references derive from her electoral outcomes. Bakhtar40 (talk) 09:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An additional relist before potentially closing this as No consensus. As far as WP:NPOL goes, it also states Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage can pass so does this "press coverage" exist? And, no, there is no "bright line" guideline for mayors and it is definitely not dependent on how big the city/town is.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think the sources that have been added since nomination represent adequate SIGCOV to satisfy WP:BASIC, even if individually none of them have a great deal of depth about the subject. WP:NEWSORGINDIA also doesn't mean that Indian news sources are inherently bad or unreliable — it just says that Indian media outlets often include poorly labelled sponsored content and press releases, which I don't think really applies here. There also seems to be a plenty of local coverage in Hindi, but I'm hesitant to weigh that too heavily given that I don't speak the language and am relying on Google Translate. MCE89 (talk) 06:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Agree with MCE89 that WP:NEWSORGINDIA is not relevant here as only 4 of the 13 sources are from Times group. Also the coverage was regular, from 2017 with news items appearing every year for over five years, thanks to her controversial acts. I just added one more controversy. Will await the decision... either way... Davidindia (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Zinda Park

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

The article fails to meet WP:GEOLAND and WP:GNG as it lacks significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources to establish notability. Its significance revolves around a single protest and lacks substantial information on the park's broader significance. On reading the article I observed some of the article lines read like promotional material, which goes against WP:NOTADVERT. Without comprehensive, independent coverage, the topic does not warrant a standalone article. Nxcrypto Message 05:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Nxcrypto Message 05:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Travel and tourism-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in past, the sources were not good enough but later many sources are published and they are independent from single protest. See these sources for the example,
It is possible to find more sources independent from the protest incident, but the recent google glitch made it almost impossible, I will still try to find more source. Also, the article was translated. So the WP:NOTADVERT issue we can see on the article is from translation and can be fixed. To me, the topic has necessary elements to be a standalone article. Mehedi Abedin 10:33, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your given sources include local news sites, many of them appear to focus on its tourism appeal rather than offering significant, in-depth coverage that establishes notability. Nxcrypto Message 11:02, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- There is no problem using "local news sites," especially when you are using it to refer to national newspapers like The Daily Star and Dhaka Tribune.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Luno (cryptocurrency company)

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

This doesn't seem to meet WP:SIGCOV in any way, and most of the sources are non RS crypto sites. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Companies, South Africa, and Singapore. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BuySomeApples: Hello BuySomeApples. Thanks for the message, your comments are much appreciated. I'm not sure if you are aware of the South African context? Luno as a Crypto Currency is being normalized in my country. By big many players, including media giant Naspers who was an early investor, our inspirational Springbok rugby captain Siya Kolisi who has agreed to act as a Luno evangelist. If you visit Capetown, you will see that the Luno logo appears on top of Skyscrapers, alongside well known banking brands.

South African regulators have recently defined crypto as a financial product. IMHO a currency should be able to store value and crypto's volatility has thus not been able to do that. NASPERS was a publisher under apartheid and its magazines, newspapers normalized a fascist theocracy. A number of their journalists admitted to their role, but the company was late delivered their apology for their propaganda role. This same company used its money and media to influence to promote Luno Crypto Currency and re-assure assure bitcoin investors that their investments were safe. We know that there is spillover between cryptocurencies and the global financial markets. There is no need to restrict the references to RS crypto sites (I don't really know what RS Crypto is anyway)

To my mind this is notable. If you agree, then this will be worked into future versions of the article. Kind Regards Derek J Moore (talk) 10:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I found a few references that are basically routine coverage, short of meeting WP:ORGCRIT. Could also redirect to Digital Currency Group who is the owner of the company. --CNMall41 (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:SIGCOV. CoinDesk, Bizcommunity and DealStreetAsia is not a reliable sources. ~🌀 Ampil ^{「💬 / 📝」} 02:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Digital Currency Group. Basically nothing in the article is about the company. And the company is not notable anyway. Polygnotus (talk) 08:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vivo X30

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

No shown notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Did your WP: BEFORE include a search for sources in Chinese? HyperAccelerated (talk) 11:09, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I typically do not search for sources outside of English as I cannot read Chinese and thus cannot assess their notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there has been little participation and User:TheTechie has been asked a question they should answer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ʾUlu al-ʿAzm

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

Very short article which could be merged into prophets in Islam. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 05:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran#ʾUlu al-ʿAzm: and per se, the term may not necessarily mean the high ranking prophets - see the meaning of the term, which perhaps might merit an entry on Wikitionary. Redirects are cheap and since the term is mentioned at the target, a redirect might work. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 06:30, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quran mentioned them as high ranking prophets in Quran 2:253. Therealbey (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that they weren't. I said the term doesn't only mean them. _Regards,Aafi ^(talk) 05:57, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I was pinged as the "creator" of the page, but really my contribution was just to fix up some manual-page-move snafu; the page creator was @Therealbey:, I think. See User talk:Therealbey#Ulu_al-ʿAzm. I agree that the standalone page is basically redundant with the place it used to redirect to: List of characters and names mentioned in the Quran#ʾUlu al-ʿAzm. I'm generally sympathetic to the idea that "if you build it, they will come" (I see nothing wrong with Therealbey's splitting out this section into its own page so there's a place to hang more in-depth coverage); but I agree that no in-depth coverage has materialized in the past couple months, so maybe that's a reason to turn the page back into a redirect. Doesn't matter to me. ... +1 for adding a Wiktionary entry, if a WP:RS can be found. But note that Wiktionary tends not to accept Romanizations as entries; and wikt:أُولُو ٱلْعَزْم would be of little use to someone googling the phrase "ulu al-azm." --Quuxplusone (talk) 14:38, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as we have two separate suggestions for Redirect/Merge target pages. Just a note to the nominator, Prophets in Islam is not a suitable Merge target article because it is a Redirect, not an article. Please check links before you propose them.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bengal Commercial Bank

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

Nothing referenced except for a couple of questionable references in the lede. Plenty of POV pushing and promotional language in the rest. Was borderline to CSD it. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 05:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Bangladesh. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 05:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Redirect to List of Banks in Bangladesh. An account with a declared COI removed sourced content and made it a version of the official website in the edit before you nominated the page.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 12:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I assume the nominator did perform BEFORE on the article history because neither version (including the version VM911 created) is acceptable here at all and this definitely isn't a keep, as the restored version is just sentence after sentence about the bank's financial performance and its C-suite, but nothing at all about the actual functions of the bank itself. It's still terribly written and just sourced with multiple press releases about MILL bank openings and the bank performing routine functions like getting insurance and clearinghouse approvals. Nate • (chatter) 15:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pantnagar Seeds

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

Nothing to find WP:RS. No evidence of Notability. Fails WP:GNG. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Uttarakhand. Bakhtar40 (talk) 04:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The academic sources available in Google Books and Google Scholar suggest that there is a case for notability on the basis that Pantnagar Seeds played an important historical role in India's Green Revolution. These are a few of the better academic sources I found: [42] [43] [44] [45]. There are also a number of book length sources that seem potentially useful but that I can't access beyond snippets. I don't think there's an WP:NCORP pass based on more recent sources, but I'm undecided on whether the historical significance is enough to merit a separate article. I'm probably leaning keep, but I'm open to the argument that the topic is already covered adequately in G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology and that this should be redirected there. MCE89 (talk) 05:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am agree with you that this could be redirected to G. B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology. Bakhtar40 (talk) 08:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Wolf (musician)

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

I Believe this artcile should be deleted as the article is not notable and the writer of the article has a Conflict of interest. Jake Jakubowski ^Talk 20:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jake-jakubowski - this AFD was never transcluded to the log and was missing the templates. I have tried to fix it for you.Jay8g [V•T•E] 04:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, Connecticut, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is an Allmusic staff biography which is sigcov sourcing per WP:RSMUSIC: [46]. This profile is sigcov: Korea Herald, which is 5 years after his music became popular so is evidence of WP:SUSTAINED. The New York Times also appears to substantiate the charting in Korea: [47]. Potential here for meeting WP:MUSICBIO. ResonantDis_tortion
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. ResonantDis_tortion 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. ResonantDis_tortion 23:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Métier

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

Fails to demonstrate notability under WP:NCORP. Available references mostly discuss product launches, no significant coverage of the company itself and the product themselves do not appear independently notable. Brandon (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Brandon (talk) 03:48, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear WP:NCORP failure; sources are either non-independent or they are WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:22, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, article has been PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Evah Destruction

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

Drag performer fails WP:NBIO. GTrang (talk) 04:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the subject is not notable, then the page should be redirected to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3, not deleted altogether. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Television, Entertainment, Sexuality and gender, Georgia (U.S. state), and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Pincus

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

I don't believe she meets WP:ARTIST. Could not find coverage in google news or books. The awards do not appear major (and not reported in press). She is not part of a permanent collection of notable galleries. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Visual arts, and Australia. LibStar (talk) 03:45, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I am looking her up in Australian art sources to check notability. In the meantime, as most of her career has been in Germany and she has received more exposure there, is there any way to refer her article to German Wikipedia and see if the German editors can find her as a notable artist there? LPascal (talk) 00:04, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The German article is also poorly sourced. LibStar (talk) 00:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article Anne Pincus does not have sources either (other Wikipedia sites have different criteria, and don't always require sources etc). Her own website, shown in the External links section, has a Press section which lists reviews of her exhibitions in publications like Süddeutsche Zeitung and Abendzeitung. Those articles have links to the newspapers' websites - I've just searched Süddeutsche Zeitung and found a 2021 review, but on first glance neither seems to go back far enough for reviews before that. I think as far as galleries are concerned, we'd also need to search in German galleries ... RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:08, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dollya Black

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

Drag performer fails WP:NBIO. GTrang (talk) 04:07, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: If the subject is not notable, then the page should be redirected to The Boulet Brothers' Dragula season 3, not deleted altogether. Thanks, ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Television, Entertainment, Sexuality and gender, and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genlin

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

Highly promotional and of very questionable notability over a WP:SUSTAINED period. Amigao (talk) 03:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Businesspeople, Animal, China, Japan, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:23, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree that the article as written seems quite promotional in tone, and it seems there might possible be conflict on interest concerns, but those are both things to be fixed through editing, not AfD nominations. If you want to go through and reword all the promotional parts, have at it. There seems to be more than enough coverage to establish notability though (some sources aren’t great, but there are enough that are to establish notability). As for WP:SUSTAINED arguments… I see sources from 2016 - 2024 so I can’t see how it applies here? Absurdum4242 (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, definitely needs cleanup but WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. Keep but WP:STUBIFY is appropriate. DCsansei (talk) 11:59, 10 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!} 03:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dien Sanh train crash

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

Fails WP:EVENT. No lasting impact or coverage. All the sources are from March 2015. Whilst number of deaths is not a criterion, we don't generally keep articles with such a low death and injury count. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Vietnam. LibStar (talk) 03:35, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to List_of level crossing crashes#Vietnam where it is covered. This sort of accident is common and there's no need to go into detail. Mangoe (talk) 14:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This was a major incident in Viet Nam and appears to be a translation of the Vietnamese wiki article, so lacks a WP:LASTING source. I can't find that source since it'd be in Vietnamese, but if it exists this would be an easy keep. SportingFlyer T·C 01:37, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Samsung Global Scholarship Program

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

This article lacks inline citations. Google news search yields just 1 hit. This article is basically a list of non notable individuals. Fails WP:NLIST and GNG. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Education, and South Korea. LibStar (talk) 03:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect (no merge) to Scholarships in Korea#Samsung Scholarships. Nonnotable list of nonnotable people. The LinkedIn extlinks are particularly foul. pburka (talk) 04:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above seefooddiet (talk) 13:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment whilst Delete is my first preference, if this is redirected then article history should be deleted first as it contains names of numerous non notable individuals. LibStar (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Boys' U17 Pan-American Volleyball Cup

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

Fails WP:SPORTSEVENT, all but 1 of the supplied sources are primary from the event organiser. Also nominating:

2024 Girls' U17 Pan-American Volleyball Cup. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Volleyball, Latin America, and North America. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of independent WP:SIGCOV for a pass of WP:GNG, WP:NSPORT. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting this because User:LibStar, you haven't formatted this bundled nomination correctly. You can't just mention an article, this nomination must be formatted appropriately. This week will give you time to correct this. Just review WP:AFD instructions for nominating multiple articles.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of same reasons as above:

LibStar (talk) 03:05, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Manop Leeprasansakul

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

Declined prod that was redirected. I contested the redirect Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_8#Manop_Leeprasansakul. Fails WP:SPORTSCRIT and WP:NOLY. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Olympics, and Thailand. LibStar (talk) 02:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Googling his name in Thai turns up a few hits in relation to his work as a police officer (his 2004 Master's thesis, 2008 news mentioning a transfer to the Inspector General's office, 2016 contact directory giving the rank of Pol.Lt.Col.) in addition to passing mentions in articles about Thailand in international sporting events[48][49], but nothing that could be considered in-depth. The latter two links indicate he's a gold medallist at the 1981 and 1989 SEA Games though. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard J. Schaffer

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on the article it seems like the relevant criteria here is almost certainly WP:NAUTHOR rather than WP:SIGCOV. That said, I don't think the subject meets WP:NAUTHOR either. They've written too many books for me to do a thorough search for reviews of every single one, but none are with major publishers and I wasn't able to find any reviews in reliable publications — just a handful of reviews on blogs (e.g. [50] [51] [52] [53]). The author is also very briefly mentioned in a couple of books like this one about the Sherlock Holmes fandom, but nothing to suggest they meet WP:NAUTHOR criteria 1. Overall a lot of low quality sources, but nothing to suggest the kind of significant or well-known work or body of work that WP:NAUTHOR requires. MCE89 (talk) 04:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Authors, Police, and Pennsylvania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep found reviews for The Thief of All Light on Publisher's Weekly and the Library Journal. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Croft Farm railway station

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

Notable? Lack of references? And mostly better served as part of the Cofton article? DragonofBatley (talk) 02:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Stations and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cross-City Line as there doesn't appear to be enough content to have a separate page for this. JMWt (talk) 18:45, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article says it was in Longbridge but was between Barnt Green and Cofton stations, which is not in Longbridge. The grid reference is for Claydon in Buckinghamshire. The dates in the article are the same as Cofton except the first opening, one opened in September and the other in October, exactly a month later. I couldn't find anything else and it's possible that the differences are mistakes and this is just another name for Cofton or an error on a map. Peter James (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might be right. This source which gives otherwise detailed information about the line omits to mention a Croft Farm. It does however mention Cofton Farm as a temporary terminus, opened 17 Sept 1840 and states that the line was extended to Birmingham on 17 December 1840. I also suspect there might be some crossed wires here and both stations are the same. JMWt (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John James Fox

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

Lack of notability, unreferenced; looks like it was created by COI editors; ELs old and dead (removed some). Laterthanyouthink (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Music, Advertising, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article is a decade out of date, with no links to any of the musical acts to show notability. I've never heard of any of them. No sourcing that I can find for this person. Not sure what's left, delete this and be done. Oaktree b (talk) 04:21, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sartaj Mera Tu Raaj Mera

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

Unless there are non-English sources that can be found, there is nothing I can find that amounts to significant coverage. A redirect to Hum TV would be a good WP:ATD but would not qualify as a standalone page. CNMall41 (talk) 02:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 02:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 California wildfires controversy

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

Does not need to be a separate article. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 02:00, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics, Environment, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not good editorial practice to repeat political accusations without any attempt to convey to readers whether they are true or not. The wildfire article naturally places the political discourse in the proper context. (t · c) buidhe 02:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A content fork. There are several controversies related to these wildfires, but they belong to main page on this subject.My very best wishes (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If all you can write is three sentences, you very obviously don't need to have a separate article for it – put the info in the main page. Per above, not a good topic for an article either. Reywas92^Talk 03:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The real heroes are still out there putting their lives on the line to stop the fires.The finger pointing comes from those who stand on the sidelines. We don't need this on Wikipedia.— Maile (talk) 03:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This could easily fit in the main article for the topic. TwitchingMovie (talk) 11:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This 'article' is literally the equivalent of gossip and none of this should be merged into the main article. Nate • (chatter) 15:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's already basically mentioned there. Trump will say things, but not everything needs an article. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete: Nothing here is worth keeping here that was already mentioned in the main article. Not to mention the use of this title makes it an accusation that clearly does not meet WP:NPOV. Conyo14 (talk) 19:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I could see this easily being in a Controversy section of the January 2025 Southern California wildfires page, but not as a standalone page. OhNoKaren (talk) 04:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:AVALANCHE. The article seems to be a WP:POVFORK Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, Los Angeles

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 January 8#Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, Los Angeles. Where participants decided that the article should be restored. Pinging Phatblackmama (the editor who BLARed the article). CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: United States of America and California. CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Baldwin Hills, Los Angeles and Crenshaw, Los Angeles are notable but there's not a need for another article grouping them. Reywas92^Talk 03:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "History" section of Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw, Los Angeles repeats the same section from Baldwin Hills. "Notable People" section has names from both the Baldwin Hills and Crenshaw pages, with citations specifically to either Baldwin Hills or Crenshaw (not Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw). Even the Los Angeles Times, who coined the name the "Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw" around 2008, stated in 2019 that Nipsey Hussle was from Crenshaw, not Baldwin Hills/Crenshaw^[1].Phatblackmama (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Jennings, Angel. "Nipsey Hussle had a vision for South L.A. It all started with a trip to Eritrea". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 8, 2019. The world was suddenly bigger than the Crenshaw district of South L.A., where he grew up

Bharam (2024 TV series)

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

No significant coverage showing notability. Just run of the mill churnalism, mentions, etc. from unreliable sources or unbylined articles. Moved to mainspace by creator after decline at AfC. CNMall41 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and Pakistan. CNMall41 (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG DonaldD23 talk to me 00:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Stay by --Sunuraju (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator, what is your rationale for the "stay" vote? --CNMall41 (talk) 01:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunuraju please remember that wikipedia is not a democracy and you must explain your reasoning. All Tomorrows No Yesterdays (Ughhh.... What did I do wrong this time?) 15:19, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Poorly sourced, poorly cited, fails WP:GNG 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 08:52, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cowie Island

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Masterhatch (talk) 15:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Masterhatch (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Firstly, I want to say I don't do this very often so if I make a mistake or miss a step, please forgive me. I do not believe this island meets notability requirements. I can only find one source and there seems to be nothing special about this very small island. Masterhatch (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cree Lake; see also WP:GEONATURAL. There's not much to be found online about this island apart from placename databases and weather websites. No hits on ProQuest, Google Scholar returns 1 citation (no preview), and Google Books returns a number of hits, but most are for the unrelated "Cowie's Island". Mind matrix 20:41, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

[LAT_2019-04-08-1] Jennings, Angel. "Nipsey Hussle had a vision for South L.A. It all started with a trip to Eritrea". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved April 8, 2019. The world was suddenly bigger than the Crenshaw district of South L.A., where he grew up

[1]