User:Sun Creator/AFD


User page	Talk Page	To Do List	INFO	AFD	Control Panel	More

Checkuser pages
Requests: Unlisted • IP check • On hold Archives: Main • Older • IP checks • Unsorted
Clerk pages
Clerk Overview • Noticeboard • Procedures
Shortcut
This page can be quickly accessed through: WP:RFCU/C/P

Google books Wikipedia article traffic statistics Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL WP:N WP:CLS WP:LIST WP:RS

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 02	January 04 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Madhvi Madhukar

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

Fails WP:SINGER. While she has received some media coverage, it appears to be largely sensationalistic. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Pushpa Sahu

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

Only selected for training camp before AFC Women’s Futsal Asian Cup 2025. I didn’t found any sources which discuss the subject and this player hasn’t won any medal at international level. Fails WP:GNG as well as WP:SPORTS TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, India, and Assam. TheSlumPanda (talk) 11:52, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Watts Water Technologies

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

OK, lets see what the references here suggest.

Reference 1 is from GlobalData, which would at first glace appear to be a reliable source. That said, it would seem verify that a company of this name simply exists, and does not support its notability as a corporate entity
Reference 2 simply asserts that this company is a subsidiary of Emerson Swan, an article that I can see has never been created. While not in any determinative, this would appear that a notional WP:REDIRECT from subsidiary to parent company would have negligible chance of passing a Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
Reference 3 is from that respected broadsheet Foster's Daily Democrat. That said, the lack of a byline and the text "Webster Valve, Inc" suggests that it may possibly be paid content rather than journalistic content
reference 4 is a Home Depot link that I am unable to access.
reference 5 is a product page from Lowe's
reference 6 is an assertion on Yahoo Finance that Watts Water Technologies is listed (as "WTS") on the New York Stock Exchange

It would appear to me that this more complex than a simple WP:A7 about a historical manufacturer of plumbing fixtures and a local company in Franklin, New Hampshire. As always, please do let me do know if you disagree, revert without an edit summary, or whatever you chose otherwise. Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 11:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Michelle Regalado Deatrick

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

I do not think this woman is notable. 🄻 🄰 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politicians, Women, Poetry, Environment, and Michigan. 🄻 🄰 11:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Cashfree

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

Fails to meet WP:NCORP, specifically WP:CORPDEPTH. Besides the usual PR-announcements, sources are mostly churnalistic in nature, fitting the description at WP:NEWSORGINDIA. The article carries a promotional tone and was created by a WP:SPA. Yuvaank (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and India. Yuvaank (talk) 10:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete: Per nomination. Most of the sources are press releases and undisclosed sponsored articles. - Ratnahastin (talk) 12:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete The subject of the article has a lot of mentions because it was raided by the government...along with a bunch of other similar services. While the subject is mentioned in the articles, they do not actually discuss Cashfree, just the raids. I don't see any coverage specifically of "Cashfree." Angryapathy (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage. Mysecretgarden (talk) 04:14, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Absence of citations Regardless of the topic, it does not fulfill WP:SIGCOV.. Bakhtar40 (talk) 07:31, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep The company clearly meets the WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH criteria. I understand that there are concerns raised regarding WP:NEWSORGINDIA, which is why I have provided a detailed source assess table below, including proper justification for each source. In this table, I have chosen The Hindu as a primary reliable source because it has covered the company through general news, including substantial negative coverage. If the article has any promotional tone, it can be addressed and rectified accordingly. Regarding the WP:SPA accusation, I kindly request that we focus on discussing this deletion nomination based on its merits rather than making unwarranted assumptions. Such accusations demoralises.

Source assessment table prepared by User:Silkroadster
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/cashfree-payments-to-expand-to-15-18-countries-over-next-2-years/article65491640.ece	Potentially independent because it is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/post-pa-licence-cashfree-payments-transaction-volumes-have-increased-by-30/article67980015.ece	Potentially independent because it is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/cashfree-payments-lays-off-employees-across-functions/article66370477.ece	Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer.	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-financial-crime-agency-searches-razorpay-paytm-cashfree-2022-09-03/	Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer(s).	WP:REUTERS	This is not trivial coverage, as the reporters emphasized its significance by contacting the company, though the company did not reply to their request for comment.	✔ Yes
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4924965	Potentially independent because its a policy paper jointly published by researchers who are, in turn, funded by two government-funded agencies, as mentioned in a reliable column.	Policy paper jointly published by Economic and Social Research Council and Indian Council of Social Science Research	Significant coverage at following page numbers 32, and 35; addresses the topic directly and in detail.	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/rbi-asks-razorpay-cashfree-payments-to-pause-on-boarding-new-merchants/article66271668.ece	Potentially independent because news has a negative connotation and is written in a reliable news source by a staff writer.	WP:THEHINDU	WP:SIGCOV addresses the topic directly and in detail	✔ Yes
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RT3rEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA108&dq=%22Cashfree+Payments%22&hl=en&source=newbks_fb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Cashfree%20Payments%22&f=false / https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-4326-5_9	Potentially independent; the company mentioned in a book chapter which an academician writes	Published by a renowned book publisher; Springer Nature	WP:SIGCOV; Coverage found at the following page number 108; addresses the topic. However, please note that significant coverage is more than a trivial mention; it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, as seen in this case. Hence, it is added to Further reading MOS:FURTHER	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Silkroadster (talk) 06:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It is not an accusation or assumption. You have made very few significant edits outside this topic, which effectively makes you a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account (SPA). I encourage you to contribute to other pages as well to avoid appearing as an SPA. More importantly, your source analysis is incorrect. Check my assessment of these sources below. Yuvaank (talk) 10:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

When someone begins editing Wikipedia, they usually work on just one page. Instead of doubting them ASPERSION, it’s better to be more understanding. That said, I have reviewed your source assessment and, to some extent, I agree with you. To overcome it, I have added an another source analysis table. Silkroadster (talk) 12:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Source assessment table prepared by User:Yuvaank
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/info-tech/cashfree-payments-to-expand-to-15-18-countries-over-next-2-years/article65491640.ece	Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from the company's CEO	WP:THEHINDU	Fails WP:SIGCOV, lacks independent editorial content, just repeats what the CEO says	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/post-pa-licence-cashfree-payments-transaction-volumes-have-increased-by-30/article67980015.ece	Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from the company's CEO	WP:THEHINDU	Fails WP:SIGCOV, lacks independent editorial content, just repeats what the CEO says	✘ No
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/companies/cashfree-payments-lays-off-employees-across-functions/article66370477.ece	Primarily based on direct quotes and paraphrases from an unidentified source	WP:THEHINDU	WP:ROUTINE announcement with a grand total of just 90 words.	✘ No
https://www.reuters.com/world/india/india-financial-crime-agency-searches-razorpay-paytm-cashfree-2022-09-03/	Primarily based on the Enforcement Directorate's statements	WP:REUTERS	WP:ROUTINE announcement of regulatory action that does not establish the company's notability. Besides, the company is only barely mentioned in this article.	✘ No
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4924965	Potentially independent	Policy paper jointly published by Economic and Social Research Council and Indian Council of Social Science Research	Potentially passes WP:SIGCOV, I'll let this one slide although the puffery in Page 35 raises some concerns.	✔ Yes
https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/money-and-banking/rbi-asks-razorpay-cashfree-payments-to-pause-on-boarding-new-merchants/article66271668.ece	~ Largely based on direct quotes and paraphrases from unidentified sources	WP:THEHINDU	WP:ROUTINE announcement of regulatory action that does not establish the company's notability. Besides, the company is only barely mentioned in this article.	✘ No
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RT3rEAAAQBAJ&newbks=0&printsec=frontcover&pg=PA108&dq=%22Cashfree+Payments%22&hl=en&source=newbks_fb&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22Cashfree%20Payments%22&f=false / https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-99-4326-5_9	Independent material	Written by two seemingly reliable authors and published by Springer Nature	Fails WP:SIGCOV, Page 108 includes two sentences about regulatory action involving this and another company. No in-depth coverage on this company itself.	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep: Although... I am a deletionist, I support keeping this page because the source analysis table meets the SIRS criteria. But, if the page-creating editor is found to be evading a block or anything like that, it could be easily nominated for deletion under G5. I assume this because the page has an alternate history. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 13:43, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Nobody has accused the page creator of being a block evader. My nomination is based solely on the quality of the sources used, and I have provided a detailed rebuttal of the source analysis table above. I was also unaware of the previously unsuccessful attempts to create a page for this company at Cashfree Payments, Cashfree, Draft:Cashfree and Draft:Cashfree Payments. Thanks for pointing this out. Yuvaank (talk) 10:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment - The creator's source assessment depends largely on The Hindu which has a poor reputation for fact checking[1][2]. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
That's why HINDU says its' opinion pieces should be handled according to the appropriate guidelines. I have used clear news reports, following the RSP qualification criteria for The Hindu. No source is perfect; their coverage often has some bias. Sometimes they even apologise and retract. For example, check out the List of The New York Times controversies. Despite these controversies, have we ever banned the NYT from being considered a reliable source? You have a strong editing history, and I was hoping for better arguments from you so I can learn as a new editor. Silkroadster (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
The links I cited all referred to news articles not opinion pieces so first part of your comment is a strawman, secondly a source that has a history of no fact checking and ripping off random unverified facts from Wikipedia prior to publishing news can not be trusted, especially when the sources you cited were only reiterating the unverified statements made by the company itself. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
I understand your concerns about fact-checking and reliability. I have once again reviewed all the Hindu sources mentioned in my analysis. Apart from the company CEO's quotes, there is significant editorial input from the journalists, which should not be overlooked. My reservation is about dismissing an RSP source entirely due to past issues. To support my perspective, I have already provided the example of The New York Times. Okay, let's agree on this... The Hindu is on the RSP list based on a general consensus. If you have concerns about this source, you can raise them at RSN. My humble request is this... please try not to impose your personal judgment here solely based on your feelings. I can sense that you may be upset, so I kindly ask you to take a moment to calm down. I want to assure you that no disrespect is intended toward you. Silkroadster (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
RSP entry is not the final say on the reliability of indian sources, as WP:NEWSORGINDIA tells us to exercise caution when using them. Indian sources should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Also, you should stop referring to the RSP entry, as it does not even discuss their business newspaper, which you have cited. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I am adding another source analysis table;

Source assessment table prepared by User:Silkroadster
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/5865944/payment-gateway-global-market-report	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.	✔ Yes
https://jmflresearch.com/JMnew/JMCRM/analystreports/pdf/%5BJMFL%5D%20India%20Internet_Digital%20Payments_SectorUpdate_06Nov2019.pdf	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Coverage found at page number 50.	✔ Yes
https://www.asdreports.com/market-research-companies-651138/open-banking-global-forecast	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.	✔ Yes
https://www.giiresearch.com/report/ires1618785-open-banking-market-by-services-banking-capital.html?	It is a secondary symbolic source, potentially independent because it is a market research report.	Market research reports are designed to provide neutral and data-driven insights into industries, markets, and trends, with the majority of their revenue model focused on selling the same report to various clients.	WP:SIGCOV Cashfree is one of the companies featured in the report, with additional details provided in the introductory brief.	✔ Yes
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Silkroadster (talk) 12:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a COI with the company? Your response didn't address that. - Ratnahastin (talk) 08:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for asking. I just gave my response. My response... here focused on the AFD's key points, but I appreciate you asking for clarification. Silkroadster (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Why don't you quote the last two sources or provide their relevant scanned pages? These reports cost thousands of dollars and are inaccessible, we can't take your word for it given that you have tried to misrepresent sources before too. - Ratnahastin (talk) 09:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

If I could access it, I certainly would have. Since they are mentioned in the context index and some in the introduction brief, I am accepting them. Regarding the cost of the reports, please refer to the PAYWALL guideline, which clearly states: 'Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible. For example, an online source may require payment, and a print-only source may be available only through libraries.' Regardless, I apologise if we haven’t been able to see eye to eye on this. Secondly, I want to clarify that I haven’t misrepresented any source—it seems you are strongly asserting that a valid RSP source is invalid based solely on your personal opinion. Let’s call it a day. Silkroadster (talk) 11:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

You should avoid waving these guidelines at experienced users, we are all aware of them. If you do not have access to sources you should not include them in your source assessment. You did misrepresent the source analysis earlier as Yuvaank's counter analysis showed. - Ratnahastin (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful...

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

This biography about a famous person is not notable enough on its own for an article. It's notable enough for a couple sentences on the subject's article at most. PianoUpMyNose (talk) 09:00, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I'm kind of torn. I have three reviews on the page, so it does pass NBOOK. However biographies are a bit of an odd duck in that it kind of has to satisfy two things: first it has to show notability. Once that's done, assuming the subject has an article, the article then has to show that it's more than just a rehash of the biography page. There are a handful of reviews, but I'm not pulling up that much. I've got the impression that there's likely more but it's not as strong as an impression as I'd like. I'm somewhat leaning towards keeping this, but I'd rather look for more sourcing so I'm going to refrain from making that an official stance. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
There looks to be a review here, but I can't verify all of it. This is making me lean towards the thought that there's probably more out there. I'd just like to have more critique of the book, as that is going to be what helps this stand out from the main Mariott article. If we can find interviews about the book, even better. I think notability is established, but what I want to prove is that it would be able to stand on its own. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 13:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
There is a copy of the book Everybody Dance: Chic and the Politics of Disco here on Internet Archive. Both Everybody Dance and Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful... were published by Helter Skelter Publishing so the book may not be sufficiently independent to contribute to notability. Cunard (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

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. "Reviews - Book of the Month 14.08.04". Music Week. 2004-08-14. ProQuest 232200055.
  The review notes: "A rich portrait of the man described by some as the greatest white soul singer of all. From paying his way through the Italia Conte drama school, through his time with The Small Faces - the first group to be banned from Top Of The Pops and who were deported from Australia at gunpoint - to relentlessly touring the States with Humble Pie in the 70s, money problems, latter solo days on the pub circuit and his tragic end in a house fire at 44, All Too Beautiful seeks to restore Marriott's importance in rock 'n' roll with considerable success."
2. O'Reilly, Chris (2004-07-10). "Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful By Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier Helter Skelter Publishing, £19.99". Evening Express. Factiva EVEEXP0020040713e07a0001p.
  The review notes: "This is the definitive account of the life of Small Faces and Humble pie frontman Marriott - the original Modfather who penned and sang such hits as All Or Nothing, Itchycoo Park and Lazy Sunday afternoon. ... Beset by drug and alcohol problems, he was making plans for a comeback with Frampton in 1991 when he died in a house fire that destroyed his 16th Century Essex cottage. He was 44 years old.This is a well researched book marred only by poor pictures, all black and white.An extensive list of all Marriott's recordings, solo and for various artists, throws up some interesting gems. For instance, he wrote and sang an award-winning advert for a brand of coffee in the 70s, and played on various Rolling Stones tracks.All in all, a sad tale well told."
3. Clark, Pete (2005-12-05). "Rocking good reads". Evening Standard. ProQuest 329879723. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30 – via Newspapers.com.
  The review notes: "Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful (Helter Skelter, Pounds 14.99) is ably constructed by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier, but they are unable to dispel the sense that this baby-faced man with an evil tongue was a bit of a sod. Apparently, Marriott had an alter ego called Melvin the bald- headed wrestler, who leapt into being whenever Steve was off his face on coke and drink, and in a mood to be as nasty as possible."
4. Crowley, Lord (2004-07-05). "Still room for ravers..." BBC. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The article notes: "This week sees the publication of the book All Too Beautiful written by Paolo Hewitt with John Hellier. It's the definitive story of one of London's all time great rock n rollers: Steve Marriott... An exhaustive account of the East End musical maverick, it spans his beginnings as a child prodigy, his memorable work with arch top Mods the Small Faces, and all the way through to his later work with Humble Pie, his subsequent solo career and his untimely death in 1991. ... Which is why it's nice to see this book and the success of various recent compilations that give the man his 'propers'. His proper respect. ... A right riveting read as they say."
5. Wobble, Jah (2004-08-01). "All Too Beautiful by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier: Artful, mercurial - but he wore a lot of people out". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2022-07-06. Retrieved 2024-12-30.
  The review notes: "All Too Beautiful answers the question. Written by Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier, it is nothing if not a labour of love. Hellier ran a Small Faces fanzine for years, and Hewitt's love of all things mod is well documented. However, the book is not just for hardcore fans of Steve Marriott. It provides a down to earth account of the "swinging London" scene of the 1960s, by which time Steve and the Small Faces were ensconced in Pimlico, larging it at their Westmoreland Terrace abode. The shenanigans Marriott encountered in the music business at that time are also well documented."
6. Unreliable source that cannot be used to establish notability:
  1. Connolly, Ray (2012-04-05). "Small Face who fell from grace". Daily Mail. Archived from the original on 2024-12-30. Retrieved 2024-12-30 – via Evening Standard.
    This review is from Ray Connolly, who has written for the Daily Mail, as well as The Sunday Times, The Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Observer. But it cannot be established to notability owing to the consensus at WP:DAILYMAIL that deprecated the source. The review notes: "Steve Marriott wasn't the great star that Paolo Hewitt and John Hellier believe him to have been, but he was an accomplished musician with a striking voice. Nor is this a great biography, mainly because the subject had such a one-dimensional life, and is such an unattractive personality. It is, however, one of the best books I've read about the backwaters of rock music."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Steve Marriott: All Too Beautiful... to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 13:04, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

David Ayer's unrealized projects

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

With a recent expansion of what is considered "unrealized", it's really gotten to a point I have realized these articles largely stand to be rather WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. As higlighted by @Erik: at Luca Guadagnino's unrealized projects, "if a so-called "unrealized project" is not talked about in retrospect, it has little value", and as per WP:IINFO, ""To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Just a contemporary news article about a filmmaker being attached to so-and-so, with no later retrospective commentary, does not strike me as discriminate encyclopedic content to have". I no longer see these pages being of note, and is just a trivial list of several projects, whether they were notable or not, that never came to be, their development or attempted production not being of vital note. Rusted AutoParts 20:24, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: Why proceed with a single AFD case now, as opposed to having an RFC to determine if such articles are appropriate, and with what criteria? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:34, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Given the dialogue with Zander on Guadagnino's, it's become clear these pages are purely just seen as trivia. Some very few unrealized projects are indeed are of interest, but when looking at the page, and it's largely "X announced plans to make X, but never did", it just doesn't scream as being a vital article to have. Terry Zwigoff's unrealized projects is particularly exemplary of this. Rusted AutoParts 20:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Film, Lists, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 20:35, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: Perfectly standard. Sources. WP:SPLITLIST applies. -Mushy Yank. 01:32, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
A page having sources doesn’t make the topic of value. It’s a list of films that never happened, or didn’t happen with the person, which makes their involvement with it both not that important to the person, or the project. Why does a list of that need to be on Wikipedia as its own page? Where does this end then? Does this open the door towards “Tom Cruise’s untaken roles”? Rusted AutoParts 01:39, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
What opens the door towards "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" is reliable outlets taking "Tom Cruise's untaken roles" up as an in-depth subject. I.e. sources, and sources only - but the sources have to handle the untaken roles as an entity. Standalone articles about individual scrapped projects can't be synthesized to a Wikipedia article per WP:SYNTH. An article about a director's turned-down or walked-over direction opportunities survived AFD not too long ago. Geschichte (talk) 10:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
And in my opinion it probably shouldn’t have. Clearly, what constitutes “unrealized” currently is too broad and thus it has entitled editors to include all these different projects that really don’t fall under “unrealized”. A lot of these articles have sections where it’s just like a sentence or two, and it’s about the director being “offered”, or being “considered” to direct something they never did. Or projects that were announced once and never discussed at all again, or even projects they’re verifiably still attached to and working on. That to me just makes these lists become flashy tidbit factoids that if the project was actually seen through with someone else it can just easily be noted in the film’s article, or the directors article. A whole article dedicated to mostly unproduced films with no notable production history is superfluous. Rusted AutoParts 14:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Offtopic fightpicking.
"In my opinion"... Wikipedia is not about opinions, son. Quit while you're ahead, you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. "Power trip", good description to whomever said it. ZanderAlbatraz1145 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Burn it to ashes, and then burn the ashes, per WP:LISTCRIT (what constitutes "unrealized" is horribly vague), WP:NOTGOSSIP (so-and-so was rumored to be working on such-and-such), and the really excellent nomination statement. 35.139.154.158 (talk) 15:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge to David Ayer – it makes more sense to discuss these projects in the context of his larger career (or to omit certain projects if their coverage is too trivial, but that can happen after a merge). Regardless of notability, at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic (WP:PAGEDECIDE). RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:56, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep Few editors are willing to take responsibility of it. No issue in keeping the article for some more time unless there are no significant improvements. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:22, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that "Perfectly standard" or "No issue in keeping the article" are not guideline-based arguments.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 08:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe not (although common sense should incite us to believe that a perfectly standard page is very likely an acceptable page as standalone list/article.) But SPLITLIST is a guideline, and a solid reason for keeping list-formatted pages. -Mushy Yank. 13:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

merge back to David Ayer and maybe thin this out. Right now this comes across as the films he didn't make are the most important part of his work. Mangoe (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

List of inorganic reactions

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

This article has no citations and is simply blatantly wrong. Most of the reactions are organic name reactions and there's really no point of arguing about which reaction is organic or inorganic (simply because they involve inorganic compounds). This list isn't very helpful to readers either. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Pygos (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep Nomination rationale makes little sense: if some entries are incorrect, this can be solved by editing; if the entries are unsourced, again, this can be solved by editing. Deletion is not cleanup.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete Infinitely-expandable list. "Reactions that involve inorganic compounds"...well, inorganic compounds are pretty abundant on this planet (H2O, O2, HCl, NaCl...) and they all undergo reactions. There is nothing inherently notable about a chemical reaction that involves an inorganic compound, and there is no way any source could talk about all (or even many) such reactions as a cohesive whole, as needed by WP:NLIST, because they would have nothing in common other than involving a reagent lacking carbon. And the list is unsourced. A total mess. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

There are lots of academic sources dealing with inorganic reactions as a whole: e.g. [3], [4], [5] etc.--cyclopia ^speak! 15:26, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

delete As it stands, this would just duplicate a now-nonexistent category, and I'm also finding that it is full of inaccuracies, e.g. shell higher olefin process, which is clearly organic just from the name. Maybe a category would be a good idea but this list is not. Mangoe (talk) 14:41, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not just sure how much is inaccuracies vs. it just being subjective and ambiguous what you want to consider to be inorganic. The coordination chemistry with the nickel-phosphine complex feels inorganic, even if the reactants are all organic molecules. Do we want to consider organometallic chemistry to be inorganic? I noticed our Template:Branches of chemistry lists organometallic chemistry under inorganic, rather than organic chemistry, but it really is a mixture of both. Photos of Japan (talk) 03:01, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

delete. ill-defined list. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:31, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Comment: Is it possible to bring this list up to par with List of organic reactions? And are they comparable in terms of scope, notability and "helpfulness"? YuniToumei (talk) 23:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Having looked at the issue more closely, I find it hard to set a clear limited scope for this list. This conversation might be of interest, as it discusses this list's purpose, relation to the other list and why it was previously decided to not limit this list to purely inorganic reactions.YuniToumei (talk) 23:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete. This is a completely pointless and useless list, infinitely expandable. What about a List of Novels that include the Word "and"? Athel cb (talk) 08:33, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Why do you think there is infinitely numers of inorganic reactions [types]? Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep Lots of books covers inorganic reaction (types) and/or mechanism (same thing). E.g. search on google books with 'named "inorganic" reactions'Christian75 (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep This clearly only lists notable reactions and mechanisms, so it's certainly not infinitely expandable. There are plenty of articles and textbooks about inorganic reactions so this may be an appropriate navigational list that complements List of organic reactions, especially if perhaps made into a table to explain reagents and significance. As much as I dislike basic bullet point lists, there isn't a related category. Reywas92^Talk 18:37, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep. The lack of citations is a matter for clean-up, not deletion. Frankly, I don't think it needs citations given its a list of things (most other lists of the ilk do not have citations.) It follows the same principle as List of organic reactions. A lot of inorganic reactions are legitimately used in organic synthesis & that doesn't detract from their inorganic nature. Organometallic reactions (e.g. Suzuki/cross-coupling, Metathesis, metallation etc) are very organic, but they're also very inorganic. Organic chemists may find them to be useful tools used occasionally to achieve an end, but the inorganic chemist treats them with respect as their own unique grouping - not just occasionally dragged out the shed for their utility - and understands how and why they occur. This encyclopedic grouping is important and shouldn't be lost - something supported by the numerous books on the topic. See M.J. Winter's 'd-Block Chemistry', R. Whyman's 'Applied Organometallic Chemistry and Catalysis', Jenkin's "Organometallic Reagents in Synthesis", Henderson's "The Mechanisms of Reactions at Transition Metal Sites", R. Bates "Organic Synthesis Using Transition Metals". The list is theoretically infinitely expandable, but it shouldn't include every single reaction under the sun - and it doesn't. Keep it to the important ones, and the list is a wholly manageable and useful encyclopedic tool to help people navigate the field, and find the various tools at their disposal. - EcheveriaJ (talk) 22:16, 21 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep: I think there might be an assumption that some are making that this article is about every reaction between any given inorganic chemical with any other given chemical. But this article is about general kinds of reactions (oxidation, amination, dehydration, etc.) of which there is a finite and manageable number of notable such reactions. Photos of Japan (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2024 (UTC)
Remake from scratch or delete. As identified by @YuniToumei, this list was created in August 2011 to be an inorganic parallel to the "List of organic reactions" page. The creator suggested it should be reasonably selective, but include all common general classes of reaction that rely on the action of inorganic compounds. The list has since ballooned out to 129 reactions. Most of these reactions are also covered in List of organic reactions, which is unsurprising as the organic list holds 790 reactions (i.e. it suggests ~10% of organic reactions involve at least one inorganic catalyst or reagent).
As an encyclopedia reader, I would expect a list of inorganic reactions to link to reactions whose primary topic is inorganic chemistry, rather than re-covering organic reactions. To fix this, I suggest we:
1. Create a category Category:Reactions using at least one inorganic compound (a subcategory of Category:Chemical reactions) to hold the reactions currently listed (as suggested by @Mangoe), then
2. Remake the list to cover only inorganic reactions (i.e. those in scope of Category:Inorganic reactions). For example, the list should cover the various metallothermic reductions, e.g. Aluminothermic reaction, Calciothermic reaction, Silicothermic reaction, and the Kroll process (magnesiothermic reduction), none of which are currently listed.

Preimage (talk) 04:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment: it is surprising that editors with little or no track record in chemistry editing are voting with such confidence. We're not talking about Taylor Swift or pop culture here, but hard core chemistry. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:04, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't make too many assumptions about people's backgrounds from their editing history. I have a degree in biochemistry, even though I primarily joined to add my photos of Japan. Photos of Japan (talk) 01:39, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are evenly divided here between editors advocating Keep and those supporting Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Weak Keep base on the title, this can be a useful and informative list so it's satisfy WP:LISTPURP. Though the article is in garbage shape as of now. Someone whose familiar with chemistry should fix it. Deleting this is a bit of an overkill, an alternative to this is draftfying it until someone fix it. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 13:15, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete for providing no value beyond Category:Inorganic reactions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Radio Otago

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

Fails WP:GNG. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and New Zealand. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 11:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete/Merge/Redirect to MediaWorks_New_Zealand#Radio as subject is not notable on its own merits, but is part of the history of a more notable entity. Espatie (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Dominik Smékal

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The sources mainly refer to his hat trick, which helped his third-league Hlučín eliminate Viktoria Plzeň from the Czech Cup. He played only 8 games at the professional league level, 6 in 2017 and 2 in 2021. FromCzech (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Czech Republic. FromCzech (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

M. V. Mani

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

Not notable, entirely unsourced, praising the subject. Another coincidence is that the username of the creator of the article matches the subject's middle name. I thank @Espresso Addict for giving me the go ahead. SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SCR@TCH!NGH3@D (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

White Hot Room

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

Most of the article is just WP:FANCRUFT. A WP:BEFORE search yield no WP:RS source talking about the character. WP:CBR and ScreenRant is not a source to determine reliability per WP:VALNET. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 10:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Louis Balmain

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

Still fails NATH. Jay Cubby 09:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and New Zealand. Jay Cubby 09:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep. As well as outlining an unusually successful brief cricket career for the period, when complete team innings seldom reached three figures, the article provides a sound basis and incentive for future expansion. It is informative and interesting as far as it goes, and it is as worst harmless. Sammyrice (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Sammy Fabelman

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

No SIGCOV of character to justify independent article. Almost all references cover themes of the movie rather than specifically being about the character. No notable content that isn't either already included in the movie's article, or can't be included there if deemed notable enough DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements and Film. DeputyBeagle (talk) 08:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Essential COSTA RICA

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

The references are either primary, or related to Costa Rica only/majorly. An alternative might be to merge/redirect to Costa Rica DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Salavatabad (mountain)

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

I struggled to find a single non-Wikimedia related source even mentioning this mountain range. Article is unsourced as well. Most mentions are indirect, such as through a local village with the same name. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Comment - This seems to also be transliterated as two words, "Salavat Abad", I haven't found much more with this but there are a few examples e.g. | (PDF) A GIS-based logistic regression model in rock-fall susceptibility mapping along a mountainous road: Salavat Abad case study, Kurdistan, Iran this might at least give us enough to merit a mention in Sanandaj or Sanandaj County JeffUK 13:33, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Iran. Shellwood (talk) 13:38, 20 December 2024 (UTC)
Most references are indeed to the village that I was easily able to find in a quick search. However per WP:GEOLAND there's enough there for a stub, we just need to be able to verify it. SportingFlyer T·C 02:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:42, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Take Me, I'm Yours

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

Not notable- ref 1 and is just plot/sypnosis, and ref 3 is about an actor and how is joining the show, and not about the show. And I wasn't able to find sources for notability with google. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have no opinion about the current article, but please restore the redirect to Take Me I'm Yours rather than deleting. --Zundark (talk) 10:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - Easy to find coverage just by searching in Japanese, such as [6] [7] [8] Iostn (talk) 10:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

List of Chinese animated series

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

I notice that Wikipedia's notability guidelines for lists are frustratingly vague. However, I would like to be bold in suggesting that this article is superfluous. We already have articles on general lists of animated series by year and a handful for animated series by country, and adding a third dimension of language seems unnecessary. Where does it end, is my question. The point of an encyclopedia is not to create exhaustive lists for every imaginable category. Having a common language is a rather trivial attribute that establishes no meaningful connection between these series. Anonymous 07:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Comics and animation, Lists, and China. Anonymous 07:48, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep per WP:LISTCRIT and WP:LISTPURP. Clearly pass the informational criterion but the page sure does need cleaning up. This is the same case of pages like List of Philippine animated films. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Thumpoly Our Lady Of Immaculate Conception

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

Page contains no meaningful information, no references, etc. Cyrobyte (talk) 06:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Speedy redirect to Thumpoly where the church is mentioned. Opening this AfD was premature and unnecessary, since the page is largely empty, and there's nothing to discuss about it. CycloneYoris ^talk! 07:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Saheb (1981 film)

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

Fails WP:NFILM. 🇧🇩 Zayan^{Mr Bangladesh71} (Talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 🇧🇩 Zayan^{Mr Bangladesh71} (Talk)
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Nebulae (video game)

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

Non-notable per WP:GNG. French kickstarted MMO that seems to have been in open alpha for some time with no real routine or review coverage. It looks like there is some broadcast French interviews with the developers which are WP:PRIMARY sources and not very helpful for notability. An English WP:BEFORE found nothing, but accept some French WP:NONENG coverage might be out there. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The sources are mostly interviews. I only found a local investment source online from Matot Braine. Delete IgelRM (talk) 12:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Jhankar

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

Fails WP:NFILM. 🇧🇩 Zayan^{Mr Bangladesh71} (Talk)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film and India. 🇧🇩 Zayan^{Mr Bangladesh71} (Talk)

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Wen Yong Yang

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

Lack of significant coverage. Has received passing mentions in articles about athletes he has trained, but notability is not inherited. Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, China, and Texas. Hirolovesswords (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Kadayif

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

The given reference does not say that this is a pastry dough, and I do not see how the dough itself could be notable. GTrang (talk) 06:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment. This page (or Qataef) IMHO should become a disambiguation, as there are gazillions of spelling and recipe variations, see the Talk:Kadaif. That said, preserve the talk page in any outcome, as it contains collective wisdom. Викидим (talk) 06:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Ramkishan Suthar

AfDs for this article:

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

mostly source are seem unreliable source to me, and most of the references are obtained from blog websites and the article not meet to WP:DIRECTOR or WP:NFILMMAKER. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 06:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Actors and filmmakers, and India. --- Bhairava7 • (@píng mє-tαlk mє) 06:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Government Engineering College, Ajmer

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

This article's subject does not appear to meet notability standards. The article contains no references except for a dead link from the school's website and I can not find and reliable sources mentioning it on the internet. Cyrobyte (talk) 05:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Schools, Engineering, and Rajasthan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Goldcross Cycles

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

Stores appears closed in 2013: https://www.rotorburn.com/forums/index.php?threads/goldcross-closing-down.263422/ . Very scant article with few details. Teraplane (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Teraplane (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Transportation. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

WNYT (internet radio)

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable Internet radio station; just two sources; TV station in Albany should be primary topic. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio, Education, and New York. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hong Nga Court

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

No indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Architecture and Hong Kong. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep: Found several sources with SIGCOV on the housing estate itself from Oriental Daily News[9][10][11], Hong Kong Economic Times[12], Apple Daily[13], and Hong Kong Commercial Daily[14]. Enough for GNG. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 06:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

A City Dressed in Dynamite

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

Non-notable album; shows no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Alan S. Kornacki

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

BLP shows no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Military, Science, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New Jersey. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Cristian Ciocan

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

BLP with no indication of notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Philosophy, and Romania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Keep. Pass of WP:Prof#C1 in a very low-cited field. May pass WP:Prof#C8 with a rather recent journal. The nominator has been on a deletion spree today. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC).
Keep per WP:NACADEMIC #8. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 11:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

KWBT (FM)

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

Radio station article showing no significance or notability of the subject. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Keep - meets the GNG per this and this, just to name a few. Many, many hits also at the Waco Tribune's website for the KWBT calls and the previous KBCT calls. schetm (talk) 05:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

KCPB-FM

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

Non-notable radio station. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:29, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Revert to redirect to KMUN: it is mentioned there, and the redirect was present for 17 years before being overwritten by the type of substandard stub article that I thought the 2021 RfC that corrected the inclusion standards in this topic area was supposed to eventually eradicate. The edit summary suggests there may be more to say about KCPB-FM than is currently mentioned at KMUN (and that article has more material about KCPB than its own stub!), but until and unless such material is added (or at least sources presented) a redirect as an alternative to deletion is all we need. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Oregon. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:41, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Software distro

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

Abandoned article showing no significance. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

B1 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect. The non-trivial information is contained in the article does not seem to be WP:Verifiable. Викидим (talk) 04:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

B6 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present. Викидим (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

B12 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

B11 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, B4, B7, and B8. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

B9 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, B4, B7, and B8. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

B8 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, B4, and B7. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:01, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

B7 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFDs for B2, B3, and B4. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

B4 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFD for B2 and B3. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

B3 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. See AFD for B2. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

B2 (New York City bus)

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

Non-notable bus route that could be redirected or deleted. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Redirect per WP:ROTM essay. There does not appear that WP:SIGCOV is present (practically no WP:independent sources). Викидим (talk) 05:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Transportation and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Become the Other

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

Studio album which does not make the case for notability. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The Floor's Too Far Away

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

Non-notable studio album; does not make the case for inclusion with listed sources; could be merged in band's page in part. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Miyu Takahashi

AfDs for this article:

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

Super 500 tournament appears to be the only thing that has changed since Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 28 endorsed my closure at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miyu Takahashi. While sources can be found, it does not appear that sufficient have been found for this to be in mainspace and Takahashi lost in the first round which does not meet N:SPORT either. Bringing this here for discussion and further handling if needed. NB: this was created by a new editor, and Pppery performed the requisite history merge to address the copy paste move. Star Mississippi 04:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Badminton, and Japan. Star Mississippi 04:11, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
My Opinion = Keep the article

Reason = For the NSPORT criteria. The final sentence sounds like this - "For contemporary persons, given a reasonable amount of time to locate appropriate sources, the general notability guideline should be met in order for an article to meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion." Miyu Takahashi is a contemporary person and she is young and still going on tournament which her last tournament is Kumamoto Masters S500 in November 2024 (last month) where she lost to someone as contemporary and as notable as Jia Yi Fan and Zhang Shuxian.^[1]. Plus, She just recently won Vietnam Open and a runner up in Indonesia Masters (both are S100) - fulfilling NBAD criteria. Lowyat Slyder (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Both of those tournaments were addressed in the prior discussion. You're making an excellent case for draft space where time for sourcing can happen, but it hasn't been found since October. Star Mississippi 13:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete - all citations I have found are stats pages and mentions, nothing significant. At best they mention that she has won some tournaments, but no details on her life and career. Shinadamina (talk) 05:23, 29 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep As the winner of 2024 Vietnam Open and runner-up in 2024 Indonesia Masters Super 100 I, she and Mizuki Otake have finished on the podium of a BWF World Tour tournament passing WP:NBADMINTON. Note that her partner Otake's page was nominated for deletion with the result being no consensus. I've also added some additional sources and note there is more coverage in Japanese. It would be nice if nominators of Japanese articles showed evidence of doing a WP:BEFORE search that included native language sources. DCsansei (talk) 21:45, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

^ "MIYU Takahashi". BWF Badminton. Retrieved 28 December 2024.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for more opinions. I guess re-draftifying is also a possibility in addition to Keep and Delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Go, Baby!

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of notability, even with the primary sources shown, simply listing IMDB and Disney deprives this article's notability TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Delete: As the most recent IP to contest the redirect created by the last nomination at least partially pointed out, all that has changed since that nomination is that the subject is no longer included in the list of programs broadcast by Disney Jr., and hasn't been since 2022. That, to me, indicates that retaining this in any capacity is no longer warranted (unless another redirect target surfaces). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:55, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Comics and animation, Disney, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Dom har glömt

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

The article fails WP:NSONG with no chart information, and it fails WP:GNG with no significant descriptions of the song in the literature. The supplied citations are useless: four of the five are about other things, and the fifth is a Discogs.com link that merely proves the existence of the single. Discogs cannot be cited per WP:ALBUMAVOID, and it certainly does not establish notability. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 03:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Benjamin De Almeida

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

Non-notable YouTuber. The only source is their channel, and I found no reliable sources online. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet and Canada. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 03:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Entertainment and Massachusetts. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Port Hills Geotechnical Group

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

Nifty group but I don't see any evidence of it passing WP:NORG. The scholarly papers that are cited here are all authored by people who were part of the group or whose employers were members of the group and thus are not independent. In my WP:BEFORE search I didn't find any other independent, reliable source WP:SIGCOV to pass the appropriate guideline. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Engineering, and New Zealand. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete Insufficient coverage in third-party reliable sources. Adabow (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Weak Delete. Fails WP:ORGCRIT. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 08:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

MicroStrategy hack incident of 2024

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

Non-notable 'hack' event that fails WP:GNG with no lasting effect or widespread impact. YouTuber himself currently has open AfD (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Brea). Snowycats (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Technology and Websites. Snowycats (talk) 03:21, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: No evidence of notability. Non-notable, unremarkable, unimportant event. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Dominican Republic, and Puerto Rico. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Oasis Restaurant

AfDs for this article:

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

This restaurant is not notable beyond is local environment. It is not a landmark; it has no historic significance. It is unheard of beyond the local area. Kingturtle = (talk) 03:14, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Architecture, Companies, and Texas. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:27, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Speedy Delete as this is definitely not notable enough for its own article. Not even known beyond its local area, the article was probably created by someone who visited it frequently. AIntrestingGuy (talk) 06:32, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Keep per GNG. The subject has received plenty of secondary coverage and this article should be expanded (and moved to The Oasis on Lake Travis), not deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:52, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Keep, per the sources identified in the previous AfD that resulted in a withdrawn nomination. One can disagree with the application of WP:NCORP to restaurants (I tend to think it results in far too many WP:ROTM local joints being declared notable), but these sources clear NCORP as we understand it today. Dclemens1971 (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2024 (UTC)
I haven't looked at this one in particular but I was under the impression most ROTM local joints wouldn't get coverage satisfying WP:AUD. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
I can give you a few examples: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wildwood (restaurant), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beppi's restaurant, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ping (restaurant), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elements (restaurant) (2nd nomination). (I am not offering these as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; I would generally disagreed with the "keep" decisions, but treating restaurant reviews as WP:SIGCOV is going to result in restaurants being held to a different standard than businesses that don't generate reviews. The bias is particularly strong for WP:MILL restaurants in markets whose local papers that review restaurants have national audiences (New York, Washington, Los Angeles, etc.). Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Future participants are encouraged to review the sources listed at the 1st AFD and consider whether they should be added to the current article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:17, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Tabish Khan (art critic)

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

Biography of an art critic that fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources in article are limited to WP:PRIMARYSOURCE WP:INTERVIEWS, WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS in media coverage of other topics, primary source bios and other non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE search turns up lots of his own writing but no independent WP:SIGCOV to establish notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Authors, Visual arts, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:15, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Malaysian Association of Private Colleges and Universities

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

Has been tagged with being un-notable for seven years, without improvement. I could not find independent or secondary sources. LR.127 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Education and Malaysia. LR.127 (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Simon Brea

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

Non-notable YouTuber. None of the sources are reliable, and I found none online. Large parts of the article are unreferenced. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Internet, Dominican Republic, Puerto Rico, and United States of America. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. TheTechie@enwiki (she/they | talk) 03:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Delete: Per nom. No meaningful media coverage. Snowycats (talk) 03:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Asset.tv

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Tagged for multiple issues. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:04, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Delete created as a promotional article, this has always lacked sourcing showing sufficient notability. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Advertising, Internet, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:28, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Samantha's Law

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

There is no indication that a "Samantha's Law" was ever passed in Alberta. There is a provincial "Family Support for Children with Disabilities Act" passed in 2003, but that seems not to be the topic of this article. Multiple editors, including myself, have been unable to find substantial coverage of a "Samantha's Law" or determine a connection to actually existing legislation. The article has been tagged for notability since 2015. Jfire (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law and Canada. Shellwood (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Comment I have had a look through the history of this article, which helps clarify a bit. Unfortunately a few years ago the article was edited to remove the reference to the legislation, per this diff. The changes were to the Child, Youth and Family Enhancement Act, but I haven't been able to substantiate the change or when the law was passed (best guess 2011).
There was a reference to the Alberta Hansard at one point, "LADDAR_files_docs_hansards_han_legislature_28_session_2_20140310_1330_01_han.pdf · version 1". Here is the Hansard entry which appears to match the now-deleted reference. That's a member on the floor introducing Samantha's mother and using the words "Samantha's Law". Oblivy (talk) 02:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Julia Selepen

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

Non-notable figure skater; highest placement is a silver medal at the Lithuanian national championships Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Lithuania. Bgsu98 (Talk) 01:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

List of American films of 2028

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

This seems way WP:TOOSOON to be useful for the foreseeable future to be draftified. Only one item is even titled. -1ctinus📝🗨 01:24, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Lists, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Alex Lobb

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

A before search shows nothing to pass GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 01:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Rugby league, and Australia. Kline • talk • contribs 01:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Aleksei Kulashko

AfDs for this article:

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

No changes have been made since the previous deletion and doing a before search reveals nothing passing GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 01:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Russia, and New Zealand. Kline • talk • contribs 01:11, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

UP! (Forrest Frank and Connor Price song)

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

Seems to fail WP:NSONG; I am unable to find sufficient WP:SIGCOV from reliable sources. There is this with three or four sentences of independent coverage, as well as this blog post and trivial mentions like this. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs, Christianity, and United States of America. JTtheOG (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Redirect to Child of God (album) as an alternative to deletion. Per nom, does not meet WP:NSONG or WP:SIGCOV - but that doesn't stop this particular author from creating articles that fail to meet WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC criteria. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 13:59, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
Merge with Child of God (album): agree with Baston's reasoning but would merge. Rainydaywindows (talk) 07:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus against status quo, but delete, redirect, or merge?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 01:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Shicorreus Jones

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

A before search shows nothing that this article pass GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 00:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Georgia (U.S. state). Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Abhijith Kurungodan

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

A before search shows nothing to pass GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and India. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Aaron Dilworth

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

A before search shows nothing to pass GNG or SPORTBASIC. Kline • talk • contribs 00:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Texas. Shellwood (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Anne Sofie Madsen

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

Borderline notability, subject requests deletion,Ticket:2024091410007147. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Fashion. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 00:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment Do you have any details on the VRT request, CaptainEek? Any reason for why they would be against the article? Since nothing in it seems negative. And I would not call her borderline notable, since she's one of the biggest names in fashion. It's just that the coverage of her is almost entirely not in English. But outside of most every fashion magazine in the world covering her, she also receives mainstream coverage from newspapers of record. For example:

So I'd really like some more information on this one before making a decision. Because I'm currently leaning toward too notable and well known for WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE to matter. Silver seren^C 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren The issue seems to be one of inaccuracy and the sources being out of date; most of them are over a decade old. I made a few corrections to the article, but her overall concern is that the article is now so out of date with her resume that potential employers google her and think her CV is fake because her more recent achievements are not on her Wikipedia. I think this is a problem we often encounter with BLP's: their article is frozen in time at a point when they had coverage, and doesn't reflect who they are now, but there isn't enough new coverage to update with. A problem that grows as Wikipedia reaches the 25 year mark. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 01:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

That seems like an argument for expansion, not for deletion. Unless we're going to be deleting a ton of articles for being out of date. There's sources available. There's this from Vogue on her Tokyo 2017 collection. There's this from Women's Wear Daily on her Paris 2018 collection. There's this from Woman.dk and this from Fashion Forum about her 2021 collection collaboration with Lulu Kaalund. I got all that from just a quick Google search without even knowing anything about how to search for Danish, French, or Japanese sources. Silver seren^C 01:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm the VRT agent for that ticket, and CaptainEek's characterization is correct. She has provided only vague objections about things being incorrect, nothing specific. I have asked her to use WP:Edit Request Wizard to identify specific things to fix on the talk page, but she seems to want a VRT agent to do the research and fix things for her. The creator of the article even invites people to contact her directly and includes her email on her user page, but the article subject has not engaged with her. Yes, the subject of the article wants it deleted because she isn't famous, but the sources already cited suggest she's clearly notable, which isn't the same thing as fame. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:08, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

So the argument on her end is more of the "not a celebrity level fame", rather than the "rather well known designer in a field level fame" that she actually is, it seems. I still think this is fully fixable in the article, though it would definitely be helpful if she was willing to work with us on that. Since I'm sure she's more personally aware of the fashion news sources covering her more recent work than any of us are. Silver seren^C 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I have received an email from the subject and have asked for further details. At this stage, I am not sure if she would prefer deletion or correction.--Ipigott (talk) 09:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

[1] "MIYU Takahashi". BWF Badminton. Retrieved 28 December 2024.

[1]