Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge
Shortcut WP:AFD/T

7 January 2025

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 06	January 08 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

Jihad Cool

Stub breaks WP:NOTNEO; it should be a Wikitionary entry, not an article. The exception would be if it was a frequent-use neologism, whereas this term is not frequently used in WP:RSs. See WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Essentially the entire text of this article is already repeated in the second part of the lede of Jihadism. --OrebroVi (talk) 16:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the rationale. This was merely a fleeting neologism that never gained serious currency. The timing is probably key. A few sources mentioned it in 2014, and then ISIS took off, so there wasn't anything remotely cool about the popular conception of Jihad any more and the term swiftly died a death. If later sources existed that examined this demise, it would make for more of a subject. As it is, it's simply a meme that never really took off and doesn't really merit a standalone page. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 January 7. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Omega (Doctor Who)

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

My BEFORE yielded practically nothing for Omega. News yielded only content farm articles explaining lore, theorizing about the series, or trivial mentions of the character (The bulk of which were unreliable or belonged to WP:VALNET). Some reviews for his titular episodes were included, but do not include significant coverage that extends beyond the episode itself. Books yielded nothing barring plot summary, trivial mentions, and some brief BTS info, none of which contributes to notability. There's one brief-ish hit in "Religion in Doctor Who", but one source is nowhere near enough for notability. Scholar yielded nothing. The current article sourcing state primarily utilizes PRIMARY sources, trivial mentions, content farm content from Valnet, and one bit of dev info that doesn't contribute to notability. This subject fails WP:GNG and has no WP:SIGCOV. There's a couple different potential articles that can be used as AtDs, such as List of Doctor Who supporting characters and Time Lord, but I am admittedly unsure of which works best. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fictional elements, Science fiction and fantasy, Television, and United Kingdom. Magneton Considerer: Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs) 16:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Florian Gârz

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

First, let’s deal with the Nobel Prize nomination. For starters, any one of thousands of people can nominate anyone else, so a nomination by itself doesn’t mean much. Second, I really doubt the “G. Floran” on page 3 is our man Gârz. For one, he didn’t even begin publishing until the early 1990s, and the nomination is from 1974. For another, Eugène Ionesco, the nominator, was a diehard opponent of the Romanian Communist regime — while at the very period of the nomination, our man Gârz was a faithful acolyte of the regime, serving as a loyal officer in its secret police. So unless this was an elaborate Absurdist joke, Ionesco did not nominate an unknown apparatchik for the world’s most prestigious literary award.

Second, let’s quickly dispense with this. Anyone can publish anything on academia.edu. Unless we have evidence that this piece appeared in a peer-reviewed journal or similarly prestigious publication, it’s not quotable.

Finally, let’s have a look at the three remaining sources. For starters, they appear in a magazine nobody has heard of. I know this isn’t the most scientific way to measure such things, but it has under 800 Facebook likes; by contrast, the leading Romanian popular history magazine has 656,000. It’s basically a one-man show revolving around its founder, who occasionally writes articles, together with some of his friends. Our man Gârz (who, by the way, died three years ago, as one of the links attests) was basically a second-rate spy with third-rate opinions, such as: “I came into the world in that ancient land of Transylvania, where words like ‘fatherland’ and ‘ancestor’ are learned together with ‘mother’”; or “No American politician since 1950 has entered the White House without the approval of the military-industrial complex”.

In sum, far from being a contender for the Nobel, our man Gârz, once he got around to writing in his late 50s, was the author of a series of dubious books published with obscure houses. Aside from three articles in an utterly marginal magazine, he never garnered any attention from anyone, certainly not from respectable outfits. There is no reason we should keep around his biography. — Biruitorul ^Talk 16:22, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Three National Figure Skating Championships

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

Non-notable articles that have been around for over a decade and never had a single source/reference that established notability for these yearly events. Every single edit since creation never had a source added. No in-depth coverage exists and all criteria of notability are not met.

Very similar to a bunch of national figure skating articles nominated in recent days. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Skating, Czech Republic, Poland, and Slovakia. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

REDIRECT all to Four Nationals Figure Skating Championships. (The Three Nationals Championships became the Four Nationals Championships when Hungary joined, but they are all part of the same series.) Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Ivory Williams Jr.

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NENTERTAINER. While the article breathlessly claims Williams Jr. as a pioneer in the evolution of Contemporary Gospel music and Jazz fusion, this just isn't borne out by the available sources. The cited sources do not adequately provide secondary coverage of Williams Jr.'s life or accomplishments, and throughout the article claims of significance are backed up by listings in discographies (e.g. [1]) and the like.

Doing my own search for sources, I was able to find coverage of Williams Jr.'s evidently more-notable father, Williams Sr., which mentions Jr. briefly ([2]) and mere-mentions in catalogs (e.g. [3]), but nothing that would satisfy ntoability guidelines. The article's primary editor has a COI, which was acknowledged on their user talk page. I think that redirecting this page to Jr's notable father, Harold Ivory Williams, is appropriate here. I believe this still merits consideration at AfD rather than WP:BLAR, as it has been repeatedly been submitted and declined at AfC prior to being accepted by a reviewer. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Maryland. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2007 Czech and Slovak Figure Skating Championships

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

Non-notable articles that have been around for over a decade and never had a single source/reference that established notability for these yearly events. Every single edit since creation never had a source added. No in-depth coverage exists and all criteria of notability are not met.

Very similar to a bunch of national figure skating articles nominated in recent days. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Skating, Czech Republic, and Slovakia. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Fanny Hardwick

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. All source is breaking news or trial stuff, no retrospection, after the execution it was seemingly never discussed again. Interestingly, not a case of recentism (all sourcing is from 1901). There is one very brief mention in an academic article from this year in an article about Australian executions, but otherwise nothing. If we had some article like "list of people executed by Australia" I would suggest a redirect to that, but we do not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Crime, Events, and Australia. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kdan Mobile

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

No properly reliable sources, seemingly written by someone affiliated. Found a profile on CommonWealth Magazine (Taiwan), but that is not enough for company notability. IgelRM (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Taiwan. IgelRM (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Two WP:TECHCRUNCH sources (which do not count for notability) and one primary one. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Madeleine (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC) Keep per Cunard's source analysis below. Madeleine (talk) 16:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Madeleine961 (talk · contribs). I found some additional sources below. Would you review? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, I believe the sources you found demonstrates notability and significant coverage. I will change my !vote. Good work and cheers. Madeleine (talk) 16:24, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Thank you for reviewing the sources and reconsidering your position! Cunard (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Yan, Lou-you 顏漏有 (2022). 新創成長的關鍵：解開台灣新創企業從0到10億元的祕密 [The Key to Startup Growth: Unveiling the Secrets Behind Taiwanese Startups' Journey from $0 to $1 Billion] (in Chinese). Taipei: Business Weekly Publications 商周出版. ISBN 978-626-318-392-6. Retrieved 2024-12-29 – via Google Books.
  The book notes: "創業之初,正好抓住App發展初期,競爭者不多,當時蘋果應用程式商店 ( App Store)上的App總數還不到一千個,但凱鈿可以開發出上百個不同的 App,營收穩定成長,但沒多久,他們的發展、成長開始出現瓶頸。除了越來越多新進開發者及大公司投入App開發,加上免費App的選擇變多,競爭加劇, 若要吸引使用者,勢必要加大行銷投資。另一個本質上的問題在於,使用者是採取一次性付費買服務,但公司仍要持續提供維運,長久下去,不利於公司成長。"
  From Google Translate: "At the beginning of the business, Kdan caught the early stage of App development and there were not many competitors. At that time, the total number of Apps on the Apple App Store was less than a thousand, but Kdan could develop hundreds of different Apps, and the business Revenues grew steadily, but before long, bottlenecks began to appear in their development and growth. In addition to more and more new developers and large companies investing in App development, as well as the increasing number of free App choices and intensifying competition, it is necessary to increase marketing investment if you want to attract users. Another fundamental problem is that users pay a one-time fee for services, but the company still has to continue to provide maintenance and operation. In the long run, it is not conducive to the company's growth."
  The book notes: "然而,過去的模式主要靠著多樣化產品在支撐,精簡後,營收規模自然大受影響,公司營運陷入極大困境,幾位創辦人不得不向員工承認錯誤,抵押、賣地、信用卡借款,這些創業故事中常見的情節,也在凱鈿發生。"
  From Google Translate: "However, the past model was mainly supported by diversified products. After streamlining, the revenue scale was naturally greatly affected, and the company's operations were in great difficulties. The founders had to admit their mistakes to the employees, resorting to pledging assets, selling land, and borrowing on credit cards—common scenarios in startup stories, which also occurred at Kdan."
2. "新創的國際化策略及管理精準掌握海外企業需求,他擁800萬會員走向B2B" [The Internationalization Strategy of Startups and Management: Precisely Understanding Overseas Business Needs, With 8 Million Members Moving Towards B2B]. BusinessNext 數位時代 (in Chinese). December 2020. pp. 50–51. Retrieved 2024-12-29 – via Google Books.
  The article notes: "2015 年,除了商業模式「轉彎」,凱鈿也開始收斂 App的開發數量,蘇柏州當時梳理出3個主要產品線,包括 Document 365、Creativity 365 及Kdan Cloud。直到 2019 年,團隊才又端出另一條產品線:點點簽 DottedSign。自高峰時期1年52款App,到深耕3~ 4款系列產品,他們開始專注於產品的整合,以提供更好服務來維持用戶。2019 年,凱鈿訂閱戶的續訂率達8成、截至目前也累積了 800 萬註冊會員,其中有約3萬筆企業客戶名單,成為他們推廣SaaS服務的起點。"
  From Google Translate: "In 2015, in addition to the "turn" in its business model, Kdan also began to curb the number of app development. Subazhou sorted out three main product lines at that time, including Document 365, Creativity 365 and Kdan Cloud. It wasn’t until 2019 that the team launched another product line: DottedSign. From the peak of 52 apps per year to 3 to 4 product series, they began to focus on product integration to provide better services to maintain users. In 2019, the renewal rate of Kdan's subscribers reached 80%, and it has accumulated 8 million registered members so far, including about 30,000 corporate customer lists, which has become the starting point for them to promote SaaS services."
3. Li, I-Ju 李宜儒 (2023-12-03). "台南億級APP一哥1／累計超過2億次的下載量　從閱讀器打造生態系" [Tainan's Billion-Level App Leader: Over 200 Million Downloads, Building an Ecosystem from a Reader]. Want Weekly [zh] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2024-12-29. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "CTWANT記者調查，Kdan，其實是2009年在台南永康起家的本土APP軟體公司｢凱鈿」（Kdan），以APP搶快搶多求生，但在免費APP海量出現後險遭滅頂，轉而聚焦PDF工具用程式，並推出訂閱制服務，定期根據用戶反饋進行更新，獲得用戶好評，在2016年起獲得天使投資新台幣4000萬元，2018年完成A輪募資500萬美元（約新台幣1.5億元），由美商中經合集團、達盈管理顧問及日本Accord Ventures等共同投資。"
  From Google Translate: "According to CTWANT reporter's investigation, Kdan is actually a local APP software company "Kdan" (Kdan) founded in Yongkang, Tainan in 2009. It used APPs to grab the quickest and the most in order to survive. However, it was nearly wiped out after the massive emergence of free APPs, and it instead focused on PDFs. Tool program, and launched a subscription-based service, which is regularly updated based on user feedback, and has won praise from users. Since 2016, it has received angel investment of NT$40 million. In 2018, it completed the A-round fundraising of US$5 million (approximately NT$150 million). Yuan), jointly invested by the US-China Economic Cooperation Group, Daying Management Consultants and Japan's Accord Ventures."
4. Lin, Joyce (2020-10-05). "The Top Taiwanese App Company You Never Heard Of". CommonWealth Magazine. Archived from the original on 2020-11-14. Retrieved 2024-12-29.
  The article notes: "Lman Chu (朱宜振), the founder and CEO of blockchain startup BiiLabs, said Kdan’s choice at its inception to develop “tool apps” was smart because those apps resonate across borders, helping penetrate overseas markets and build overseas teams. Not coincidentally, Kdan has focused mainly on users in Western countries. At present, the United States is Kdan’s biggest market, accounting for 40 percent of its revenues, with another 25 percent coming from Europe, 20 percent from China, 5 percent from Japan, and 10 percent from the rest of the world. Kdan’s apps have gained strong followings in the West because users see them as native English-language products."
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kdan Mobile (traditional Chinese: 凱鈿; simplified Chinese: 凯钿) to pass Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Primary criteria, which requires "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for searching:

1. Mentions Asia America Multitechnology Association, does not appear particular independent?

2. A trade source, I found this about page.

3. Covers Kdan Office, Generative AI and Hancom, a bit about Kdan and an interview with chair 蘇柏州.

4. (I will note that I had already linked CommonWealth mag in my nomination).

So I don't think the sources here are extraordinary.

Edit: Had accidentally swapped 1 and 2. I found a profile on chinatimes.com, a rather promotional article on businesstoday.com.tw and one comparison to Adobe by Techcrunch. IgelRM (talk) 23:11, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the first source to be independent. It is unclear to me where Asia America Multitechnology Association is mentioned and why this would mean the source is not independent. BusinessNext is a business magazine focused on the technology and Internet sectors, which has a much broader scope than a trade magazine dedicated to a particular field. I consider it to be sufficiently independent to establish notability. The third and fourth sources include enough independent reporting and analysis about Kdan Mobile to establish notability. Cunard (talk) 01:42, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. The description on GBooks says: "AAMA台北搖籃計畫十週年的智慧傳承

顏漏有校長首本著作". I'm unsure if I understand correctly but AAMA refers to aforementioned association.

2. The magazine appears specifically about startups and management, so I'm unsure how to evaluate but I agree it contributes.

3. It also needs to be WP:SIGCOV of the company specifically. The Chinatimes profile (by the same publisher) is certainly but I don't know how business profiles are evaluated.

@Madeleine961 Could you look into this again?

Edit: I am asking because the founder is listed on AAMA Taipei. About Cradle Project IgelRM (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation. I've stricken the first source as based on your explanation as it may not be independent of the subject. Cunard (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. I'd like further review of these new sources. Remember, they do not have to be "extraordinary", just sufficient to establish notability.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have found some sources such as

Mysecretgarden (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS: Techcrunch is situational and funding news doesn't give company notability. AWN is about the animation software and the last two, unsure if reliable, about the PDF software, specifically. IgelRM (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article needs to be supplemented with references found as above, but in general it demonstrates the company's importance through credible sources and contributions --Kej Keir (talk) 08:32, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - At least for now. IgelRM raised some valid concerns and asked if this could be looked at again, but there has been no further work. In the meantime a load more sources were added. The relist comment requests a source review. Here is mine.
This is a company therefore WP:NCORP requires multiple deep or significant sources with each source containing "Independent Content" showing in-depth information on the company per WP:ORGDEPTH. Per WP:ORGIND, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. That is, references cannot rely only on information provided by the company - such as articles that rely entirely on quotations, press releases, announcements, interviews, website information, etc - even where such information has been reworded. If it isn't clearly independent content then it fails ORGIND. My analysis of all the sources provided in this AfD follows:

Created with templates {{ORGCRIT assess table}} and {{ORGCRIT assess}}
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor.
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Secondary?
New Creation and Growth - Unravel the secret of Taiwan's startups from 0 to 1 billion yuan [4]		Published by Business Week Publishing apparently. That would make it generally reliable for business news.	This appears to be a very short mention in a book attempting to survey Taiwan's startup landscape. There is some information about their products, but it seems to be quite limited. When discussing ORGGDEPTH, NCORP discusses coverage that meets the guideline. It says: Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization. That is not what we have here. It may be there is more in this book, but I don't read the language and don't have the book. But I expect this is all there is
Business Next Issue 319 [5]	Because of the source it is not certain this meets WP:ORGIND	Apparently a book but actually a magazine. A trade source.	As for the above, WP:ORGDEPTH is not met with the level of coverage here which is primarily about the apps and not about the business.	News reporting aspects are primary, but the question being asked of this source would make company information secondary. There is just not much there.
https://www.ctwant.com/article/301042/	I cannot tell if this is independent or not as I do not speak the language and investigating only with Google Translate. I would give it a pass if it were a clear pass elsewhere, but it is not.	Appears to be a reputable and bylined publication in an edited magazine (probably web only).	Once again, mostly about products and the little about the company does not meet ORGDEPTH.	It appears to be relying on some other reporting and is not itself news reporting.
https://english.cw.com.tw/article/article.action?id=2809	Bylined Joyce Lin, who has authored multiple articles. Web only article, but no indication this is not independent	As far as I can see this is a web only article from a reputable outlet with an editorial process. No obvious reliability concerns. I note that this profile was mentioned in the nomination.	Meets WP:ORGDEPTH
TechCrunch [6] [7] [8] - Multiple articles from the same source count as one under WP:SIRS	– Partial. Startup funding reporting is independent, but the third article, in particular, is based on information coming from Kenny Su, and does not meet [{WP:ORGIND]].	I believe they are considered reliable. Trade source.	– There is little information about the company that is independent. What is independent is not significant per ORGDEPTH.	Three news reports about the startup. These are news reports - primary sources.
TechinAsia [9]	– Partial. The article is occasioned by a bit of news (and that information is primary), but what Kenny Su says about the company is not independent.	I believe it is reliable, although I haven't fully investigated.	Founded in 2009, Kdan Mobile provides digital productivity and content creation platforms. This is followed by a quote from Kenny Su and a product plug, but that is not independent. This, therefore, does not provide SIGCOV at CORPDEPTH.	– This source is occasioned news report for series B funding. The news report element is primary, but analysis would be secondary. Nevertheless, what we have does not meet ORGIND, which is a general problem for series B funding articles. These are startups promoting themselves.
AWN [10]	"Source: Kdan Mobile". Although it is bylined, this appears to be based ona. press release, and the download link has a cimmission based tracker link.	– It is reliable for reviews about animation software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any.	All about "Free Animation Desk App Available for Download". There is no information at all about the company, let alone any ORGDEPTH coverage.	Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company
Techworm [11]	Download link has a tracker to generate commission	– It is reliable for reviews about Windows software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any.	All about KDAN PDF Reader, and nothing at all on KDAN the company. Just	Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company
Windows Report [12]	"We may get a commission if you buy through our links"	– It is reliable for reviews about Windows software but irrelevant as to whether it is reliable for information about the company as it doesn't have any.	All about KDAN PDF Reader, and nothing at all on KDAN the company. Just	Reviews are secondary for the product, although this is not about the company

So we have one good source (already mentioned in the nomination), but we need multiple sources. The first of Cunard's might be worth revisiting, or there may be more elsewhere, but at this point we are not past WP:NCORP. I would like to revise my opinion, but I do not see the sources yet. Hopefully more can be found. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 11:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The BusinessNext and Want Weekly articles discuss the company's history and several of its products. If the sources just focused on a specific product, that would not be significant coverage of the company. But when as is the case here, the sources provide an overview of the company's products while profiling the company, the sources provide significant coverage of the company. Here are additional sources I found:
1. Chu, Yung-kuang 朱永光 (2016-11-01). "〈薪火新苗〉本土App商冒出頭打造亞洲Adobe" [〈New Sparks and New Shoots〉 Local Taiwanese App Developer Emerges, Aims to Build "Asian Adobe"]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. B4.
  United Daily News's Yung-kuang Chu writes the column "New Sparks and New Shoots" (Chinese: 薪火新苗), which is published every other Tuesday. I found a copy of this column in the United Daily News archives. There is a copy of the column on a blog which says it has been "reproduced with the permission of the author". The article notes: "曾獲選美國Apple App Store年度最佳娛樂與工具類應用廠商，所開發的產品多次以最值得購買、蘋果員工最愛、熱門精選、主題推薦登上App Store首頁，預計今年底將突破全球1億下載量，如此亮眼的成績，是來自台南的台灣本土開發商凱釹行動科技（Kdan Mobile Software）。"
  From Google Translate: "Kdan Mobile Software, a Taiwan-based developer from Tainan, has been recognised as one of the best entertainment and tools developers on the U.S. Apple App Store. Its products have repeatedly been featured on the App Store's homepage, including as "Most Worth Buying," "Apple Staff Favorites," "Popular Picks," and "Recommended Themes." The company is expected to surpass 100 million downloads worldwide by the end of this year. This impressive achievement is the result of the efforts of Kdan Mobile, a local Taiwanese company founded in 2009."
  The article notes: "成立於2009年，創辦人蘇柏州早年任職於工研院，在App Store推出後不久，看准其發展潛力及商業模式，即著手投入研發此一新程式語言。有別於其他App開發商，凱釷長期深耕行動閱讀、多媒體創作、繪圖與影像編輯等領域，以「亞洲Adobe」的定位進軍國際市場，鎖定喜歡塗鴉及從事創作的族群，打造完善的數位內容創作工具。"
  From Google Translate: "Founded by Su Bo-Chou, who previously worked at the Industrial Technology Research Institute (ITRI), Kdan Mobile started developing mobile applications shortly after the App Store's launch, seeing the potential and business opportunities in this new development platform. Unlike other app developers, Kdan Mobile has focused on areas such as mobile reading, multimedia creation, drawing, and image editing. It has positioned itself as "Asia's Adobe" and aims to serve the international market, targeting users who enjoy doodling and creative work, offering a complete suite of digital content creation tools."
  The article notes: "相較於以PC為主的Adobe，凱釷更早打入行動裝置市場。旗下主力產品NoteLedge、PDF Markup、Animation Desk、Write-On Video、Pocket Scanner，簡易、直覺式的操作界面是最大特色，大幅降低使用者的學習門檻，即使沒有受過專業設計訓練，也能輕鬆上手、享受創作所帶來的樂趣。"
  From Google Translate: "Compared to Adobe, which is mainly focused on PC-based software, Kdan Mobile entered the mobile device market much earlier. Its flagship products, such as NoteLedge, PDF Markup, Animation Desk, Write-On Video, and Pocket Scanner, feature simple and intuitive interfaces, making them accessible even to users without professional design training. This approach lowers the learning curve significantly, enabling anyone to easily start creating and enjoy the process of content creation."
2. Peng, Tzu-hao 彭子豪 (2021-11-17). "凱鈿業務專一入選新創明日之星" [Kdan Mobile's Focused Business Selected as the "Next Big Star" of Taiwan's Startup Scene]. United Daily News (in Chinese). p. C8.
  The article notes: "為讓台灣新創企業能立足國際及展現能見度，國發會推動NEXT BIG新創明日之星計畫，首波9家新創在總統蔡英文的站台下公布，其中軟體服務商凱鈿行動科技備受矚目，其因該公司是南部少數別具規模的軟體開發商，2009年成立至今軟體下載更累積超過2億次。"
  From Google Translate: "To help Taiwanese startups gain a foothold internationally and showcase their visibility, the National Development Council (NDC) launched the "Next Big Star" startup program. The first batch of nine startups was announced under the patronage of President Tsai Ing-wen, with Kdan Mobile Technology, a software service provider, receiving significant attention. The company, one of the few sizable software developers in southern Taiwan, has accumulated over 200 million software downloads since its founding in 2009."
  The article notes: "隨著Adobe進入行動服務、蘋果iOS開放對於PDF檔的支援，下載量下滑成為當時凱鈿行動科技的一大挑戰，為此在2012年公司獲資策會旗下資鼎創投基金，加上公司現金水位還不差，進而加強產品深度外，積極參加國內外各大、小軟體賽事，無形中提高公司能見度，並於2013至14年間推出跨平台文件管理服務。"
  From Google Translate: "However, as Adobe entered the mobile service market and Apple's iOS began supporting PDF files, Kdan Mobile faced the challenge of a declining download rate. To address this, the company secured investment from the Institute for Information Industry's (III) Vanguard Venture Capital Fund in 2012. With strong cash flow, the company deepened its product offerings and actively participated in both domestic and international software competitions, raising its visibility. In 2013 and 2014, the company launched a cross-platform document management service."
3. Chen, Hui-chen 陳惠珍 (2014-03-20). "微型創業－創業心法創業就是做自己擅長且喜歡做的事。凱鈿App開發行動玩家按讚蘇柏州成功挺進歐美，成立５年來全球下載突破2,000萬次，下一步強攻陸、日市場" [Micro-Entrepreneurship – The Mindset of Entrepreneurship: It's about doing what you’re good at and passionate about. Kdan App Development – Mobile Players Show Their Support. Su Bozhou Successfully Entered Europe and the U.S., With Over 20 Million Global Downloads in 5 Years; Next Step: Aggressively Targeting the Chinese and Japanese Markets]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.
  The article notes: "手機應用程式（App）市場競爭激烈，由蘇柏州所創辦的凱鈿行動科技設計公司，5年多來，已推出30多款跨平台的手機應用程式，至今已創下全球2,000餘萬次下載佳績，還曾獲得「最值得購買」、「蘋果員工最愛」等評語，受到全球不少手機使用者的推薦。工研院出身的創辦人蘇柏州，因看到Apple推智慧手機及App Store的成立，因而發現App開發的契機，進而觀察到切入世界的接口。"
  From Google Translate: "Competition in the mobile application (App) market is fierce. Kdan Mobile Technology Design Company, founded by Su Baizhou, has launched more than 30 cross-platform mobile applications in more than five years, and has achieved more than 20 million downloads worldwide so far. It has also received reviews such as "Most Worth Buying" and "Apple Employees' Favorite", and is recommended by many mobile phone users around the world."
  The article notes: "然而，現階段歐美市場，佔了凱鈿總銷售70％上下，在邁入全球突破2000萬下載量的新里程碑下，不僅已證實創立公司所設定的佈局策略是正確的，未來也有能力，將挑戰化為經營特色的實力。目前，依靠擁有完善的行銷團隊，除了歐美市場經營外，另針對中國與日本地區從事行銷規劃，並且逐步配置在地行銷人員，藉由他們可以精準地跨越語言的隔閡，把公司想傳達的產品構想，傳遞給潛在客戶群。"
  From Google Translate: "However, at this stage, the European and American markets account for about 70% of Kdan's total sales. As it reaches a new milestone of exceeding 20 million downloads globally, it has not only been confirmed that the layout strategy set by the founding company is correct, but also has the ability to do so in the future. The ability to turn challenges into business characteristics. At present, relying on a complete marketing team, in addition to operating in the European and American markets, it is also engaged in marketing planning for China and Japan, and gradually allocates local marketing personnel, through which they can accurately overcome language barriers and convey the products that the company wants to convey. idea and pass it on to the potential customer base."
4. Lai, Chao-nan 賴昭男 (2016-07-30). "職場達人－凱鈿行動科技創辦人兼執行長蘇柏州App創業從iPhone 3G開始" [Workplace Expert – Founder and CEO of Kdan Technology, Su Bozhou, App Entrepreneurship Starting with iPhone 3G]. China Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.
  The article notes: "2009年3月，蘇柏州正式成立凱鈿行動科技。公司只有5個人，除了蘇柏州和另1個台灣伙伴，其他3個人來自大陸。蘇柏州將技術開發部分交給大陸團隊負責；在網路公司裡，這種遠距合作模式很常見，透過分工，蘇柏州也更能專注在市場研究上。"
  From Google Translate: "In March 2009, Su Bozhou officially founded Kaidan Mobile Technology. The company had only five employees: Su and one Taiwanese partner, while the other three were from mainland China. Su delegated the technical development to the mainland team. Remote collaboration like this is common in internet companies, and it allowed Su to focus more on market research through division of labor."
5. Wu, Chun-i 吳俊毅 (2022-09-21). "將上百種 App 整合成 3 大訂閱服務，凱鈿在 B2B 市場看到什麼機會？" [Integrating Hundreds of Apps into 3 Major Subscription Services: What Opportunities Does Kdan See in the B2B Market?]. 經理人 [Manager Today] (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2025-01-04. Retrieved 2025-01-04.
  The article notes: "凱鈿行動科技成立於 2009 年，打造上百個 App，其中「PDF Reader」更成為台灣「億」級商用工具軟體；在 2015 年轉型「軟體即服務」（SaaS）廠商，短短數年間，服務和產品累積下載超過 2 億次，全球會員突破 1000 萬，今年更與微軟、LINE 合作，力拚成為台灣下一個新創獨角獸。"
  From Google Translate: "Kdan Mobile Technology was founded in 2009 and has created hundreds of apps, among which "PDF Reader" has become a "billion-dollar" commercial tool software in Taiwan. In 2015, it transformed into a "Software as a Service" (SaaS) manufacturer. In just a few years, Its services and products have been downloaded more than 200 million times, and its global membership has exceeded 10 million. This year, it has cooperated with Microsoft and LINE to become Taiwan's next new unicorn."
Cunard (talk) 13:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note that commission in reviews per se don't make sources not independent as a popular blog like The Verge also uses that. IgelRM (talk) 13:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Editors have provided counterposed assessments of sources and their depth of coverage. Comments from additional editors would help assess consensus regarding the sources in discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 15:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nelly Leon-Chisen

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

No independent sigcov to establish notability. Search hits are either self-published or routine references to her book. Jdcooper (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Plenty of passing mentions, but no solid reliable sources with significant coverage to establish notability. SunloungerFrog (talk) 15:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Eric R. Gilbertson

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

This is essentially a resume. The person doesn't appear to pass general notability guidelines. A re-direct to the school is possible, but I question if having a redirect to a small school for every one of their past president is necessary. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Academics and educators, Businesspeople, and Michigan. Graywalls (talk) 14:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can only find articles about his retirement and public speaking events after that, nothing really showing notability. Primary sourcing is used in the article now, so that's not helping. Oaktree b (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bisk Farm

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

All of the sources appear to be WP:NEWSORGINDIA 🄻 🄰 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Companies, and India. 🄻 🄰 14:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

BRUV Party

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

Redirect to Andrew Tate#Political party launch. There are only two reliable sources for this, both of which are reporting on the launch announcement, neither of which appear particularly significant either.[13][14] So per WP:EVENTCRIT, this does not amount to widespread coverage nor a diversity of sources. This also comes under WP:INHERITORG, given that the only coverage is due to Andrew Tate's announcement, as well as the subsequent reaction. I've otherwise stated my opinion on the two sources here, and after an extensive search only found a satirical site and other unreliable sources. The London Economic is the only other source that could be deemed reliable imo, but still the coverage is only based on one event, and is far from in-depth to be considered WP:SIGCOV. CNC (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. CNC (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftfy per WP:TOOSOON and too soon to delete. There is the possibility the party will feature candidates and win some seat(s) which will then qualify it for WP:NPOL. Redirecting to the founder's page leaves no room for the article's further development should it gradually become notable. Mekomo (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify would mean that readers do not reach the content they are looking for, which is summarised at Tate's page. I'm not opposed to redirect and draftifying, so that editors can work on improving a draft. CNC (talk) 15:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or just delete - we don't have WP:CRYSTALBALLs and the subject doesn't currently meet WP:GNG as per nomination. Orange sticker (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom. This is much WP:TOOSOON. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 15:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Only when it will be official, the article can be reinstated. For now it seems pretty vague if it will actually come into existance and be in elections. DerEchteJoan (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Andrew Tate#Political party launch. I agree that this article may be WP:TOOSOON, but draftifying alone will mean users cannot find it. I think that redirecting and draftifying is the best solution.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STONEX India

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

Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Page is promotional WP:PROMO. Indian media sources should be viewed carefully, as they often present press releases as news WP:RSNOI, WP:ROUTINE. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, India, and Delhi. TC-BT-1C-SI (talk) 09:44, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - promotional style is visible but plenty reliable sources are present and the page requires clean up more than removing. --Kej Keir (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kej Keir, can you please list the numerous reliable sources present in the article for other editors to evaluate? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to identify any source that satisfies WP:CORPDEPTH. The content is supported by churnalistic articles and listings on e-commerce sites like Justdial.com and Indiamart.com, falling well short of meeting WP:NCORP. Yuvaank (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I made extensive research to find reliable sources and added two books that provide significant coverage. These sources now clearly meet the NCORP criteria. In addition to a few weaker references, there are also some important and useful ones that fulfill CORPDEPTH requirements—particularly several local newspapers that offer much deeper, independent context. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
RodrigoIPacce, could you mention the sources that you believe provide deeper and independent context for other editors to evaluate? The Business World article you added is a trivial mention and the ProjectX India edition is merely a company listing. These do not offer significant coverage. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 20:17, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Keep' Initially, I thought it would be easy to delete; however, after evaluating the sources (including newly added ones), I found sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping the page on Wikipedia. Taking off shortly (talk) 08:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per WP:REOPEN as an uninvolved administrator in my individual capacity, per discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_6#STONEX_India.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 14:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete A lot of this material looks like the sort of undisclosed promotional content warned of in WP:RSNOI although the Adobo article does, in fact, look legit. That being said a single good source is insufficient to establish sustained and lasting notability. Willing to change !vote if additional reliable sources are brought forward. Simonm223 (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Calls for the destruction of Israel

AfDs for this article:

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

In the year since the closure of the prior AfD this article has remained a NPOV non-compliant coatrack article that synthesizes elements from Anti-Zionism and from Antisemitism. The article has an unclear scope but there is no dispute at article talk that it has not remained within its scope. As it is a coatrack whose scope is entirely covered by other, better, articles the best course of action is to cut this article, merging anything relevant, appropriately sourced and compliant with WP:NPOV into those articles whose scope overlaps this article. Simonm223 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable topic with a well-defined scope. NPOV issues can be resolved through editing. Andre🚐 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the contention that the scope is well-defined is very controversial in this case. In fact the well-defined scope exists in Anti-Zionism - this is a POV fork that mostly seems to exist to suggest anti-zionism is de-facto antisemitic. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@AndreJustAndre: Perhaps you could point out the three highest quality RS that clearly define the scope. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Anti-Zionism; failing that, delete. This is a WP:POVFORK of that article and everything worth preserving from it, if anything, would be better covered there in the more neutral context it provides. --Aquillion (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

John Malcolm (Canadian farmer)

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

Non-notable biography that fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO. No real claim of notability; the subject is described as a "successful farmer... minor entrepreneur and innkeeper". (As with non-notable grandson Bill Malcolm, this also fails WP:NOTGENEALOGY.) None of the sources show WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. We have:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, some in in local history blogs/pages ([15], [16]), one in a book ([17]).
A WP:SPS self-published local history book ([18])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCES such as census records (a Scottish primary source reference turns up an empty result)
WP:USERGENERATED uploads of primary source genealogical materials from the page creator ([19], [20] and a user-generated genealogy site.

Nothing else qualifying turned up in a BEFORE search. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Scotland, and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can actually find better sourcing than this. As written, this is depending almost entirely on primary sources that are not support for notability, with the exception of brief namechecks of his existence in single local history book, which isn't about him substantively enough to get him over WP:GNG all by itself if it's all he's got for reliable sourcing. But like the nominator, I also wasn't able to find anything better in the research resources that are available to me. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: They named an area of Toronto after him, that's about where the notability is from. That's fine, but nothing else really showing this was a distinguished farmer; livestock won a few awards, but that's not what we look for here. Oaktree b (talk) 15:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Contextual political analysis

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

AFD as the article has been draftified before and PROD can be contested. The subject of the article is a concept. The concept itself is well covered in the book, but there are not enough independent sources that refer to this concept. The references include Max Weber's Political Thought, but it is not clear whether the concept of "contextual political analysis" is presented there as well or not.

In short, the concept is not notable enough. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abanny

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

I go to AFD as PROD may be contested and the article has been draftified before. The subject of the article didn't show any notability. The only reference that showed some notability is the soundreloaded.com.ng source, but I didn't think that particular article is enough to show notability per WP:GNG.

Other references are not good references as they are blogs, and some even referencing to government sites, definition of mathematics per Britannica or places that he studied.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lot of problems here and a WP:GNG/WP:NBIO/WP:NMUSIC failure. Likely an autobiography (compare creator's username with the subject's middle name). The sources are a mess, consisting of links to his own music ([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26]); and WP:USERGENERATED sites like SoundReloaded, AfrikaLyrics and a Blogger site. Finally, then the creator has added non-sequitur links that prove no claims in the story: The Britannica definition of mathematics to validate his degree in math, a link to the homepage of his supposed digital marketing school (I previously deleted that as WP:REFSPAM and will do so again), links to the homepages of Nigerian local governments and a news homepage ([27], [28], [29]) to "validate" the claim that This song became popular in various Nigerian cities. It's probably just outside the edge of another speedy deletion, but it absolutely fails any notability guideline we might apply. Dclemens1971 (talk) 12:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Collins (footballer, born 2003)

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

One EFL league match. Fails GNG, routine articles only Canary757 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and England. Canary757 (talk) 12:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – He never played at professional level so I don't see it as a potential draft. ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 14:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Colchester are a pro club but its one league game only.Canary757 (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

JN Data A/S

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

Not notable IT company; no reliable sources Cinder painter (talk) 12:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Denmark. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Million Model Catwalk

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

Google news, plus other web search engines and tools show that this is not notable topic (campaign) and should be removed. Cinder painter (talk) 11:55, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Medicine, Websites, and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ran a deep search and nothing was found. Delete as nominated. Mekomo (talk) 15:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Orange sticker (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Localgiving

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

Could not find additional sources; the existing two are poor and event-based (e.g., launching of the platform). Cinder painter (talk) 11:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete there's some independent Google News sources such as this one[30] - but it reads a lot like a press release and doesn't have a byline. Also [31] but most mentions are from local or industry media and are more run of the mill than anything noteworthy. Orange sticker (talk) 15:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non notable for profit organization. In one of the sources the organisation claimed that having an online presence is very important for small charity organisations and encourged them to register on its website for a $60 annual subscription fee. No credible sources found to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. Their presence here is more of a PR. Mekomo (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bmycharity

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

Not notable (defunct) company; no previous good and reliable media mentions found; Cinder painter (talk) 11:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no 3rd party sources. Google has a couple of mentions on Marketing Week but these are run of the mill - doesn't meet wp:gng Orange sticker (talk) 15:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Xperedon

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

Not notable initiative, no reliable sources or general notability. Cinder painter (talk) 11:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and United Kingdom. Shellwood (talk) 13:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all sources are from the company website, this looks like WP:PROMO Orange sticker (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sinitus

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

Dead links mainly and no rs. New online search did not bring reliable sources; should be removed Cinder painter (talk) 11:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Switzerland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Bank (Greece)

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

Not notable defunct bank with poor sources Cinder painter (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Greece. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rabitabank

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

Lacking reliable sources to meet notability guidelines; the references are primarily from the bank itself. Cinder painter (talk) 11:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Azerbaijan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tomato Bank

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

I don't see how this defunct Chinese bank passes WP:NCORP. No reliable sources or significant coverage Cinder painter (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NBGI Private Equity

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. Some pdfs, paid or profile nature references. Cinder painter (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, Greece, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nordea Bank Lietuva

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. Could be redirected to the Nordea page Cinder painter (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Lithuania. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nordea Bank Norge

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

I don't see how it passes WP:NCORP. The notability banner has remained unresolved for 12 years. Cinder painter (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Companies, and Norway. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 138573

AfDs for this article:

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 34880

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 174569

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 41162

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

HD 222399

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

Does not pass WP:NASTRO? -- Beland (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Beland (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Ramachandran (politician)

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

The subject of this article fails WP:NPOL. The article was proposed for deletion few days ago, but the author removed it without addressing the concerns or demonstrating how the article satisfies the requirements of WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Idoghor Melody (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Idoghor Melody (talk) 10:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, and Tamil Nadu. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

S. Ramachandran is a politician who is the secretary of the Tamil Nadu unit of CPIM which is one of the only six national parties of India [This can be soon become one of the only five national parties because BSP is on the verge of losing the status]. Besides the article has some reliable sources and secondary sources and hence it meets the general notability guideline. XYZ 250706 (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Besides multiple Wikipedia articles having less citations or having no citations stay on Wikipedia. But it has already 3 reliable sources and secondary sources and more can be added. An improvement tag can be added but deletion is right. XYZ 250706 (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please tag those articles, we need to review or remove them as well, that would be a help. Oaktree b (talk) 15:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't meet political notability, works in the party as a functionary. Sourcing is not helpful, nor can I find anything showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Al Marjan Island LLC

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

Fails WP:NCORP. I find some references about the island (which is still in development), but nothing I find meets WP:ORGCRIT for this company which is involved in the development. CNMall41 (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and United Arab Emirates. CNMall41 (talk) 09:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Mallzee

AfDs for this article:

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

Mallzee shut down in 2021. The article was flagged for neutrality and promotional content in August 2017, it is written mostly like a self-interested ad, and with the lack of any changes to rectify those issues or any edits to indicate the business shut down evidences minimal interest in article. At present, I feel the article doesn't provide encyclopaedic value and given the years of opportunity since the closure of the business without as much as an update indicating such, I doubt the quality of this article will improve. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Chip 🐺 08:35, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it passes WP:NORG, even considering some articles, the coverage was incidental. ~ Chip 🐺 08:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Fashion, Software, and Scotland. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:30, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 09:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FXORO

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

The sources are poor and unreliable; press coverage is almost nonexistent, and many citations come from the company’s own website. BoraVoro (talk) 08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, and Cyprus. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Καμπάνα" €360.000 στην ΚΕΠΕΥ MCA Intelifunds από την Επιτροπή Κεφαλαιαγοράς, fined by the Commission. IgelRM (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Coinme

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

Very small crypto exchange, no direct sources with in-depth media coverage. Mainly press coverage on people or events somehow connected to the crypto and the company. BoraVoro (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cryptocurrency, Finance, Companies, Technology, and Washington. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable business awards, sourcing is largely confirmation of funding or routine business activities. I don't see notability here. I can't find anything we could use either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is about all there is for RS that I found: [32], more of a consumer protection story than anything showing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 15:16, 7 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 Procedural close‎. Original AfD has now been reopened. See Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2025_January_6#STONEX_India. Owen× ☎ 14:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

STONEX India

AfDs for this article:

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

Not meeting NCORP; relisting again after delreview BoraVoro (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Delhi. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close due to an ongoing deletion review for this topic. I appreciate BoraVoro acknowledging their close of the previous AFD was incorrect. However it is not appropriate to have an AFD and DRV running simultaneously. Based on the current state of that DRV (consensus to relist appears to be forming), it would be best to close this AFD and relist the already-started discussion so users can directly respond to the points brought up there. Frank Anchor 14:05, 7 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.

Embrum Highway 417 pileup

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

Fails WP:NEVENT, lacks WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. All sources are from February 2006. Article claims a legacy of being Canada's second-deadliest multi-vehicle collision, but it's cited to WP, and I can't find any other sources discussing this event in that context. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Canada. ~ A412 ^talk! 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, it isn't Wikipedia's mandate, mission or goal to maintain an article about every single thing that happens in the world — the key to establishing notability here isn't to verify that the accident happened, it's to show that the accident had some kind of enduring impact that would satisfy the ten year test — by comparison, the 1999 Ontario Highway 401 crash documents major changes in MTO regulations and safety improvements to the stretch of highway where it occurred, lasting well into the 2010s, which is precisely the kind of thing we need to see. But this isn't documenting anything of the sort, and is basically just "thing that happened, the end", which is not enough. Also, note that the title has a spelling error in it, as the town is called Embrun, not Embrum. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find much lasting sourcing, what's given is about all there is. Being the second deadliest traffic accident would be notable, if we had sourcing beyond simple news reports from the time. Oaktree b (talk) 15:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Bop House

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

The house itself fails WP:GNG. Some of the sources listed in the article isn't even RS, Google News yield none RS sources. Though IDK if Elle or this Yahoo Entertainment article is RS? Nonetheless, it still fails WP:SIGCOV Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Florida. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Patric Elder

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

This is a WP:BLP that was rejected at AfC for a lack of notability. Of additional concern is WP:NPF: half of this article of a BLP is an unsourced "Controversies" section (the only inline source is the IBO academic integrity policy). CMD (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Malaysia. CMD (talk) 07:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom non notable fails WP:GNG. Theroadislong (talk) 08:32, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I remove the unsourced "Controveries" section per WP:BLPSOURCE. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - Still fails WP:BIO/WP:GNG - I had declined as a draft. Strangely, they had said they understood and again here the issue, but then decided just to move to main and blank the talk page feedback. KylieTastic (talk) 11:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Perceived notability seems to stem from unsourced controversies, now removed. /Julle (talk) 13:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: So he's a drama teacher? Hasn't been convicted of any crimes, so that's not notable. Rather routine career otherwise. I don't see notability. I can't find sourcing about this person either. Oaktree b (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Verlag Anton Saurwein

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

I couldn't find any significant coverage of this company, failing WP:NCORP. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies and Germany. – Anne drew (talk · contribs) 07:19, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bananana

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

Neither List of programmes broadcast by ntv7 nor List of programmes broadcast by 8TV (Malaysian TV network) mentions anything named Bananana. Also, Banananas Music is a partial title match. So, a disambiguation page like this is not needed. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. GTrang (talk) 04:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This appears more as if it were created from search engine results rather than from content found on Wikipedia, therefore making it functionally useless. Waddles 🗩 🖉 19:38, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Banana (disambiguation) Plausible misspelling; the 8TV block is actually mentioned on List of programmes broadcast by TV3 (Malaysia) so that was in error, and it seems like it moved to NTV7 during a time 8TV carried Nickelodeon programming instead, so it's a duplicate mention. Whatever the case, mention on the dab page as a secondary spelling is proper. Nate • (chatter) 23:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are two legitimate entries on the page now. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The disambiguation has limited utility, with only two entries, one being a partial title match and both topics can be addressed within their respective articles.

Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as this discussion currently does not have a consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G14. The two entries does not even have a Wikipedia page Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 09:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jut (topography)

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

This metric is really cool but I don't think it's notable, since I can only find the unpublished arXiv source, a couple blogs and other websites that don't meet Wikipedia's RS standards. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. (t · c) buidhe 06:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Was going to try to make a good keep argument here but it looks like it's only discussed in a single academic paper from 2022. SportingFlyer T·C 07:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Baarmutha, Victoria

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

Non-notable place, and not a real locality. Contains only a single source, and according to both google maps and the Australian Bureau of Statistics, this place does not exist. Likely a historical place that does not exist any more and thus doesn't meet requirements for notability. I don't like deleting articles relating to georaphy as Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features) states that "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Even abandoned places can be notable, because notability encompasses their entire history." however, Baarmutha is not legally recognised and it seems the area it is purported to be in, is part of Beechworth. Viatori (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I found this book: [33], but I don't have access to it. Would that be enough for notability? I would tend to think a place that had a post office for that long would be at least somewhat documented, but maybe post offices work differently in Australia. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Barbie Smith

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

Non-notable figure skater. No way do those passing mentions in the provided sources meet the standards of "significant coverage". The first simply verifies that she finished 4th at the U.S. championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Colorado, and Skating. Bgsu98 (Talk) 05:00, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Surely, our friendly neighborhood nominator must understand by now that the sources present in an article are not the entirety of the sources available. Right? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 JTtheOG (talk) 07:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't have membership for this particular archive, so therefore I can't read the sources offered, but have no reason to doubt the posts above and finishing fourth in the World Championships seems to suggest presumed notability to me. No surprise to find few sources on google in 2025 given her achievements were over 45 years ago.Canary757 (talk) 12:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources kindly added to article.Canary757 (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources identified by JTtheOG which I have clipped so open access to all and added to the article so Canary757 and others can review easier. KylieTastic (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please close this AFD as Speedy Keep. Bgsu98 (Talk) 15:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Noémie Silberer

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:52, 7 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 13:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Equestrian Trade Association

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

Fails WP:NORG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Currently defunct.Seems to have been created by COI user. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Companies, Horse racing, and United States of America. Imcdc Contact 04:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Trade organization with little to no reliable secondary coverage. All the coverage about it that I could find appears to be promotional in nature. Does not pass WP:GNG nor WP:NORG. Thanks for assuming good faith. Missvain (talk) 22:08, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous WP:PROD candidate, ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 05:46, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not begin to satisfy WP:NCORP. Specifically:

Nothing on JSTOR
Two press-releases and two passing mentions on EBSCO
No verifiable mention on Scholar
One verifiable passing mention on GBooks.

The only content in the page actually supported by any of the three sources cited is that at least one show was held in Baltimore. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:42, 7 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.

Isabel Drescher

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

Non-notable figure skater; no senior-level international medal placements. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:43, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have found a couple of things for her on the same website Westfalische Rundschau [34] and [35]. One of these is about her when she is very young and the other one is one long paragraph so still some way short of establishing notability but it gets the discussion started.Canary757 (talk) 07:11, 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!} 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Cindy Carquillat

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

Non-notable figure skater. While she did finish in first place at the 2004 Swiss Championships, her score was too low to be awarded the title of Swiss Champion. I found this one article where she was mentioned in passing as now coaching. I'll let the community decide whether that qualifies as "significant coverage". Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Switzerland. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, there is no corresponding article on the German Wikipedia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 04:46, 7 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. The article's author was a sock of the blocked user Sabupusi, WP:G5 applies. Girth Summit _(blether) 10:27, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Singaporean 2nd Infantry ambush

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

This is a ChatGPT-generated article about a purported ambush. That includes the AI searching out the references itself. This can be seen on the nlb url in the first version, and otherwise confirmed by the users various talkpage posts, and a similar AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malaccan-Siamese war. Now, while it appears there was indeed some military incident that did kill 8 people, I am unsure if it is notable as a standalone incident. Some of the sources listed are just photos with none of the supposed information, others are broken gbooks links with no preview (based on other now deleted articles and drafts, I am fully confident the AI just made the book references up and the author never checked them anyway). Others do mention an incident did occur (eg), but they date it to February 28, so ChatGPT got that wrong. At a quick BEFORE, I do find the incident mentioned elsewhere (eg), but nothing I'd be happy to say is in-depth coverage. In any case, even if there is sustained coverage (who knows, it might be in a book), the made up text and sources probably mean this is a WP:TNT case that would need to be written from scratch anyway. CMD (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: History, Malaysia, and Singapore. CMD (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Military. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination, doesn't seem worth preserving. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:48, 7 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.

Caroline Gülke

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

Non-notable figure skater; highest medal placement was silver at the German nationals. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: A brief google search turns up [[36]], which while paywalled appears to have WP:SIGCOV from what I can read. A couple of sentences here but not what I'd call SIGCOV [[37]]. The corresponding German article has no non-database sources, so that doesn't help the case for this subject. Still undecided here. Let'srun (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There are other articles about her in Berliner Zeitung such as [38].Canary757 (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  With that additional source, I'm inclined to say this is a weak keep as there are multiple pieces of WP:SIGCOV for this subject to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as there is a Keep vote and this article has already been PROD'd.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Avayalik

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

This needs to be redirected to Avayalik Islands, but I think that's a form of soft deletion and am so nominating it. Avayalik-1 is a Dorset archaeological site on the Avayalik Islands. The islands article has some cited content about the site, and the islands are notable primarily for their artifacts. This article seems to be about Avayalik-1, but written before dating established the site as Dorset. It should be redirected rather than deleted, because it's a plausible search term. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:44, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Canada and Islands. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpenCoffee Club

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

Fails WP:GNG. Insufficient independent in-depth sources to establish notability. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Finance, Organizations, Companies, and United Kingdom. Imcdc Contact 03:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find anything for notability. There are a lot of trivial mentions to local clubs. The best sources with significant coverage I could find include: Local news source where the reporter has a conflict of interest (went to a meeting about a startup funded by her organization). Masters thesis, not reliable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. readwrite.com article, a website that appears to have little to no editorial oversight. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 06:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find the WP:SIGCOV for the WP:GNG to be met here. Let'srun (talk) 03:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. Already PROD'd so not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: informal networking meetings over coffee are about as routine an activity as you can get, nothing about this stands out as notable. I'm going to get a coffee after making this comment, not going to write an article about DnB's Morning Brew. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 06:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2023 Alberta general election

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

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

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

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

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

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

Content forks of unclear necessity. The standard format for Canadian provincial election results is to include the final vote counts in the unified "candidates" tables within the main election article first, and then consider moving that table to a new separate "results" page only if article-size considerations demand that. That is, separate results pages do not always have to exist across the board separately from the main election article: that's a size control option, not a standard requirement. And when a separate results page does exist it's supposed to do so instead of the candidates table being present in the main election article, not alongside that, and it's supposed to consist of the candidates table being moved from the main election article so that the separate page looks like this.
But that's not what's happening here: all of these pages exist alongside, not instead of, the candidates tables still being present in the main election articles, and all of them are transcluding individual "district results" templates instead of using the unified table like they're supposed to.
Additionally, it warrants note that these were all created within the past month by a (non-Canadian, as far as I know) editor who doesn't really contribute on Canadian politics on a regular, ongoing basis, and instead tends to jump in only on election nights to create a hashpile of improperly formatted stubs about the newly elected legislators, which other people inevitably end up having to repair after the fact -- just in October's New Brunswick election alone, I and another editor both had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong, and at least in my case it wasn't the first time I had to post to their talk page to tell them they were doing things wrong.
Again, it's an either/or choice between including the candidates table in the main article without a separate results page, or moving the candidates table to a separate results page instead of being in the main article. There's simply no prior precedent or need to duplicate the same information in two different places, and no election ever needs both a candidates table in the main article and a separate results page. It's one or the other, not both, and either way it needs to be formatted via the unified table, not via the transclusion of 50-70 individual district results templates. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Canada. Bearcat (talk) 15:33, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - These pages are for the templates to make it easier to view results than the tables which are difficult to read. I am currently constructing Results of the 2024 New Brunswick general election as the riding results on some pages are still missing. Moondragon21 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to arbitrarily decree that all of the hundreds of Canadian election articles that are doing things the way I described are doing it wrong, or arbitrarily impose a new way of doing them — you would need to establish a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada that the old way is a problem and that your way fixes it.

The tables are not "difficult" to read in any way, and the templates do not make it "easier". The tables, in fact, offer necessary information that your templates completely fail to provide. Since the tables group districts regionally, for example, it's possible to view variations in regional support — was one party significantly more or less popular in one region than it was in another, etc. — that a strictly alphabetical list fails to reveal. And since the tables have an incumbent column, they offer a way to track whether each incumbent was reelected, defeated or just didn't run again at all, which using the individual riding results templates fails to achieve.

Both of those are necessary information in a compendium of election results, which the existing format fulfills and your new variant format does not. So you would need a consensus that the long-established standard way of doing election results — either in the main article without having a separate results page to repeat the same results, or moving the table to a standalone results page without keeping duplicate data in the main article at all anymore — needs to be changed, and are not entitled to arbitrarily decree that yourself. Bearcat (talk) 15:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- - I do not mean to be imposing anything. I noticed that Ontario was the only province with separate pages so I did the same for other provinces. If the formatting is the only issue then that can be solved. The tables are difficult to read particularly on mobile devices, and vote share and candidate names are missing unlike the templates where they are included. As the ridings aren't in alphabetical order it is hard to navigate. Also there are some misconceptions here I do edit Canadian politics on a regular basis and not just election nights. Check my edit history. I recently completed the NB election results for each riding two months after the fact. As for the "hashpile of improperly formatted stubs" I believe they are of better quality now. Also it should be noted that I did not create all of these pages; Results of the 2020 British Columbia general election was created by User:RedBlueGreen93. How would I go about getting a consensus at Wikipedia:WikiProject Canada? Moondragon21 (talk) 20:38, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's worth noting that Ontario has a separate page potentially as it the largest province with 124 seats in their legislature, and there would be article size related constraints to not doing so. Similar to how federal elections in Canada have their own distinct results page see Results of the 2021 Canadian federal election by riding for the 2021 Canadian federal election. Can also be said, that both the Ontario page which is mentioned and the fed. election page follow a different design than the articles in this nomination.
    
    Given that results in both prov. and fed. elections in Canada vary tremendously by region of a province - or the country - i would make that case that regional groupings (of alphabetical constituencies) for election results makes considerable more sense than alphabetical across the whole province. But I would say that this is a conversation for a different forum other than AfD. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all These appear duplicative to the main articles. I do not see an advantage to list the results in a redundant page just to be able to use Template:Election box, and I don't see how 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read". I think the concise table is much better than having dozens of the election box templates, and we should be moving away from the latter in general for pages that cover multiple elections. Reywas92^Talk 16:13, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- 2020 British Columbia general election#Results by riding is "difficult to read" because they are not in alphabetical order instead they are listed by region. These pages are similar to those for Australian states as seen at Category:Electoral results in Australia which I presumed were comparable with the pages that exist for Ontario elections. Moondragon21 (talk) 20:39, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't mind that these articles exist, but I do agree with Bearcat that it's nice to have the ridings ordered by region and having an incumbent column, which these articles lack. Though, I do see why having the ridings ordered alphabetically would be useful as well. But, I'm not sure if just having a bunch of result templates by riding is all that useful other than to show the results by riding, alphabetically. They don't show the incumbents, and don't really let the reader compare the results with other ridings like a sortable list might accomplish. -- Earl Andrew - talk 07:35, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it has to be either/or as both can exist as Results of the 2011 Ontario general election by riding compliments 2011 Ontario general election. The listing of templates is standard for pages like Results of the 2024 Queensland state election. I think its helpful to see candidates alongside vote share. Moondragon21 (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all articles mentioned in original nom. Articles are redundant (WP:REDUNDANTFORK) to the main page for each election, and don't provide any new valuable information that couldn't be found on each respective constituency/elected officeholder page. Using Ontario as an example doesn't make sense as it's the largest provinces, which may require a stand-alone article - not due to notability or ease - but due to overall article size - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These would be valid forks if they needed to be (if the election article was long enough), but I agree as currently written they are duplicative, though they do present information in a slightly different format, so I don't think they're redundant. At the end of the day though we only need the results sorted one way. SportingFlyer T·C 01:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe at some point there will need to be a discussion about statistics and table use in Canadian election articles. Essentially, statistical information is repeated (i.e., Three results tables) and reorganized several times (i.e., below this) in Canadian election articles while there is limited substantive encyclopedic content about the election itself. However, addressing this issue, there appears to be three methods to display the statistical results of Canadian elections, they each convey slightly different information in a different manner.

1. Candidate Table: generally a table organized on the axis of electoral district (x) and political party (y) that provides the name of each candidate, as well as the incumbent (if present). Some include the number of votes and percentage of total votes each candidate received. BC 2001 Name and Votes Example, AB 1909 Name, Vote and %. As a note, I have created several of these in the past, but other users have also created these tables.

2. Statistical Table: tables created by @Raellerby that provide statistical information regarding the number of votes and party choice of each electoral district. BC 2001 Statistical Table Example.

3. CanElec Template Lists: tables created by @Moondragon21 that incorporates the individual electoral district's CanElec result template for each district in the election. Note, this is the standard used for pages for individual electoral districts when displaying historical election results.

Personally, it is my opinion that only one of the Candidate Table and Statistical Tables should be the primary method of displaying election results in the article. The Candidate Table effectively lists each candidate that participated in the election, which is desirable because notable individuals may stand in an election but not be elected. The Statistical Table effectively lists important information about vote counts, pluralities, and other similar information in a sortable manner. It is my opinion that only one should appear on the main article because these articles are becoming too long to meaningfully navigate. A results page would take a vast majority of this other statistical content out of the main article (Example almost everything below this). However, shorter provincial election pages may be able to fit both Candidate Table and Statistical Tables on the main article. Once there is sufficient encyclopedic content on a provincial election page, then a specific results page can be created. - Caddyshack01 (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Caddyshack01 has summarized the situation and issues succinctly. I created the Statistical Tables to better align Canadian election articles with those for the UK parliamentary elections, and they have turned out to be much more revealing compared to the Candidate Tables.Raellerby (talk) 16:29, 6 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!} 03:26, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apify

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

Appears to be entirely promotional and lacks WP:SUSTAINED notability. Amigao (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Internet, and Czech Republic. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated the article to include Czech and Slovak sources, in which the company has sustained coverage going back to 2017. Below are examples, which show the company to be notable in the Central European startup and business community. Additionally, a search of Stack Overflow's site shows many pages of developer discussion about Apify, indicating its widespread use.

https://zpravy.aktualne.cz/finance/nakupovani/black-friday-skutecne-slevy-porovnani/r~ab190004d43d11e7984d0cc47ab5f122/

https://cc.cz/apify-nepresvedcilo-investory-miliardove-ambice-tak-vystridalo-propousteni-krizi-ale-nakonec-prezilo/

https://www.hrot24.cz/clanek/do-apify-priteklo-70-milionu-korun-prazsky-startup-se-chce-stat-dalsim-ceskym-jednorozcem-HVEEd

https://fontech.startitup.sk/umela-inteligencia-regulacia-slovensko-pre-a-proti/

https://www.zive.cz/clanky/internet-patri-botum-ne-lidem-cesti-apify-je-prodavaji-jako-aplikace-podcast-zive/sc-3-a-229824/default.aspx

https://cc.cz/tezi-data-z-webu-a-je-v-zisku-datove-apify-ma-pres-200-tisic-uzivatelu-ted-nabira-70-milionu/

https://www.lupa.cz/aktuality/cesti-scraperi-webovych-dat-apify-ziskali-od-j-t-a-fryce-desitky-milionu-na-dalsi-expanzi/

https://www.cfoworld.cz/clanky/cfo-pod-lupou-dusan-antos-apify/

https://www.e15.cz/byznys/cesky-startup-dodal-evropske-komisi-program-ktery-hlida-e-shopy-s-falesnymi-slevami-1413801

https://www.businessinfo.cz/clanky/necista-hra-se-zakazniky/

https://www.cnews.cz/clanky/cerny-patek-2017-alza-czc-mall-falesne-slevy/

https://www.trend.sk/trend-archiv/hlavne-to-nepokazit-startupy-apify-yieldigo-memsource-to-maju-nasliapnute-elitneho-klubu

https://cc.cz/startupawards2024/apify/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Schnookums123 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – The subject does not have enough news coverage.

Mysecretgarden (talk) 19:25, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject has 13 news articles that meet the notability criteria of being significant, independent, reliable and secondary. The fact that many of them are in Czech or Slovak doesn't meet they don't meet the criteria, and a search of developer forums shows the software is widely used among English speakers in any case. ‪Ignatiusjreillythefirst‬ (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ignatiusjreillythefirst (talk • contribs) 00:03, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article contains a promotional section but has reliable sources. The page would benefit from cleanup to improve its structure and neutrality. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:14, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article has reliable sources and passes WP:COMPANY. XwycP3 (talk) 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article passes WP:SUSTAINED notability because it has 24 references going back to 2017. Sources are reliable and independent of the subject. Additionally, another editor removed the section listing the company's products, which should take care of the WP:PROMOTION concern. Schnookums123 (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Even though we suddenly have a week's worth of keep !votes, I question the neutrality of the new accounts that edit as if those contributors are not new (not that I'm saying this applies to all respondents). Additional views by some more of Wikipedia's demonstrably experienced contributors would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 03:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Glokk40Spaz

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG. Laun chba ller 01:48, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians and Georgia (U.S. state). WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Charitably it is too soon. In his first AfD about a year ago, he got one "weak keep" vote because he is signed to Columbia Records, but that is not enough. He is listed at the company website: [39], but with no supporting info ("Read More" leads nowhere). I can find no information from the label about any promotion of his releases or if they even released anything by him yet, despite what this article says. Meanwhile, he has no coverage in reliable music media and his stuff remains self-released on the usual platforms. Good luck to him if that big label puts in some effort, but nothing has yet happened to generate material for an article here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:42, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, already brought to AFD. not eligible for Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tina Albanese

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

This person doesn't seem notable enough to me. I cannot find any news coverage about her. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:21, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, Television, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:23, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article lacks sufficient independent, reliable sources to establish her notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moopaz (talk • contribs) 22:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The only "vote" is from an account that was created today. I'd like to hear more opinions.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Omoha

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

Only one source passes WP:GNG while the rest are either personal website like this, or about his foundation likethis and press releases. All the awards too are run-of-the-mills. A WP:Before showed nothing than his visitations to prominent people Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Business, and Nigeria. Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Green TV India

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

Fails WP:NCORP as there are no sources I can find that meet WP:ORGCRIT. Originally i though this was related to Green Entertainment Television but seems these are two separate entities for anyone searching name variations. CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television and India. CNMall41 (talk) 01:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

La Perdita Generacio

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

Per WP:Fancruft. This band does not seem to have received sufficient coverage outside of the Esperanto subculture. The only reference that is not in Esperanto is no longer retrievable. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Aŭstriano (talk) 01:41, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:15, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh at major beauty pageants

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

Procedural refiling of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thailand at the Big Four beauty pageants * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Beauty pageants and Thailand. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2,3-Bis(acetylmercaptomethyl)quinoxaline

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

Obscure chemical that I can only find two primary sources for in PubMed,[40][41] both of which are from the 1970s. Google search yields the two aforementioned sources, chemical databases, and Wikipedia. It's an anti-poliovirus drug but obviously doesn't have widespread use for that since polio is near eradication. It's also for herpes but doesn't seem to have any real-world usage in practice since other antivirals are used for that and there would be a lot more written about it if it were used. Velayinosu (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Biology and Medicine. Velayinosu (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, once notable always notable. It's reliably sourced and was of interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is sourced to one of the two primary sources nom found, and to a dictionary that cites only that same primary source. One primary source isn't enough for notability, and with only two primary publications in 50 years, I would say this drug was never "once notable" either. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've added several citations. Esculenta (talk) 16:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ademola Adesina

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

Apart from this puff piece from Londoner's post , all the sources are either pass mentioned, interview or nothing at all. Therefore all the sources fali WP:GNG and WP: SIGCOV cannot be established. Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Businesspeople, Technology, Nigeria, and United Kingdom. Ibjaja055 (talk) 01:31, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: England, California, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tamluk Royal Family

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

Fails WP:GNG. See Draft:Tamluk Royal Family; draft was repeatedly declined and then finally rejected for notability reasons before being recreated in article space regardless. As far as I can tell -- and I used Google Translate to search the cited Bengali sources for mentions of the word Tamluk in addition to checking Google Books for English sources -- none of the available secondary sources pass WP:SIGCOV. --Richard Yin (talk) 01:29, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, India, and West Bengal. Shellwood (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sir check "Mahisya" word too..and it will pass..I have checked..I think we need bengali editors for it... KhasEkadashTili (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.google.co.in/books/edition/History_Culture_and_Antiquities_of_T%C4%81mr/TCFuAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0&bsq=tamluk%20royal%20family%20mahishya KhasEkadashTili (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ilya Romanko

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

Doesn't seem to be a notable individual. Article created for PR from a disposable account. Deleted twice in ru-wiki. Кронас (talk) 01:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Television, and Russia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Revolutionary Communist League of Turkey

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

I started this earlier today, but was informed that translations via Google Translate usually aren't acceptable. The reason I'm AfDing it is because looking back over it, I don't see WP:SIGCOV or WP:NORG being met, and didn't actually check notability prior to translation from ~~Turkish~~ German, which I think has different notability standards. E_F⁵ 00:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. E_F⁵ 00:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations and Politics. Shellwood (talk) 00:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've been retranslating (the article was translated from German Wikipedia, not Turkish) and have added a couple of English-language references. The organization is referred to by various different translations, most using "Union" not "League". One of its own web pages uses "Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey", as does ICOR; the CIA uses "Turkish Revolutionary Communists' Union", while a paper by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada mentions the similar "Turkish Revolutionary Communist Union" but uses "Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey" in the heading. (And I found a redlink at Turkey Revolutionary Communist League that I have made into a redirect.) This variation complicates search, but if kept, the article should perhaps be moved to Union of Revolutionary Communists of Turkey. The IRB page has several citations including news coverage, and the German-language article already has a fair number of references, not all to the organization itself. I believe it meets GNG. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Natrag Na Voz

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

Non-notable album. References are junk. Fails WP:SIGCOV. Repeatedly rejected at WP:AFC. scope_creep^Talk 00:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Albums and songs and Sweden. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:11, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

these references contain proof NovaExplorer37 (talk) 00:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BPM are not valid references, and do nothing to establish notability. And there is also now Draft:Natrag Na Voz, which has been declined twice. And User:NovaExplorer37 put a false Featured article on the article, which I deleted. David notMD (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
well i could only use article wizard now all of a sudden i can create wiki articles?????? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 01:56, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and User:NovaExplorer37 please read the policy on notability before writing another article. --Richard Yin (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
but these are the only sources!!!! NovaExplorer37 (talk) 04:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@NovaExplorer37: That is the point. If enough solid, reliable sources can't be found then the subject does not reach the standard of notability.--Gronk Oz (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
any way i can make the article better? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
if u google "Notable Albums by Zana" Natrag Na Voz is mentioned. NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
so i added another source this time it mentions the album! and another one which mentions it about anniversary and a little type of biography that ok now or should i add more? NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:23, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
forgot what sources i put on: One from a book and one which features Zana’s anniversary which also mentions the album (and on a book too)! NovaExplorer37 (talk) 06:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NovaExplorer37 please read WP:Notability, especially the general notability guideline section of the policy. If there are no reliable secondary sources which provide significant coverage, i.e. cover the subject in detail, the subject shouldn't have an article and nothing you do will magically make the subject deserve an article. Mentions in books or Google searches aren't enough, the source needs to actually spend significant page space talking about the subject in detail. Did a major newspaper publish an article reviewing the album, for example, or talking about the production process? Or did an author of a book devote an entire chapter to talking about it? --Richard Yin (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well in ex-Yugoslavs Books some did but rarely got published i See but this article is still a deserve to stay in wiki i declare. NovaExplorer2 (talk) 08:17, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Refs are being added during this AfD period, but the refs do not appear to meet WP:42 standards. David notMD (talk) 14:12, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]