Wikipedia:List of AfDs closing today

2 January 2025
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< January 01	January 03 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5 Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:55, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hakaraia Wilson

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

Fails GNG, most of the sources used are just reporting he died. The Te Ao Maori News article is mostly quotes from the subject so its Primary information. Tapology seems to be some fighting online database, user generated? TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and New Zealand. TheLoyalOrder (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: While a young death is certainly sad, this source says "a New Zealand-based MMA fighter who was ranked in the top 1,000 for the Asia Pacific region" [1]... Not a notable fighter, certainly would not get an article if he was still alive. Low level competitor. Oaktree b (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Not all quotes talk about his death, Tea A0 interviewed him in 2020, so he meets Wikipedia's citation guidelines and is supported by verifiable references. If there are any changes that require special attention, they can be improved. I believe that the article follows Wikipedia's policies, including neutrality, verification and reliable research, and the sportsman was among the future promises of MMA Bellator which is an indication of the progress. Link Sherdog quote official martial arts organizations. Tgvarrt (talk) 05:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Tgvarrt (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Delete Not notable. His death is tragic but it's 99.9% of his coverage. Low level (to quote Oaktree) with only seven professional fights with a middling record. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 06:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment:Wilson would have a little more than 7 wins than Raul Rosas Jr. or Yahir Reyes but I see the performance of Wilson alone is not very bad, he died very early, he was almost there to enter the UFC, he was already in the MMA Bellator, Nor should we detract from his fights in Muay Thai, I repeat Wilson's performance was not very mediocre, he just needs a little to be successful because please transferred to the draft. Tgvarrt (talk) 06:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Tgvarrt (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
  The majority of sources therein are either reports of his death or fight cards. Not significant coverage. 💥Casualty ^{• Hop along. •} 15:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have seen a lot of secondary reliable source with a significant coverage. There are numerous articles from reputable sources provided now that constitute WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT. Also the mention of appearing in Sherdog is included in WP:NMMA. Tgvarrt (talk) 13:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Tgvarrt (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

Delete : No SIGCOV of the subject as per the nomination.Gauravs 51 (talk)

Delete WP:NMMA Sherdog comment is mis-applied as Wilson was not in the top-10 for his weight class. No significant coverage other than of his death. My condolences to his family but this is not notable. Simonm223 (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 21:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non Notable martial artist, fails WP:MMA. The subject was not qualifying for an article and does not require one after his death. Accidental death, or other media event may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article. WP:EVENTCRITERIA, WP:SINGLEEVENT. Lekkha Moun (talk) 06:24, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2025 Minnesota House of Representatives District 40A special election

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

Reason Talthiel (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC) This article is redundant and I need it speedily deleted[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Minnesota. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete incorrect duplicate - with incorrect information (i.e. incumbent representative) - of article at 2025 Minnesota House of Representatives District 40B special election. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 23:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- speedy -- Per nominator and Epluribusunumyall.

MWFwiki (talk) 00:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Tagged under WP:A10 and WP:G7 since the nominator was the one who created the page (and is now requesting deletion). CycloneYoris ^talk! 00:47, 3 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.

Shaanxi Northwest Youth F.C.

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

No evidence of notability for this amateur football club. JTtheOG (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and China. JTtheOG (talk) 23:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- (moderate) -- per nominator. Also, not a reason for deletion, but; article mentions that it "secured a first-place finish in the 2024 FA Cup qualifiers ranking." Yet the 2024 Chinese FA Cup does not mention the team? Odd. MWFwiki (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Chongqing Chunlei F.C.

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

No evidence of independent notability for this amateur football club. JTtheOG (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and China. JTtheOG (talk) 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- (moderate) -- Even less notability than Shaanxi NW Youth FC which I also voted to delete... so, consistency, and all that.

MWFwiki (talk) 00:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ClickUp

AfDs for this article:

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

Usual issue. I see there was a minor dispute among previous reviewers (MaxnaCarta, Dclemens1971, it is not entirely clear if the passing assessment was made on the basis of sources already cited or those found in a BEFORE) as to the notability of the subject. After reviewing the sources, I am inclined to quite firmly agree with the negative case. In the interest of not edit warring the tag back in, I will be presenting my source assessment here. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source assessment

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?
O'Brien, Ciara (2023-03-08). "ClickUp opens new Dublin office as it eyes further expansion". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike (2020-12-15). "ClickUp raises $100M as venture capital continues to flow to local startups". San Diego Union-Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Meiling, Brittany (2021-06-21). "Billion dollar ClickUp grabs". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 2023-11-09. Matney, Lucas (2020-06-24). "Productivity platform ClickUp raises $35 million from Craft Ventures". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Harford, Sarah (2021-12-01). "US software company ClickUp to hire 200 at new Dublin HQ". Silicon Republic. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Lunden, Ingrid (2021-10-27). "ClickUp raises $400M at a $4B valuation to expand its all-in-one workplace productivity platform to Europe". TechCrunch. Retrieved 2023-11-11.			The first 6 sources are routine coverage of announcements well within the meaning of WP:CORPTRIV. I do not see the need for a more detailed elaboration at the current stage.
Smith, Paul (2021-10-31). "Atlassian's $4b rival plans Aussie assault after big money funding". Australian Financial Review. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	I was actually part way through a more detailed evaluation on whether there is any secondary content; however, I eventually noticed that this is a sponsored article.
Haranas, Mark. "Tech Layoffs: SaaS Startup ClickUp, Once Valued At $4B, Cuts 10 Percent Of Employees". CRN. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			Mostly announcement and quote material
"A comprehensive list of 2023 & 2024 tech layoffs". Tech Crunch. Archived from the original on 2024-01-19.			I don't think I actually need to say for this one
Preimesberger, Chris J. (2022-04-04). "ClickUp launches Whiteboard to develop WFH analytics". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2023-11-11.	Appears to be 90% quotes from the marketing material or Evans. So negatived.
Dee, Katie (2022-04-26). "ClickUp acquires search platform Slapdash". SD Times. Retrieved 2023-11-11. Freeman, Mike. "San Diego 'unicorn' ClickUp buys Slapdash to bolster productivity software platform". San Diego Union Tribune. Retrieved 18 November 2023.			Again, routine coverage well into CORPTRIV territory.
"ClickUp launches virtual whiteboards tool to help hybrid teams to create fresh ideas for life". RudeBaguette.	Something like 90% of the content about the company appear to be uncritically repeating company marketingese	– Does not appear to be a well-established source, editorial process unclear, leaning towards exclusion on R also.
Vainilavičius, Justinas. "ClickUp launches AI management tool". Cybernews.			Does not really go beyond announcement either
"Introducing ClickUp Brain: The First AI Neural Network for Work". ClickUp. 2024-01-30. Retrieved 2024-02-04.
"ClickUp launches ClickUp Chat with AI-driven features for improved team collaboration". VentureBeat.	Again, this is like 90% quotes. I'm honestly a little surprised any vaguely reputable source is willing to put their name on it without being paid for it but I guess it could be a slow news day.
On to a few sources not currently in the article: "ClickUp wants to be your AI-powered productivity superhub". Fast Company. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	This is better than the other ones (e.g. [2]). Nonetheless, the fact that most of the material seems to be based off company announcement and press material leads me to exclude based on ORGIND.		–
"ClickUp Review". PCMAG. 2023-02-28. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.	I am again inclined towards a precautionary exclusion due to affiliate marketing and their affect on newsworthiness discussions even if not content.
Cai, Kenrick (2023-02-28). "ClickUp Raises $400 Million At $4 Billion Valuation As Competition Heats Up In Productivity Software". Forbes. Archived from the original on 2023-03-01. Retrieved 2024-12-19.			routine / mostly quotes
There are also a couple of book sources: Unger, Edward (2024). Mastering project management with ClickUp for work and home life balance: a step-by-step implementation and optimization guide to unlocking the power of ClickUp and AI. Packt Publishing. ISBN 978-1-83546-468-7. Heimann, Yvonne (2023-12-12). Mastering the Basics of ClickUp: Get Up and Running in No Time: Easy Project Management Using Repeatable Processes. Amazon Digital Services LLC - Kdp. ISBN 979-8-3759-6420-1.		However, they are obviously self published or published with well-known vanity/POD publishers, and not those with a selective editorial process, and suitable for neither establishing notability nor article content.

I believe the above source assessment is broadly representative of the state of available sourcing, which is still at the moment well short of that required to meet NCORP (multiple sources meeting all four criteria), though I don't expect it to be entirely comprehensive. I would welcome any additional sources. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Software, and California. Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:28, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies! I edited this randomly as I was Googling Asana and ClickUp. I saw that it was inaccurate and merely wanted to make it accurate.

There are a lot of articles about ClickUp and I've added them as sources before:

https://www.fastcompany.com/91036895/clickup-most-innovative-companies-2024

https://www.crn.com/news/software/tech-layoffs-saas-startup-clickup-once-valued-at-4b-cuts-10-percent-of-employees

https://tech.co/project-management-software/clickup-vs-trello

https://www.pcmag.com/reviews/clickup

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20240130528352/en/Introducing-ClickUp-Brain-The-First-AI-Neural-Network-for-Work

https://techcrunch.com/2021/10/27/clickup-raises-400m-at-a-4b-valuation-to-expand-its-all-in-one-workplace-productivity-platform-to-europe/

https://www.fastcompany.com/90856730/clickup-project-management-artificial-intelligence

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clickup-raises-400m-in-series-c-funding-the-biggest-investment-in-workplace-productivity-history-301409506.html

I would feel incredibly guilty if the article was deleted even though it has been stable for a year now because of my interference. Let me know how I could further help.

Thank you! Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:25, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Bloomberg article is a great green source? I saw the perennial sources list and it shows Bloomberg as a good source.

Thank you so much for your assistance! It's my first edit so apologies for my mistake. Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:50, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a newer Bloomberg article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors

and ClickUp's Bloomberg profile: https://www.bloomberg.com/profile/company/1810376D:US

But I still have sources for ClickUp in Yahoo News/Finance here:

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/introducing-clickup-brain-first-ai-171400354.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/clickup-wants-notion-confluence-ai-162200168.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/productivity-platform-clickup-acquires-calendar-094126461.html

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/linkdaddy-backlink-agency-clickup-integration-020400608.html Modernwoman2021 (talk) 03:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modernwoman2021 is an UPE with zero edits on other AfDs 91.1.120.162 (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing to do with you Modernwoman2021, you can rest assured that the article had been on my list now for a while, it just took me a while to get around to it, and deletion on Wikipedia won't mean the content would be lost permenantly (you can request it be emailed and reuse it per the CC BY-SA licence) just that it is deemed unsuitable for inclusion at the current time. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the new sources that you found, would you be willing to pick out the best three at meeting the 4 required criteria (WP:SIRS) to establish suitability for inclusion on Wikipedia (WP:NCORP) and explain how they meet the criteria in your opinion? I will be looking at them later when I have time regardless, and you don't have to put them into a table like I have (that takes a lot of effort IMO and probably isn't worth it).

All four criteria must be met by the core sources that you pick: the sources used to establish inclusion must be in-depth (there must be a significant amount of content, and it must not be trivial coverage, which has some examples listed here, though the list is not exhaustive); independent (meaning we can only count things that are not quotes or taken from press material, or appear to be taken from press material, and the source must be free from any actual or perceived conflicts of interest); reliable (has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, probably the easiest one since most news organisations are considered reliable enough); and secondary (the source must include original analysis, interpretation or synthesis by the source, it cannot be simple statements of fact, it must interpret those facts for us to be able to use it on Wikipedia). Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:58, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Alpha3031!

I appreciate the effort in explaining to me what the criterias are! They are incredibly helpful :D

But since this is just my first time, I added more than three sources, I couldn't really determine the top three ones so these are what I have:

Source	URL	Reason
Inc.	https://www.inc.com/magazine/202210/paul-kix/clickup-zeb-evans-dying-to-succeed-2022.html	This is an article about ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans that is published by an independent third-party source on Inc., a reliable and secondary news platorm.
London Loves Business	https://londonlovesbusiness.com/businesses-are-optimistic-about-growth-with-85-per-cent-expecting-growth-in-2023/	This article is in-depth but is more like the writer getting ClickUp's opinion on growth? But it is independent, reliable and secondary, though.
Yahoo Finance	https://finance.yahoo.com/news/asana-rival-clickup-hits-1b-120128290.html	This is an article all about ClickUp's growth published on Yahoo Finance by a third-party so I believe it meets all the criteria :D (Please correct if I'm wrong.)
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-12-15/software-maker-clickup-reaches-1-billion-value-in-funding-round	Same article as the above but this is published in Bloomberg, another reliable and secondary source.
Bloomberg	https://www.bloomberg.com/news/audio/2024-12-03/clickup-ceo-on-work-platforms-for-an-ai-world-tech-disruptors	This is a very recent article on Bloomberg about ClickUp. It's actually a podcast episode where ClickUp's founder, Zeb Evans, talked about ClickUp and its entrance to the AI industry on Bloomberg's official podcast.
Business Insider	https://www.businessinsider.com/clickup-building-seasoned-executive-team-servicenow-zscaler-growth-2022-10	This is an article by a third-party regarding ClickUp's new executive team published in Business Insider.

I really hope any of these can help!

Once again, thank you for the very detailed guide, it is incredible and super helpful in teaching me how to become a proper editor in Wikipedia :D

Thank you and I hope you have a great day!

Modernwoman2021 (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Didn't see the ping originally, but yes, I was the new page reviewer who did a WP:BEFORE when seeing the notability tag during new page review and decided it passed NCORP. Still think so. While I appreciate the nominator's incredibly thorough and detailed source assessment, I would also count this Fast Company profile as independent sigcov. Meanwhile, there are several editorially independent and in-depth product reviews that would count toward NCORP, including MarketWatch Guides, TechRadar, and PCMag. It's a marginal case but I think it crosses the line to an NCORP pass. Dclemens1971 (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:36, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

re the new sources, I initially struck the FastCo "Most Innovative Companies of 2024" article because it didn't meet ORGDEPTH, but it's worth noting it also fails ORGIND since FastCo charges a few hundred dollars for companies to be considered for the list. I'm really not comfortable accepting reviews with affiliate links for the product being reviewed either Dclemens1971, (even if the actual content is unaffected, there is the expectation that such coverage is less selective and more routine given the direct conflict of interest) which means striking MarketWatch and PCMag sources, as well as the tech.co one from Modernwoman2021. I am aware that there isn't a strong consensus on actually doing so in all cases though, so I would be willing to kick it up to WP:RSN for a determination on this specific case if challenged (either on some or all of those three sources), but unless we go for that, when there is any doubt ORGIND advises to exercise caution and exclude. As for TechRadar, I'm not sure it meets WP:PRODUCTREV, much of it seems very generic "copied from the feature list/marketing material" like prose, which also raises questions about the independence of the content (as opposed to the functional independnece concerns with the other sources): responsive, visually appealing look we enjoyed when testing the platform. is really the only bit that stands out as indicating personal experience with the software, and even there it fails to provide broader context or draw comparisons. There is a section on "the competition" but I would give it at best a partial pass, and it's the only source that I would do so for so far. Alpha3031 (t • c) 08:42, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the other sources from Modernwoman2021:

The Inc. article is mostly about Evans. I haven't really evaluated whether I'd think it met the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND, but there isn't enough coverage actually about the company itself for it to meet WP:CORPDEPTH (see § Significant coverage of the company itself: a biography of a CEO is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product or the CEO, but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article or biography devotes significant attention to the company itself).).

For LondonLovesBusiness, it's not clear to me that it's a sufficiently well established news organisation to be considered generally reliable, especially with the byline. I don't see any indication of the editorial process. In any case, content supplied by the organisation in question would definitely fail intellectual independence, and there is again little to no coverage of the company itself.

The Yahoo Finance / Benzinga article is a routine article which is the standard fare that gets published for essentially every funding round that happens, it's a type of article that's explicitly excluded by WP:CORPDEPTH.

The next Bloomberg article is the same. As for the podcast appearance, comments by Evans would again be excluded by the intellectual independence part of WP:ORGIND

Announcements of hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel like Business Insider again falls under WP:CORPROUTINE.

For the sources not in the table of 5 sources, ignoring the Business Wire and PR Newswire news releases (WP:ORGIND, obviously) the first block of sources (with the exception of tech.co) are in the previous source assessment table so I'll refrain from repeating myself (click show to expand). tech.co on the other hand, as mentioned, has functional independence concerns due to affiliate marketing, though these are something I'd be willing to raise with RSN case by case.

In the second block, Bloomberg profiles are pretty much database entries. This one has three sentences with thirty something words, but even longer profiles are rarely considered sufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH. The first and last Yahoo Finance articles are actually also press releases (Business Wire and Newsfile) and the two TechCrunch articles seem to be routine announcements of a new product feature and M&A activity respectively. Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:24, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, my overall impression is that this is a company that has done a lot of the usual SPIP work, it's done all the right startup things, but overall, it is still too soon for us to have an article on it on Wikipedia. There is certainly a lot to work through, and I do appreciate everyone for chipping in with their efforts (also appreciate the confirmation from Dclemens1971 that the assessment of a NCORP pass was from a BEFORE and not from the sources already in the article). At the moment though, my answer to whether it is possible for the subject to meet NCORP is still unfortunately in the negative. Happy new year though, everyone! Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:33, 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!} 23:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the very thorough analysis by Alpha301 above, none of the sources meet GNG/ORG criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are hundreds of articles I see online about ClickUp.

From San Diego Tribune, San Diego Business Journal, Silicon Angle, Times of San Diego, Fast Company, Fast Company, Ad Week, Crunchbase News, Irish Times, PR Newswire, Forbes (Third Party), Solutions Review, UC Today, and Digital News Asia to name a few.

These have quite substantial information about ClickUp and are news articles, not press releases.

But I do get that we're looking for quality, not quantity here. I will raise the UC Today article as I believe it covers the requirements needed for NCORP.

Although the sources are quite positive, which could lead to bias, I dug deeper and found this TechCrunch article, which is about the company layoffs.

And I'd like to add that ClickUp is a pretty well known company here in the US. It's comparable to Asana and I'd be really surprised if there was no Wikipedia.

As I understand Wikipedia, it's used for education, and since so many people search for ClickUp, it's only right that Wikipedia is the central point for all information about ClickUp.

Those are just my two opinions, because credibility is the issue here.

Since this is the English language Wikipedia, the US is one of the target countries in terms of location and popularity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabiresearcher (talk • contribs) 07:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nabiresearcher is an UPE with zero edits on other AfDs 91.1.120.162 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this assumption has anything to do with the discussion, since I only provided sources I know to help?

Please keep the discussion only about ClickUp. Anything here shouldn't be taken personally :) Thank you! Nabiresearcher (talk) 04:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from casting aspersions on other editors, regardless of edit count or participation elsewhere. Thank you. SmittenGalaxy | talk! 04:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of references out there, meets NCORP easily. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 04:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tzameret Fuerst

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

Advert. all sources are PR, no in-depth personal coverage --Altenmann >talk 15:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, Israel, and United States of America. Shellwood (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources on Fuerst's page are terrible, and it's unclear if she meets WP:NBIO. However, her startup Circ MedTech absolutely meets WP:GNG, with WP:SIGCOV in New York Times, Haaretz, Tablet, VoA, Times of Israel, NoCamels, Reuters, among others. I'll go ahead and create Circ MedTech, and propose we redirect Fuerst to Circ MedTech. Longhornsg (talk) 22:31, 27 December 2024 (UTC) 05:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

please note and check that the start up got raft of criticism, allegedly unproven scientific benefits. It is mentioned briefly in the book "Thou Shalt Innovate" by Avi Jorisch, pp. 190-191, the book dedicated to the start up 33 words, the book discuss the greatest innovations that came out of Israel. And guess what ? Tzameret Fuerst not mentioned there, but the three founders of the company mentioned there. It is not her Start-Up, she was married to one of the founders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0D:6FC7:50E:22C2:778:5634:1232:5476 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. If you are arguing for a Redirect or Merge, please provide a link to the target article so that it can be reviewed to see if it is suitable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The circumcision device might be notable [3], but this person is only mentioned in context of the company or the device. I don't see notability. Oaktree b (talk) 00:56, 3 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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:39, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Beckingham

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Australia. Bgsu98 (Talk) 19:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Same as the others. Doesn’t meet GNG or RS requirements. Delete. Go4thProsper (talk) 21:41, 28 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 a Soft Deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The only source in the article may be WP:SIGCOV based on the purported headline but it is a dead link. I found a few sentences of coverage at [[4]] but I'm not quite convinced this subject has the requisite coverage to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've added some sources, but I'm unsure if they will be helpful. Aona1212 (talk) 03:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I originally nominated this in 2011. I don't think he meets WP:SPORTSCRIT. LibStar (talk) 00:31, 9 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.

Sydney Pulver

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

I am unable to find any WP:SIGCOV from third-party sources for this American soccer player. JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Football, California, Colorado, and Washington. JTtheOG (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:38, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of San Diego Wave FC players as possible search term. Giant Snowman 09:41, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - It's well sourced, it just may be Wikipedia: Too soon. RossEvans19 23:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there are enough secondary-party sources involved, from The Daily Evergreen, The Spokesman-Review, and Lewiston Morning Tribune. [5][6][7][8] Whether that's enough sigcov in combination per WP:BASIC is another story, but certainly no need for third-party sources here per GNG. There is otherwise coverage beyond WP:ROUTINE, so per WP:SPORTBASIC it's likely there are enough sources for notability, even if not a guarantee. If it's a case of too soon then WP:DRAFTIFY would be a better option here. CNC (talk) 10:00, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Third-party sources are a requirement for GNG... JoelleJay (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The Daily Evergreen is not independent and so does not count. The Spokesman-Review and Lewiston Morning Tribune articles are brief, routine blurbs about her signing lightly refactored (as in, would absolutely fail our close-paraphrasing rules) from the same press release, and additionally are far from the SPORTSCRIT #5 requirement, let alone the SUSTAINED SIGCOV in multiple IRS sources required by GNG. I see zero reason to draftify considering her contract ended in 2022 and there is no evidence she continues to play professionally. JoelleJay (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, per above I mixed up third-party with tertiary, ie party and person. Agree the student newspaper isn't independent here, and given your reasoning that the subject hasn't been playing since 2022, best to redirect instead. CNC (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of San Diego Wave FC players : Agree with JoelleJay that this subject lacks the needed WP:SIGCOV from multiple independent, reliable sources needed to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 15:09, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as arguments are divided between Draftifying or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, per Evans Reader of Information (talk) 15:13, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Malé garage fire

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

I'm struggling to find much of any WP:SUSTAINED coverage of this tragedy. Basically all the coverage is within a day or two of the event, with the only exception I found being this. I can't find any evidence of these supposed extensive discussions of the event, but I'm no expert on Maldivian media. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Maldives. JTtheOG (talk) 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This event doesn't seem to be covered much on the news from my research. Unilandofma^{(Talk to me!)} 00:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo Ajudua

AfDs for this article:

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

One major problem is that this creation is likely a paid contribution that is undisclosed. The citations are evaluated based on this version as follows;

Citation 1 is a paid promotional puff and also a falsehood, especially when it said Ajudua’s impact is particularly evident in his work with Davido. He played a key role as a co-writer for “NA MONEY,” a track from Davido’s Timeless album that features The Cavemen and Angelique Kidjo. There is, as a matter of fact, no credit on anyone such as Bobo Ajudua if you check any of your streaming platforms for the single "Na Money" by Davido, and this alone is ridiculous and makes this whole thing iffy.

Citation 2 does is not only a paid puff but does not provide the substantial coverage we require to pass WP:GNG.

Citation 3 is not only an unreliable source, it lacks a byline and, even if it does have a byline, does not provide the substantial coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG.

Citation 4 is not only a run of the mill piece, it lacks a byline and fails WP:SIGCOV.

Citation 5 from marginally reliable Vanguard does nothing but promotes and praises the subject such that only one or two useful information is passed. Take a look at the ridiculous line breaks while scrolling through the piece.

Citation 6 is just like Citation 5 above, does nothing but praises the subject ridiculously such the nothing notable is passes as an information. Over the years, he has cultivated a reputation for his thorough understanding of corporate law, intellectual property, and entertainment law. His expertise ensures that artists, creatives, and brands are not only legally protected but also strategically positioned for sustainable growth. What is the job of an entertainment lawyer? How is this anybody's business? What's notable about ensuring his clients are strategically positioned for sustainable growth?

Citation 7 is yet another paid puff about his brands that are doing nothing but their job, and in this context, lacks the substantial coverage required to satisfy WP:GNG for this subject.

People get sacked from their jobs everyday, what is notable about the subject being sacked?

What is Wikipedia's business with whether the father attended the subject's wedding or not?

Every other source I skipped are just as bad as the ones I already evaluated. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Music, Entertainment, Law, and Nigeria. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subject hasn't suddenly become notable since the last time this was discussed. --Richard Yin (talk) 10:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Striking my vote since the reliability of Nigerian news outlets, which have covered the subject in some depth, is subject to an ongoing discussion in which I don't have an opinion. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:22, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most of the sources here are used to verify informations and not as a means of promotion. There are sources which you have discarded simply because they were worded in a way that you do not like and I wonder when Wikipedia started dictating the tone of sources as I am fully aware that sources are allowed to be biased if they are reliable. The mix up in the PM News articles can be corrected with a simple mail to the editor (as it is standard procedure) and not my fault that the mix up occurred. I’ll present atleast three sources plus the fact that “Hmmm” which is a single in a Grammy nominated album "11:11 (Chris Brown album)" was co-written by Ajudua. This information was definitely not available in the last discussion. Ahola .O (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia started dictating the tone of sources! since Wikipedia:Neutral point of view existed and plus this is not the place for trivia and gossip (see WP:NOTGOSSIP), like really, why would we care whether the father attended the subject's wedding or not.

This is a biographies of a living person, so we need to be even more careful when it comes to writing and sourcing. FuzzyMagma (talk) 11:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:YESPOV shows that articles could be non-neutral and our responsibility as editors is to present these views as neutral as possible. When it comes to being biased, I believe articles can be biased too per WP:RSBIAS; unless I’m interpreting the policies wrong.

The article about the father being absent is a celebrity article but I used it because it gives context into the married. Ahola .O (talk) 12:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are, in fact, misunderstanding and misinterpreting them. I couldn’t even comprehend what your view of NPOV and reliable sourcing is. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:18, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you not understand? Every source must not follow Wikipedia’s policies as each outlets has its own style of writing. Again, I ask, are we dictating that the tone of sources even when they have bylines are no evidence that they were sponsored? I think you are the one who does not understand WP:NPOV here. Also, if there are promotionals tone that I must have mistakenly added, is deletion the avenue for it? Ahola .O (talk) 12:25, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:33, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources show that the subject is notable.:

Jonahakuso (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2024 (UTC)— Jonahakuso (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep. There are sources that were not available in the last discussions. This one from PM News was published in April, 2023; this from Nigerian Tribune where they called him a pioneer] was published in 2022 and contrary to Vanderwaalforces that this is just passing mentions, this has some information on him; this from TheNEWS has an in-depth coverage on his company(ies). was published in July 2023; this from The Guardian was published in November 2023; this from Daily Times was published in 2024; This from Vanguard (which has been labelled a marginal reliable) has a byline and can be used to establish some notability. I believe that these sources meet the WP:GNG because 1) they are independent of the subject 2) has indepth coverage 3) are reliable 4) has demonstrated independent coverage. If anyone thinks otherwise, I would change my mind if there are evidence and not just there words ie some citations.

Ajudua is a co-writer of a Grammy nominated album 11:11 which meets WP:NCOMPOSER #1 and #4. This information is verifiable on every music streaming platform. Ahola .O (talk) 15:50, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most of these sources taken together can arguably count as in-depth coverage, but I'd also like to note here that the reliability of most Nigerian news outlets is the subject of an ongoing discussion above my pay grade. I'll strike my vote above since I don't have an opinion on the reliability of these sources.

I will point out though that the subject is not co-writer of a Grammy-nominated album, he is co-writer of one track on a Grammy-nominated album. Most of the co-writers listed in 11:11 (Chris Brown album) don't have articles. --Richard Yin (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I had shown above shows that the Ajudua has coverages since 2022 or thereabout and I am sure that an extensive search will definitely show more.

I am not basing the notability here with just the single track. I am showing that amongst the sources that they meet a criteria there also, atleast #1. Ahola .O (talk) 14:06, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Echoing my last !vote, nothing has changed since November when we last visited with an AFD about this person. I don't see notability based on the sources, which, as explained, are all puff or PR items. Oaktree b (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Oaktree b above. The new sources mentioned above appear to be simply fresh paid puff pieces and interviews, and being fired by a celebrity client is at best WP:BLP1E. His involvement in notable projects has been minor: for example, as noted above he co-wrote one song on an album nominated for a Grammy. None of this quite brings it over the line for WP:BIO. Wikishovel (talk) 19:30, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article and its sources fail to meet WP:BASIC in my opinion. Source 2 is an opinion, says so in the title. Source 3 does not exist. Source 5 sounds like ChatGPT; "Rather than simply promoting a product, he crafts strategic partnerships that align with the brand’s long-term goals." Source 6 seems to simply copy and paste the existing information in the WP article in question. The creator of this article seems to have some type of conflict (monetary or otherwise) as evidenced on his talk page, especially because this article has been in AfD before. All of this smells really bad to me hence my vote to delete promptly. Mamani1990 (talk) 02:48, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Clearly not notable per WP:GNG; representing celebrities doesn't necessarily suit well or aims that he/she may be notable. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 12:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - according to this he was a speaker at the Nigerian Bar conference but not one of the keynotes. Bearian (talk) 02:36, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neither (short story)

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

Does not meet WP:GNG; unsourced DrowssapSMM 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. DrowssapSMM 16:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this the same text that served as libretto for Morton Feldman's 1977 "anti-opera" Neither? (See also [9], ~~[10]~~[11].) That would probably establish mild notability (or at least notoriousness) and be grounds for a Merge instead of a Delete. – Tea2min (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Neither (opera). Yes, as Tea2min says, Neither is not a short story but rather a libretto written for Feldman's 1977 opera. Most scholarly analysis and commentary is in the context of the combined work rather than the Beckett text in isolation, so a merge is appropriate. Significant coverage includes the following:

Laws, Catherine (1998). "Morton Feldman's Neither: A Musical Translation of Beckett's Text". In Bryden, Mary (ed.). Samuel Beckett and Music. Oxford University Press. pp. 57–86. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198184270.003.0005.
Tubridy, Derval (2020). "Beckett, Feldman, Salcedo... Neither". In Caselli, Daniela (ed.). Beckett and Nothing: Trying to Understand Beckett. Manchester University Press. pp. 43–159.
Laws, Catherine (2017). "Feldman – Beckett – Johns: Patterning, Memory and Subjectivity". In Heile, Björn (ed.). The Modernist Legacy: Essays on New Music. Taylor & Francis. pp. The Modernist Legacy: Essays on New Music.

Jfire (talk) 21:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for Redirect option.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the Opera per above. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 19:29, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SpongeKnob SquareNuts

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

Don't think this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG - not enough significant coverage in reliable sources, in my opinion. I don't think Bubbleblabber, which is cited five times, is a source reliable enough to provide notability. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Film, Entertainment, and Sexuality and gender. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator) - Buzzfeed (in 2018, WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS), The Hollywood Reporter, and Esquire are all reliable sources that establish notability. I also don't see any reason to doubt the reliability of the HTF and Inside Hook sources, which are both interviews in print magazines. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think a classic Buzzfeed listicle article would be WP:BUZZFEEDNEWS, that would be WP:BUZZFEED. Is everything mentioned in a buzzfeed clickbait list notable? The article fails GNG as it doesn't address the topic in detail. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:37, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even as a "clickbait list" it serves as an opinion piece that provides reception and points towards notability. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the director's article. The refs only talk about the movie in passing while speaking of the director. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 13:52, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: the BuzzFeed list article is not significant or from a reliable source, the Hollywood Reporter article is very just a few sentences long and not "in detail" per SIGCOV, and the Esquire article is more about the director and only mentions the parody three times in passing, and thus not "in detail" either. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 13:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: The HTF and InsideHook articles are also like the Esquire article in that they are simply interviews with the director and only tangentially mention the video. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 15:50, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Di. Juwan (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that the BuzzFeed nor the Hollywood Reporter articles don’t make a compelling notability case. E_F⁵ 14:01, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Di briefly mentioned this discussion on the Wikimedia Discord server. They quickly deleted their message upon being asked to do so. Toadspike [Talk] 14:02, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like all participants thus far except Darth Stabro (but including the nominator and myself) are active on that server. Toadspike [Talk] 14:04, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I !voted before they accidently mentioned it. And it hasn't done any damage, the !votes disagree with each other. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I am on the server, I was not online when the message was sent. E_F⁵ 15:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, it was not my intent to bring attention to the discussion or to canvas. I offhandedly mentioned it to express that I was annoyed at a page in queue for DYK being AFD'd, and when I realized that it could be interpreted badly I deleted the message. Again, I apologize. I will be more careful in the future. Di (they-them) (talk) 14:32, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It being in a queue for DYK is why it was nominated; see this comment on WT:DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I lean towards delete, as I expressed at DYK – The Hollywood Reporter doesn't go into much depth, Hit the Floor and Esquire are mainly interviews, and BuzzFeed definitely doesn't count on this one. I might be convinced that The Hollywood Reporter, InsideHook, and Bubbleblabber make a very weak GNG pass, but the last two just aren't very weighty sources and if this is the best the article can be from those sources, then yeah, I'm not sure I see it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: given the coverage identified; also see https://mommyish.com/porn-parody/ https://www.cineserie.com/news/cinema/top-des-parodies-x-les-plus-droles-du-cinema-4163152/ etc. A ’decent’ article is possible so that redirect is not necessary and I am opposed to deletion. -Mushy Yank. 00:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned briefly in the The Oxford Handbook of Adaptation Studies and in the Bibliography of Sex and Sexuality in Modern Screen Remakes mentioning an article in Hornet in 2013.-Mushy Yank. 00:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first one is a blog and the second is just a listicle like Buzzfeed that doesn't have any detail. I don't think those really count, for the same reasons the other sources don't. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 00:56, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those ”listicles” include significant coverage and are no trivial mentions, so, yes, they really "count" imv. -Mushy Yank. 02:40, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Significant" is defined as "directly and in detail", which a few passing sentences in a listicle isn't. It's direct, I suppose, but in The CineSerie list, half of the mention is just talking about the concept of parodying cartoons in this format; you don't actually learn anything about the video itself other than that it exists. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 02:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. You don’t learn everything about the video but you learn something, and not mereley that it exists, no, sorry but that is simply not true; you learn that it is a live-acton film, that it is bizarre, that it has weird sex scenes and some sequences are deemed ridiculous, you learn that it was meant to traumatize the child in you...., which the commentaror backs up with a quote. So, not trivial, significant, and the same goes for the other sources. -Mushy Yank. 02:58, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Deeply unimpressed by source quality and coverage. The Hollywood Reporter is the best coverage, and it's still just a brief blurb

. Bubbleblabber is clearly not RS

. Hit the Floor is a low-quality group blog with a single sentence fragment of coverage outside the interview

. Inside Hook, if it's even RS, is still a trivial one-sentence mention

. Esquire coverage is exclusively in an interview

. Instagram is worthless

. BuzzFeed is a non-RS listicle

. Mommyish is blatantly not RS, why even link it

. Cineserie is also not RS (byline is just "Hatman")—at best it's tabloid junk "edited" by people whose professional journalism credentials are unverifiable—and anyway is just barely three sentences in a listicle, very far from SIGCOV

. JoelleJay (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Buzzfeed not RS, how? Bubbleblabber, not reliable, ”clearly”, why? For the rest, the sources you indicate as just a blurb, just a listicle, and so on address the subject in what are not trivial mentions, some being of lesser quality than other. As to ’why even list it”, read my comment and WP:OR and you’ll know. -Mushy Yank. 04:32, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This article has significantly changed since its AfD nomination. -Mushy Yank. 04:51, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- By which Mushy Yank means they have added references to sugarcookie.xxx (!), cartoonbrew.com, and the Daily Beast. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:33, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yes, Mushy Yank also says that you’re most welcome! -Mushy Yank. 12:45, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  For the record, please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 423#Cartoon Brew and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 281#Is The Daily Beast a reliable source -Mushy Yank. 12:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That Cartoon Brew discussion doesn't look like an unambiguous endorsement of that website's reliability to me... Toadspike [Talk] 21:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Lee Roy Myers. JoelleJay's breakdown of the sources looks correct. The Hollywood Reporter article is the best source right now. Everything else is primary or marginally unreliable at best, not enough to meet WP:GNG. hinnk (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Smith (chef)

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

No indication of notability whatsoever. A google search didn't reveal much. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Australia. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:ADMASQ, obvious highly promotional article with promotional intentions of a person of questionable notability. Graywalls (talk) 23:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete poorly cited orphan article that fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete - I see only ordinary local coverage, which does not rise to significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rat's Brains & Microchips

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM. Lacks reliable sources that give significant coverage. Skyshiftertalk 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tse with long left leg

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

Probably does not pass GNG; no significant coverage. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Janhrach (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At least please consider a redirect(at least two obvious targets) -Mushy Yank. 01:40, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Noting that a "redirect" result is only feasible if a target is clearly identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Abkhaz alphabet; Tse (Cyrillic) (technically a merge) are suitable targets. -Mushy Yank. 08:23, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ANNO: X

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

None of the sources appear to be reliable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG / WP:NALBUM. Skyshiftertalk 22:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Bruins–Flyers rivalry

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

Upon a search for sources, the only sustainable one (and its partial at best) was [12]. There was a TV series called NHL Rivals which covered these two teams, but since it was published in part by the NHL and its broadcast partner, NBC, it would be a primary source. If not delete, then I would recommend a partial merge to List of NHL rivalries Conyo14 (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I was the original author of this article, but since there have been several additions to the article, I am going this route. Conyo14 (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically every team is a rival with every other team, as exemplified by the meaningless made-up statement in the lead "The two teams have been rivals since the Flyers inception". If all the article can do is outline a history of meet-ups – which, again, every team has, including in decades of playoffs – and doesn't describe how the teams and fans actually view the rivalry to give it some substance, there is no reason for an article. The entire article is excessively wordy game descriptions one could make for any combination of teams, but nothing about the rivalry itself. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- But props to nom/creator for acknowledging the weakness of sources. Fine with a merge/redirect since there's already List of NHL rivalries#Boston Bruins vs. Philadelphia Flyers. Reywas92^Talk 15:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Whidborne

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

Non-notable figure skater. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and England. Bgsu98 (Talk) 22:33, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no notable coverage. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 23:59, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He has had multiple articles written about him on the daily post such as [13] and [14]. Also at Oxford Mail [15]. There is also a short article on the BBC [16]. I think this article subject is worth taking a close look at. I will look further when I have more time before casting a keep/delete vote.Canary757 (talk) 10:39, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with addition of new reference below.Canary757 (talk) 08:16, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to the sources provided above, which each provide coverage about the subject, there is also [[17]], which allows for WP:NBASIC to be met. Let'srun (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near enough non-routine IRS SIGCOV directly on Whidborne. The Leader article has barely two sentences on him individually—the rest is either general background on the pair's junior ice skating performance or in quotes—and the Daily Post announcements combined have about one sentence directly on him. The Oxford Mail article is routine coverage of, again, the pair, and additionally fails WP:YOUNGATH. The BBC press release is three sentences, with Josh Whidborne, 18, from Wheatley took the senior title being the extent of coverage of Whidborne, thus failing 3/4 GNG criteria. JoelleJay (talk) 03:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per new citations that were found by Canary757 and Let'srun, notability is established and WP:NBASIC met.Shinadamina (talk) 05:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above sources. I reject JoelleJay's innacurate analysis of some of the sources. The two Daily Post articles each have a few paragraphs of SIGCOV about Whidborne's doubles skating career. The fact that the majority of this coverage is about Whidborne as part of a duet and not about him individually does not invalidate it in terms of GNG elegibility. The Leader article offers a more in-depth profile which can easily count toward GNG. The Oxford Mail piece also adds sigcov but JoelleJay correctly brings up YOUNGATH concerns as this was local coverage of the subject as a minor (with the other sources I mentioned, this one is not needed to establish GNG is met). Frank Anchor 20:51, 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!} 22:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brünnhilde (cat)

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

This article is about a couple of old photographs that "went viral" last year. There's no evidence that this is a subject that attracted significant coverage in the new or elsewhere and as such the page fails WP:NOTABILITY. It is internet pop culture trivia. Ermenrich (talk) 15:51, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator): I believe this subject passes WP:GNG. It has non-trivial coverage from secondary sources independent of the subject. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:47, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources exactly, we have the Library of Congress and what appear to be blogs. Neither of which is reliable or terribly notable. Oaktree b (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semafor isn't a blog. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:52, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's not, but I doubt it's very good for establishing notability on a subject.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:32, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the Library of Congress Magazine (November/December 2020), p. 11. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Well, it got no coverage in RS. The best I could find was in Boing Boing [18] and the Toronto Public Library kids blog [19]... That pretty much shows this isn't a notable concept. The photo is from 1936, so there is obviously no lasting influence if we're only talking about it now, almost 100 years later. Oaktree b (talk) 16:53, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wouldn't even call "Boing Boing" reliable, seems like a bunch of random crap. I mean, Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and Fart Piano??? I'm having a laugh just looking at the site's contents. E_F⁵ 18:30, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that writing about strange subjects indicates that a source is unreliable. "Skibidi Toilet Fortnite" has also been written about by IGN, Polygon, and The New York Times, which are all reliable sources. Claiming that having strange article titles or subjects disqualifies a website's reliability just doesn't hold up. Di (they-them) (talk) 20:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...yes, and none of those are Boing Boing or known exclusively for covering Skibid Toilet Fortnite and related such things.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:31, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Boing Boing is not known exclusively for covering Skibidi Toilet Fortnite and related such things. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:59, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By related things I meant "etc." See the list by Ef5.--Ermenrich (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My point is, they write about all sorts of non-notable things, which doesn't establish notability in my view. One source is not enough to establish notability, and LOC maintains a huge database, and also doesn't establish notability. All other sources are trivial/non-RS. E_F⁵ 15:04, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing significant about it. Deriannt (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Photography, Advertising, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to LOC curator Anne Wilkes Tucker, they looked at a million photos, isolated 4000 from that set, and then selected 440 for the exhibition. The process took several years, with the end result reflecting the visual history of America. This particular photo of a cat was chosen for its "whimsical" nature. According to the Associated Press which reviewed the exhibition in Los Angeles (Rogers, John, April 21, 2018, Library of Congress brings America to life in LA photo show, AP) the photo is important in American culture because it represents an early example of the "funny cat picture" from 1936. Photo curator Beverly Brannan told the AP: "Around the turn of the century, in the early 19-somethings, people liked to make pictures of cats and dogs, putting them at tea tables with dolls, putting clothes on them". Rogers writes that the photo reveals "that at least one aspect of photography hasn't changed much in 150 years". Steve Appleford covered the exhibition in a bit more detail for the Los Angeles Times, going into the backstory of the exhibition, why Tucker chose the cat photo (it made her laugh). A year later, Douglas Perry of The Oregonian included the image of Brünnhilde in his May 2019 article about early historical photos of cats in America, referring to it as part of a select set of "memorable American cat images". Mark Jenkins reviewed the exhibition for The Washington Post in April 2022 and highlighted the significance of the selection of these particular images, representing 440 of the total collection of 15 million in the LOC. Is the image notable outside this exhibition? Unlikely, but it achieved notability by being included in it and being described as an early, pre-internet example of what eventually became known as the Cats and the Internet phenomenon. What's unusual, is that we have no coverage of the early 20th century practice of dressing cats up in photos that Brannan told the AP about, and yet here it is and people want to delete it. Viriditas (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both whimsical cat photos, and famous cats, are ubiquitous now and are unquestionably part of our online culture. Brünnhilde is an early example and is significant for that reason. Wikipedia features an article about the oldest surviving photograph even though it is not really significant except for that. Wikipedia also has an article for Morris the Cat, who is unexceptional apart from also being a famous cat. --WillisBlackburn (talk) 15:03, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is the sort of subject where I'm inclined to err on the side of weak keep, but a suggestion for Di (they-them): whip up a quick article for Not an Ostrich, which is much more solidly notable, and merge this into a dedicated section of that article. FWIW. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I will do that. Di (they-them) (talk) 22:54, 22 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!} 23:15, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't see a consensus. This discussion seems more like opinions on the article subject than an assessment of existing sources. There was the possibility of a Merge mentioned, is there any additional support for that option?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested seems reasonable, otherwise delete. The coverage is too weak for a standalone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cats and the Internet. Not enough coverage for standalone article, and there will (presumably) never be more. LizardJr8 (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Progressive conservatism

AfDs for this article:

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

Something of a procedural AfD. Article was subject to a delete !vote in 2014 but, irregularly, was turned into a redirect instead of being deleted. I say this was irregular because "redirect" was not the closer's notes. However this led to the eventual forking off of the present version of the page from the surviving redirect. I am personally neutral about whether to delete this article but felt an AfD would be an appropriate way of ascertaining present community consensus regarding how to handle it. Simonm223 (talk) 20:01, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Conservatism and Politics. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and WP:SYNTH. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it's interesting to note that there are quite a few references to "progressive conservatism" on JStor - but not with regard to the Canadian political ideology. Simonm223 (talk) 23:04, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise Google Books has reference to "progressive conservatism" in the comtext of US, UK and Japanese politics but, again, not in Canada. Simonm223 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if the page contains original research and SYNTH, that is not a reason for deletion, at least not on its own (there are exceptions like WP:TNT for a completely unsalvageable page, which does seem to be the reason it was deleted 10 years ago). As the nominator demonstrated in their comment above, sources are out there to demonstrate the subject is notable, and notability requirements do not require that said sources are in the current version of the article. Can the page be made better? Absolutely. But there are no valid reasons for deletion presented here. Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also wanted to mention that the procedural reasons in the nom comments do not seem to be completely accurate (and even if they were, nominating a page for deletion because that's what the consensus was more than a full decade ago is strange to say the least).

This seems to be the sequence of events:

Ten years ago, this page was nominated for deletion and closed as delete. The day after, the page was made as a redirect. I get that one could say that's technically not what the consensus asked for, but there did not seem to be any prejudice against the redirect existing. At first, Progressive conservatism was a redirect to Progressive Conservative Party. At some point, it became a redirect to Compassionate conservatism.
2 years later, this redirect was discussed, a discussion where a possible outcome was deleting the redirect. Instead, the redirect was changed to Progressive Conservative, a disambiguation page.
2 more years later (2018), an editor again began the process of fleshing it back out into an article, something they very much had the right to do and was not in any way defying the years-old consensuses from the 2014 AfD and 2016 RfD.

Consensus does not last forever, nor does prejudice against recreation. Usually, 6 months is the amount of time editors are expected to wait before either renominating a kept page or recreating a deleted page. There's no official amount of time, but half a year seems to be the norm. This page was recreated 4 years after the deletion discussion, and has existed for the last six. The article has undergone sporadic development ever since then. Bringing it back to AfD in 2024 on the basis that the result of the 2014 AfD wasn't properly upheld is bizarre. There's no procedural need to have this discussion again, and without any WP:Reasons for deletion, it feels a little silly.

Vanilla Wizard 💙 23:58, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perfectly aware that consensus doesn't last forever. However we had an article that was not deleted when it should have been. I felt sounding out the current consensus via an AfD would make sure we knew whether it should exist. Simonm223 (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because the article is well sourced, well written, and covers a topic which is present across multiple countries and time periods, and which is, as far as I know, not covered by sections of any other articles. Rares Kosa (talk) 19:08, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not familiar with the details of how to delete articles, but the bottom line issue about this article is the following: is there a a single subject of "Progressive conservatism" that this article is talking about or is this article showing multiple subjects put together on the assumption that there is a single subject called "Progressive conservatism"?

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox ^Beebletalks 22:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is too much attempted control over freedom of speech and freedom of information. These articles explain the fundamental principles and information on the origins of political parties. These articles should exhaust to help others learn about the fundamental principles and origins of these parties — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taymac84 (talk • contribs) 00:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree that much of the article is originally researched with connections to "progressive conservatism" not being made explicitly by the sources used, but that's grounds for the removal of problematic content, not deletion of an article. Evidently there is reliable, in-depth coverage of this topic. Yue🌙 09:07, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

G. Sundarrajan

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

No indication of the subject meeting WP:GNG. I am unable to find sufficient coverage from independent sources. JTtheOG (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering, Environment, and Tamil Nadu. JTtheOG (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic does not adhere WP:GNG and it lacks WP:SIGCOV in multiple reliable resources. B-Factor (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Roma Sztárparádé

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NALBUM. Could not find any other sources other than routine coverage/listings for the recording. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Hungary. Grumpylawnchair (talk) 22:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Candiotto

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

Disputed PROD. Fails notability criteria. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Tennis and Brazil. Shrug02 (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I see WP:SIGCOV in the sources already presented (Globoesporte, Gazeta Esportiva, O Tempo), the player herself is not very famous but meets the criteria for the article. A quick Google search also turns up a lot of content. Svartner (talk) 21:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage of both her singles and doubles career on several major Brazilian sports portals: [20] [21] [22] Svartner (talk) 22:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Svartner. Article needs a lot of work on subjective language. There have been several PRODS and AI generated tags put on its creator's other articles this week.Canary757 (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I accept coverage has now been found but I stand by the point that she is non-notable and the article itself is like a fan page full of Peacocking and puff and very little by way of actual facts. Shrug02 (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made a tentative start to address the peacock tag Shrug02, will do a thorough one later.Canary757 (talk) 13:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Women. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford BioLabs

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

It seems like this article was entirely created for promotional reasons. The only thing notable about the company is their product, TRX2. An article for the founder Thomas Whitfield also exists, which seems to be full of promotional content as well. KnowledgeIsPower9281 (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Health and fitness, Companies, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all three articles to one, probably to TRX2. There's just about enough for one article here but certainly not for three. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. Their hair product has gotten into the news, and not all of it promotional and favorable. Bearian (talk) 02:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kota Minami

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

Fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG, 10 games in J2 League and lack of secondary, significant and independent sources. The Japanese Wikipedia has one article about being a school coach, which isn't enough for SPORTCRIT in my opinion. Creator is blocked indefinitely. Geschichte (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 15:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:18, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 17:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Medvedev (ice hockey)

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

Unscourced BLP for a player who never played in a major league and does not meet guidelines at WP:SPORTBASIC. Kimikel (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any sourcing on him aside from prospect sites. Conyo14 (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Ice hockey, and Russia. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep. His Eurohockey profile indicates he played 25 years professionally. Surely there are sources in foreign languages? For example: Polish Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia, Ukrainian Wikipedia Searching in Russian for hockey-related articles is a bit difficult due to the businessman Alexander Medvedev's involvement in hockey. Alexander Medvedev (ice hockey) also coached the U18 national team for Iceland. Did anyone search in a foreign language? It's rather frustrating that nobody has mentioned what was searched. Providing more details is helpful for working together. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 14:02, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I tried searching in English articles as well as Icelandic. I did a basic search on the Belarusian Telegraph Agency and it yielded nothing. Plus the other wikis don't have sources that attribute to a WP:BLP article anyways. Conyo14 (talk) 19:44, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genealogy and Heraldry Bill 2006

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

A private member’s bill which was not enacted. The references cited are to Seanad debates, which don’t indicate notability beyond the many PMBs each year, and one from an organisation which was responsible for drafting the bill. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Law, Politics, and Ireland. Iveagh Gardens (talk) 20:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Or, failing that, merge/redirect to Genealogical_Office#Questions_over_legal_status_of_the_office. As an alternative to outright deletion. (As noted in nomination, there is nothing to indicate that this failed bill has any lasting notability. That it was created by a contributor with a username indicating a vested interest does very little to help. Text on this (non)event can easily be covered within the article which covers the office involved. Whether/not a redirect is retained won't really impact the "discoverability" of that text.) Guliolopez (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spleodrach (talk) 15:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both private bills and bills that are not passed into law are not usually considered notable, and to be both is doubly not notable. Bearian (talk) 02:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Little Blue Crunchy Things

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

This article does not indicate how the band are notable per WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. It looks like they had some popularity around Milwaukee but I can't find significant discussion of them in other reliable sources. Google search brings up results in the usual social media sources and music databases but nothing that indicates they meet Wikipedia's criteria. ... discospinster _talk 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Bands and musicians, United States of America, and Wisconsin. ... discospinster _talk 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

James McEvoy (teacher)

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

Not clear why this biography was created. Career as a teacher does not appear to be notable enough for Wikipedia per WP:BIO Seaweed (talk) 20:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable at all. Probably created by a relative as a WP:MEMORIAL. Article is just a close paraphrasing of his obituary (which was likely based on what his relatives said about him). Helpful Raccoon (talk) 21:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Military, and United Kingdom. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing for notability as a military person or an educator. The paraphrasing of the obituary isn't helping. I can't find anything else about this person. Oaktree b (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, created by SPA. Mztourist (talk) 03:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have nothing to work off of here... Snowycats (talk) 04:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Could be WP:CSD#G7: article provides no indication of what he did that might have had any significance. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Fails WP:GNG. Garuda ^Talk! 17:14, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage. What tiny little allegations of notability - that he ran a continuing education company - is buried deep in the article. Bearian (talk) 02:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Anderson (model)

AfDs for this article:

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

Refunded after soft deletion. All the sourcing on this fashion model is over-the-top promotional material, nearly all un-bylined, in sources of questionable independence and reliability (examples: Isaac Anderson 3000 is the modern Renaissance man, blending intellect, sustainability, and fashion into a tapestry that feels revolutionary yet timeless and Isaac Anderson is celebrated not only as a fashion icon but also as a trailblazer who has redefined the fashion landscape.) In my WP:BEFORE search, I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV in independent, secondary, reliable sources and so I don't see a pass of WP:GNG (much less WP:NMODEL). Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Fashion, and Ghana. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — @Dclemens1971.This sounds like a target to me though I might be wrong . I was doing some checks and I realized you’re the same editor that did that first nomination. The reason for both nominations are the same. For the first nomination I completely agree as the reasons as at that time was valid but I have a problem with this one. “All sources are over-the top promotional” this is not true if you check all the sources. One source was even talking about a scam call, how’s a scam call promotional for a model? Secondly you said nearly all unbylined. This is also not true. I can see only one source unbyline(the first source). For the promotional words you wrote , yes true it sounds promotional but even that that’s the conclusion of the article and the promotional is not throughout every article as you stated. You also said the sources’ independence is questionable. In a discussion by experienced editors about countries which are affected by system bias , some these sources were discussed. This is the link , https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Source_guide_discussions/Ghana & https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Nigeria/Nigerian_sources . The subject has been featured in a notable show(CBS morning show). I think it should be included in the English Encyclopedia. Maconzy3 (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the content in my BEFORE search, most of which was unbylined. But multiple sources in the article are indeed unbylined. Here's my source analysis:
Vanguard. No byline. Highly promotional.

Modern Ghana. Bylined but also highly promotional. This reads like marketing, not an independent, reliable news outlet. The author appears to have written only this article for Modern Ghana, so is likely not to be a reporter or a legitimate journalist.

PeaceFM. No byline. Promotional. Appears to be based entirely on quotes from Anderson.

Pulse. Bylined, but very promotional, by an "journalist" whose entire oeuvre appears to consist of spam.

CBS News. This is an article about Anderson's brother with a three-sentence WP:TRIVIALMENTION of Isaac Anderson.

GhanaCelebrities.com. An unreliable celebrity gossip blog.

Graphic.com.gh. Another puff piece.
Perhaps this is the discussion you meant to link? Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Nigerian_newspapers. It makes clear that the Nigerian sources list of the WikiProject is questionable. Either way, all we have on Anderson are puff pieces, unbylined or by writers with sketchy credentials, or articles that mention him trivially. No independent and reliable SIGCOV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
About bylined and unbylined. You can only say multiple if it’s two or more. Only one which is vanguard Nigeria is Unbylined. For PeaceFM it’s at the buttom. It shows it’s from Isaac Anderson/Peacefm. So definitely an interview reporting but it is not promotional. The vanguard news has a promotional tone for that I agree. You said modernghana.com has a questionable independence, I’d advice you do research on things you’re not familiar with. Modernghana is one of the biggest news sites in Ghana although their reliability in this discussion (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Source_guide_discussions/Ghana ) is unclear. Even that I agree that it has a promotional tone but not marketing but I think educating you previously was important. The CBS news was only used to verify the subject’s education as it was mentioned. The Graphic newspaper is state owned newpaper that is considered generally reliable according to this (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:New_pages_patrol/Source_guide_discussions/Ghana ) . You also shared a link to a discussion. The discussion was about Nigerian sources not Ghanaian. The only Nigerian source here is Vanguard. I agree with you on few things but your generalization and exaggeration is making it hard for me to agree completely. I think some sources should be removed but I still stand that on my point that the article should be kept. Maconzy3 (talk) 05:39, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I read the PeaceFM attribution of "Source" to Anderson to be the photos of Anderson, but if you're saying that Isaac Anderson wrote that piece, it's even less eligible to demonstrate notability since it's not remotely independent. Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nominator's reason and source analysis. Ibjaja055 (talk) 08:28, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pamilya Sagrado episodes

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

This is a contested draftification and AfC rejection. This list provides nothing that isn't already at Pamilya Sagrado. An article consisting entirely of a list of episodes is a policy violation — Wikipedia is not a catalog. I would recommend redirecting to Pamilya Sagrado. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Lists, and Philippines. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pamilya Sagrado Per MOS:TVEPISODELIST, this article needs secondary sources. Since there wasn't any of those, it fails to meet WP:GNG. Agreed with the recommendation. JRGuevarra (talk) 22:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pamilya Sagrado per above. AstrooKai (Talk) 09:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment MOS:TVSPLIT might be applicable to this Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lars B. Andersen

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

Non-notable businessman fails WP:GNG, WP:NBIO. Sources are:

WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS of him in the context of his company ([23], [24], [25], [26])
WP:PRIMARYSOURCES ([27], [28], [29], [30])
More trivial mentions in the context of a GWR attempt that has since been superseded or his election activities.

Nothing else qualifying came up in a WP:BEFORE search, and the civic appointments are not so rare that they constitute awards per WP:ANYBIO #1. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Norway, and England. Dclemens1971 (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable businessman. No WP:SIGCOV, trivial mentions in media; 'civic appointments' aren't notable (anyone working in the City can become a "Freeman of the City"). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 00:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true.

There are three grounds for Freedom of the City. 1. Nomination by Worshipful Company, 2. Nomination by two liverymen of the City of London or 3. By invitation.

You can't simply apply. Teacher2019 (talk) 09:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is untrue. The City of London website says: "There are several ways to apply for the Freedom: by servitude, by patrimony, by nomination or by presentation via a Livery Company.... Persons who have been on the City of London Electoral Roll for a minimum of one year may obtain the Freedom without the need for an application visit or Common Council approval. There is no fee in such cases and applicants should advise that they are on the Ward List.... Applications are made via email..." Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the update. Yes, that confirms the 3 grounds I mentioned which are 'servitude, by patrimony, by nomination or by presentation via a Livery Company'. The other way to obtain the freedom of the city is if you live there, not 'anyone working in the City'. So we are both correct in different ways :) However, according to the City of London article 'the City has a small resident population of 8,583 based on 2021 census figures'.

FYI I am still a relative newbie navigating my way around WP so forgive transgressions of the usual protocol! Teacher2019 (talk) 14:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This article had some broken links, and they are now fixed. WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS: articles from government sites and major label magazine with picture of him seems not to be trivial. Found and added mentions from Portuguese [[31]] and US main newsmedia sources [[32]][[33]] with interviews (see article). Multiple articles discuss him at length as the subject of the article, so article fulfils WP:GNG and WP:NBASIC: significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. Zralba (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The government sites are discussions of his company that trivially mention him. The Labels and Labelling magazines source is a WP:TRADES publication that is considered non-independent. The Q&A WP:INTERVIEWS you linked are WP:PRIMARYSOURCES since they consist entirely of his answers; they are not independent sources and do not count toward notability. Dclemens1971 (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This person meets the notability criteria with significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That he was selected by the now UK prime minister (who must have visited many companies that day) is significant and adds to notability. Teacher2019 (talk) 13:45, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This page is pretty much an advertisement. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I think the subject of the article does show to be involved in at senhor levels ie various institutions as part of the City of London and its unique heritage. My personal research of the subject lead me here and has added my research. Charliecroft (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - for the reason me ruined earlier I think there is genuine notability in the context of City of London Livery history Charliecroft (talk) 11:46, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned earlier. Apologies auto correct

Charliecroft (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Lust

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

I find no evidence that this musical ever came to fruition, let alone that it ran on Broadway. Zero coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It was supposed to premiere at the Stella Adler Theater in Los Angeles, a 99-seat house. There is little indication that it did, and the theater's website "history" page has a 2010 paragraph that lists productions but does NOT list "Divine Lust". But even if it did run there or anywhere, it got exactly no press coverage or critical attention of any kind. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reo Nakamura (footballer, born 1990)

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

Per AfD on the same individual. CNC (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Football, and Japan. CNC (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the other AfD. Nothing much found other than trivial mentions in match reports and database sources. Since both AfDs are regarding the same person, if one is deemed non-notable, then so must the other. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 21:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ATHLETE, same as other AfD. Snowycats (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator of the Ryo page. Geschichte (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources shown on the other linked AfD, with the two articles needing to be merged on whichever is the correct date, 1990, or 1989 (Japanese versions seem to suggest this one is correct)

Absurdum4242 (talk) 14:53, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(33128) 1998 BU48

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NASTCRIT. Cremastra (u — c) 19:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it has been part of small scale studies and has had its spectrum analysed [34][35] and also there is an occultation prediction [36]. --C messier (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's enough mention in studies to indicate at least marginal notability. It has a large magnitude range and a slow rotation period, which suggests it is a contact binary with high probability.[37] Praemonitus (talk) 06:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CELFULL

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

Promotional article for a supplement producer that fails WP:NCORP. The coverage is all actual or regurgitated press releases or other non-independent work (such as a journal article that Celfull paid for in part). No independent coverage here that isn't WP:ORGTRIV. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Medicine, California, and Florida. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP/WP:ORGCRIT due to a failure of valid sources. Rosentad (talk) 13:04, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Neem Ka Thana district

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

Requesting for deletion because the Government of Rajasthan abolished this district. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Geography, India, and Rajasthan. TheSlumPanda (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that deletion would be the best option - somebody searching for this would probably want an article covering the same area now, and maybe an explanation of why it doesn't exist any more. Perhaps merge into List of districts of Rajasthan? Adam Sampson (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is already an article for this area thats why i am requesting it for deletion see here TheSlumPanda (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:DEFUNCTS we keep former administrative units and notable per WP:GEOLAND. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - But i want to share some information here that these are only announced to become a new district in future by the Ashok Gehlot government last year and now they are abolished by new government.TheSlumPanda (talk) 20:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Abolition or is no longer administered is not a valid rationale for deletion here.--— MimsMENTOR ^talk 20:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's notable enough for a topic even though it's been abolished, though right now the state of the article is just marginally better than redirecting it somewhere. That's not an argument for redirecting, but it is an argument for improving it... SportingFlyer T·C 02:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kepp : as there are several pages of former districts still exist on Wikipedia

Example : South Arcot District (Madras Presidency)

WikiEdits2003 (talk) 02:56, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The pages may be redirected to the existing one i.e. Sikar district WikiEdits2003 (talk) 02:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:DEFUNCTS and Abolition of states ,districts ,nations is not valid rationale for deletion and is notable as per WP:GEOLAND.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naved Masood

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

It is hard to find substantial coverage that could meet WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article do not provide WP:SIGCOV. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Finance, and India. Bakhtar40 (talk) 18:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to fit notability criteria for bureaucrats or notability in general.

Xoocit (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons noted above. Also, as an adjunct professor he fails WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient coverage by independent, reliable secondary sources to pass WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:05, 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 keep. Nom has no valid rationale ‎. (non-admin closure) Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:28, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Summers

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

WP:GNG Pollia (talk) 18:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sexuality and gender, Florida, and New York. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Unclear what your rationale here for not deeming the leader of major orgs and higher Education not notable? 63.96.130.75 (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if deemed non-notable, we could redirect to Pridelines Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep, no valid deletion rationale. Geschichte (talk) 20:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Rleejones29 (talk) 05:17, 3 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.

Alexandre Réis

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

Non notable businessman. Most of the sources in this article are about a Brazilian musician called Alee, born in Bahia, not about the Angolan businessman Alexandre Réis, who this article says was born in Luanda. The only article that talks about Reis is this one [38], which seems too promotional. It also looks like the creator of this article has been checkuser blocked on ptwiki. Badbluebus (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Artists, Authors, Bands and musicians, Businesspeople, and Angola. Badbluebus (talk) 18:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment article creator (and four other sock accounts that have edited it) have been indefinitely blocked: see WP:Sockpuppet investigations/3ydepartment. The AFD has to continue though, as it's ineligible for db-banned, and probably ineligible for db-spam. Wikishovel (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: per nom + COI + Fake referencing FuzzyMagma (talk) 05:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:BLP1E - a run of the mill business person who was in the news once. There's zero evidence that his magazine was anything more than a local business journal. If he had a role in a film, he didn't get supporting actor credits. I think this all might have been made up in one day using AI. Bearian (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

*:The article about aligns with Wikipedia’s criteria and documents the trajectory of a public figure with significant contributions to music, cinema, and business in Angola. I recommend that it be retained. *:Deleting this article would be a loss for the encyclopedia, especially in documenting African culture and entrepreneurship. Alexanxyxxx (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2025 (UTC) Blocked sock. Wikishovel (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lukáš Hurt

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

Biography of a trade journalist and cannabis activist fails WP:GNG/WP:NBIO for lack of WP:SIGCOV in independent, reliable sources. The sources in the article (and found in WP:BEFORE) are either WP:TRIVIALMENTIONS, non-independent, or database sources. He also fails to qualify under any criterion of WP:NCHESS. (Translated from cz-wiki and no comment on notability standards there, but this falls short for en-wiki.) Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Journalism, and Czech Republic. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Can you find any trade journalist and activist that actually meets WP:GNG? ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 11:14, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Aramaic

AfDs for this article:

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

"Lebanese Aramaic" is an unattested variety and the term is not used in the literature — the article fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NOR. It relies almost entirely on an article by a Maronite cultural association (and even it does not use the term "Lebanese Aramaic"), which is not a valid scholarly source (WP:SOURCE) and contains fringe views that are very far outside of the linguistic consensus such as that that "West" Syriac is an "Aramaized" descendent of Caananite. None of the other sources used in the article mention "Lebanese Aramaic", but rather Aramaic or Syriac — the "history" of the alleged variety is collated (violating WP:SYNTH) from discussions of Aramaic and Syriac in general, not from "Lebanese Aramaic" specifically. Most of the linguistic content of the article does not discuss "Lebanese Aramaic" (as this variety is unattested and thus undescribed), but rather Syriac or even Lebanese Arabic. In the previous discussion from December 2023 on whether the article should be deleted, two users came out in favour of keeping it, leading to a "no consensus" result and the article being kept. However, at no point did either of the two users touch on any of the of the arguments against keeping the article (i.e. in actually referencing editorial policy), with one user even making the false claim that Lebanese Arabic is primarily descended from Aramaic ("the current spoken Lebanese is a continuation of Surien"). No valid sources have been added since the discussion in December 2023. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 17:41, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep concerns from the nominator not withstanding, it seems that if there is an issue here, the best route is going to try and clean it up first before deletion. Perhaps there are other references out there. There seem to be many in this article, and this definitely does not appear to be original research. I find it hard to believe that a language that existed for hundreds of years cannot pass GNG standards. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 18:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As said, the article does have references, but they crucially do not discuss "Lebanese Aramaic" at all, as this is not a term used in the literature, meaning their use violates NOR. Western Aramaic and Syriac are both attested languages — "Lebanese Aramaic" is not. saɪm duʃan Talk|Contribs 18:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's true, then it shouldn't hurt to wait just to be safe to ensure there isn't something else out there mentioning Lebanese Aramaic. Happy to change my opinion if no one comes forward with new information. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 23:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Language, Lebanon, and Syria. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as a 2nd nomination already existed prior to this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lebanese Aramaic (2nd nomination), I have moved this to a 3rd nomination page Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte McKane

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

Everything is about a project she did in high school 🄻 🄰 17:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and New York. 🄻 🄰 17:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the awards received are pretty routine for state and city offices to award. Not a notable subject. Marleeashton (talk) 18:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorry, but this is absolutely run of the mill stuff. I've had many students over the past two decades who have done similar community service work. I reached out off-Wiki to the former Oneonta city clerk for his opinion/information, and he wrote that her name sounds familiar, but couldn't add any further details. I searched Google news and only found her grandmother's obituary. A broader search found her Instagram page; she has fewer than half of my followers and I'm not a celebrity. I also found her LinkedIn page, and again, she has fewer than half my connections and I'm not a big business person. It is now 2025 and everyone knows that we are not a free social media platform. Bearian (talk) 03:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kioumars Pourhashemi

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

Doesn't seem to be that important. All references are in passing or about his death, probably can be mentioned as a section in 2024 Battle of Aleppo Ladsgroup^overleg 17:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I made this article because I believe he was an important figure in a very important event that led to the downfall of Syria. History is important. Yesyesmrcool (talk) 17:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Iran. Bobby Cohn (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:20, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can be considered as a soldier killed in action. He is merely a member of the IRGC forces involved in the 2024 Battle of Aleppo, but not a key member. Jeeputer ^Talk 17:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - on one hand, his rank of Second brigadier general (Iran) does not automatically pass WP:MIL, but he was not an ordinary soldier. On the other hand, he did get WP:SIGCOV in the Jerusalem Post and other reliable media. Bearian (talk) 03:22, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(?) Quoting from this page: "Researchers Hassan Hassan and Michael Weiss argued that Pourhashemi's death -along with a number of other senior officers- greatly contributed to the collapse of the loyalist defenses of Aleppo." Sounds like a credible claim to lasting significance, though it depends on how much is being carried by the "other senior officers". Koopinator (talk) 09:58, 9 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 ‎ keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Tim P. Vos

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

All of the citations are to universities he studied or worked at. I did not find much else when I searched. 🄻 🄰 16:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Language, Journalism, and Michigan. 🄻 🄰 16:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you made a lot of changes in the Tim P. Vos article suggested for deletion. I don't understand why you are doing this. There's a variety of sources used in the article, which are not from universities he studied or worked in. You just deleted information and sentences without any reason. 35.11.35.72 (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 with an h-index of 38 and 19 articles hitting triple-digit citations [39], WP:PROF#C3 for being elected an ICA Fellow, and possibly WP:PROF#C6 for having been president of the AEJMC. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is convincing and the article looks much better now. Am I allowed to withdraw? 🄻 🄰 20:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The editor who nominates an article for deletion can withdraw that nomination. If nobody else has agreed with deletion yet, then somebody will come along and close the discussion. XOR'easter (talk) 21:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof. I welcome the decision of the nominator to withdraw this AfD nomination and hope they will take more care next time. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC).[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Buccaneers–Eagles rivalry

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

Non-notable rivalry of two teams that have only played each other 24 times since 1977. Frankly I've never heard of this even being called a rivalry between these two teams. Draftification was objected to, and seems to be largely based on one article writer's opinion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Florida and Pennsylvania. Skynxnex (talk) 17:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG in terms of establishing a rivalry exists. The article clings to a CBS blog that lists this series among the top rivalries of the 2000s. While CBS is certainly a top authority on NFL coverage, this particular blog has only a couple paragraphs of content on this series and does little to describe the teams as “rivals” outside of the title. Even if this was significant coverage of the teams as rivals, which it is not, GNG would still not be met as it requires multiple sources. Frank Anchor 17:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding that I oppose a merge/redirect to List of NFL rivalries. If this series fails GNG as a rivalry, then it shouldn’t be included on the list of rivalries either. Frank Anchor 03:12, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete mainly because that CBS article is not very indicative of significant coverage, but this [40] provides a bit more to their early 2000s playoff matches, though I haven't seen any other sources as in-depth as this one. Conyo14 (talk) 18:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Basically every team is a rival with every other team. If all the article can do is outline a history of meet-ups and doesn't describe how the teams and fans actually view the rivalry to give it some substance, there is no reason for an article. Reywas92^Talk 20:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Just a random pairing of two NFL teams with no memorable games that I can recall (nor listed in the article) to spark a rivalry. There seem to be some other, equally questionable "rivalries" in the List of NFL rivalries, e.g. Colts–Jaguars rivalry. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Clarityfiend: There are certainly some questionable rivalry articles. With that said, you'd be unlikely to see a rivalry article between two division opponents deleted. I would however support the nominations of a number of other rivalry articles that aren't about division opponents. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There does actually seem to be some coverage of this, e.g. 'A lot of history' between Bucs and Eagles ("Not too long ago, the Eagles-Buccaneers rivalry was one of the fiercest non-divisional matchups in the NFL"), Tampa Bay looks back to when the rivalry was real, Bucs, Eagles know each other well: Rivalry forms as they've met six times since 1999, Eagles, Buccaneers renew rivalry at new stadium, Tampa Vs. Philadelphia Rivalry Has A Deep History. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think my issue is that this is largely predicated on meeting in the playoffs for 3 straight years. That doesn't create a long term rivalry in my opinion, more of a flash in the pan of a rivalry instead. My perspective is that rivalry articles should be more long standing, instead of relying on what amounts primarily to a 3-season stretch that most people have forgotten about. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BeanieFan11 - Here's some more 1, 2, 3, 4. KatoKungLee (talk) 22:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at these sources, source 1 appears to be from a SI fan site, #2 is from one of the teams (so not independent), #3 uses language like "used to be a rivalry" (so not anymore), and "will become a rivalry again" (so not right now), #4 is fine but quite local and #5 is similar but places even less of an emphasis of this being a real rivalry. I think a select merge regarding this rivalry at List of NFL rivalries#Tampa Bay Buccaneers vs. Philadelphia Eagles using some of the sources from Beanie and moving it to the historical rivalries of that article is the best outcome as the WP:NRIVALRY isn't met here as a standalone article with a lack of sustained coverage from non-local outlets. Let'srun (talk) 22:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG with multiple sources significant coverage from reliable publications over a span of at least two decades Tampa Vs. Philadelphia Rivalry Has A Deep History (2024), Buccaneers, Eagles renew old rivalry (2009), Bucs, Eagles know each other well - Rivalry forms as they've met 6 times since 1999 (2003), Emotional opener - Eagles, Buccaneers renew rivalry at new stadium (2003). Given the discussion above it should be noted that per WP:UNDUE "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." so editors personal opinions on whether something should or should not be considered a rivalry doesn't matter, only whether reliable sources consider it to have been a rivalry. Furthermore, notability is not temporary per WP:NOTTEMPORARY so if something was a rivalry and had significant coverage over multiple years about said rivalry then it doesn't matter if it is not considered a rivalry today. However, if the article and sources cover periods before and after the time of the rivalry then maybe it is better to simply change the name to Buccaneers–Eagles series or Buccaneers–Eagles matchups. Alvaldi (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, I sure do wish I could read those Newspapers links :( Conyo14 (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Conyo14: Now you can! – [41] [42] [43] (p2) [44]. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Here's another that could be of use , though it's from the Bucs' site. This could be of use too. Here's something small from CBS. If you happen to have any football magazines or books, there may be something there.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I don't think the Buccaneers site is useful for notability as its not independent. Still undecided at the moment. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@KatoKungLee [45] and [46] are not independent sources and thus do not go towards a WP:GNG pass. Alvaldi (talk) 19:35, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Alvaldi - I think they could be of use in the article.KatoKungLee (talk) 20:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It is probably perfectly fine to use them in the article to source some facts, but as they are not independent sources so they do not help establish that the article passes WP:GNG which is needed for it not to be deleted. Alvaldi (talk) 20:08, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To me these don't demonstrate WP:LASTING. It was supposedly a short term rivalry because they met in the playoffs for a few years, but it's not something that's actually treated as a rivalry from what I can tell. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Hagen

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

Cannot find independent WP:SIGCOV for this Canadian judoka to pass WP:NSPORT; all sources appear to be trivial mentions or non-independent bios/interviews. Being a CBC commentator on the Olympics does not on its own generate notability. If there are sources I missed in my WP:BEFORE please ping me. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Martial arts, and Canada. Dclemens1971 (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The article's sources demonstrate that Hagen is both a provincial and territorial-level director and coach (currently for the province of Saskatchewan, previously for the Northwest Territories), and an official commentator for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation during the past two Olympic Games. Canada is a federal country and Hagen's roles in Saskatchewan and the NWTs are as the chief administrator of those federal units on behalf of Judo Canada, the national regulator. Accordingly, while Hagen's own sporting career does not make him notable, I think that he meets the administrative / coaching notability requirements for sport (director and head coach of two provincial or territorial programs), and he also has a public profile as the national broadcaster's (only) official judo commentator for the Olympics. CanadianJudoka (talk) 18:43, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Has a public profile as a commentator is not a criterion for notability, and there is no SNG under NSPORT either for for martial arts coaches or for provincial-level team coaches, so he will need to pass WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable, secondary sources. That's what's missing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 19:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My search found no evidence of him competing at a world or continental judo championship. I also didn't find significant independent coverage of him that would meet WP:GNG. Statements of him being an Olympic commentator, interviews, and coverage of events under his supervision do not show WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 15:50, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet WP:NSPORT Nswix (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete After my research, I come to agree with the nominator: Subject doesn't pass WP:NSPORT. Lekkha Moun (talk) 13:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Minerva Project

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

The notability seems redundant with Minerva University. 🄻 🄰 15:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Education, United States of America, and California. 🄻 🄰 15:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article should focus on demonstrating its notability with independent, reliable sources and maintaining a neutral tone. Adding more detailed information about its programs, achievements, and impact, while following Wikipedia's style guidelines, would improve its quality and relevance. --RodrigoIPacce (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - I can't tell how this is notable, apart from the "University", and there's no explicit allegation of notability or reason given why this fork was created. Bearian (talk) 03:43, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Doom Patrol enemies

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from the Doom Patrol article. Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. There is nothing here to preserve that isn't covered at the main article (not to mention other villain group articles like Brotherhood of Evil or Brotherhood of Dada). The target article is also missing sources but at least provides a valid redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with the enemies section of Doom Patrol in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 23:22, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/Merge with Doom Patrol, per WP:PRESERVE. There is a WP:SIGCOV issue, but there is a valid WP:ATD here. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Charlton Media Group

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

This company is not notable and it lacks enough credible sources to justify its own page. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: News media, Business, Companies, Asia, Hong Kong, and Singapore. Skynxnex (talk) 17:03, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm confused about what this company actually does is notable. From all appearances online, it just seems like a portfolio or holding company of disconnected trade publications that it buys from other publishers. Bearian (talk) 03:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Genocide in the Hebrew Bible

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

Per prior discussion(s) on article talk (which have stalled out for several weeks), this article is essentially a largely OVERLAP’d POVFORK with serious neutrality issues. The discussion of this topic is already extensively covered and properly sourced in articles such as War in the Hebrew Bible, The Bible and violence, and Judaism and violence; as is the modern day relevance of particular passages in Amalek. The contents of these discussions are neither so long that they warrant SIZESPLIT, nor are they so notable as to require a page outside their discussions on the relevant pages. Sinclairian (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Literature, Christianity, and Judaism. Skynxnex (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In case it wasn’t obvious, my vote lies on delete/merge. Sinclairian (talk) 18:03, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. All of this is covered on other articles. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. I don't see an argument for deletion here. I see no evidence that the article is so rife with neutrality that WP:TNT is appropriate. Nobody has disputed notability, only where this material should be covered - which is not a matter for AfD, particularly when multiple plausible merge targets exist. AfD cannot replace normal talk page discussion. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. Vanamonde93 sums the situation up perfectly. Per WP:DEL-CONTENT: Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. The content issues should be discussed at the relevant talk page, and other methods of dispute resolution should be used first, such as listing on Wikipedia:Requests for comments for further input (my emph., and again per V93, the neutrality concerns are insufficiently egregious (by spades) to qualify for the level of severity required to warrant deletion, especially when alternatives are available). Talk page discussion and possible merge/redirects do not take place at AfD. SerialNumber54129^{A New Face in Hell} 18:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to the Bible and violence. I question whether this page scope is fundamentally a SYNTHetic premise. The word "genocide" isn't mentioned in anything as old as the bible, as that word dates to 1944. It's true that we could still have an article about a modern concept of this. But, should we, or would this be handled better elsewhere? I don't see enough detail or sources in depth about this specific topic to handle as a separate article, personally, so I'm ending up here. Andre🚐 19:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not WP:SYNTH if other people have already applied the modern concept of genocide to the stories told in the Hebrew Bible. That by itself doesn't mean that an article with this title is the best place to talk about the subject, of course, but the idea isn't original. XOR'easter (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of sources, totaling hundreds of pages, that were cited in the original version of the article and have more than enough content to support an extensive article. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep per vanamonde. (t · c) buidhe 03:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep per vanamonde Codonified (talk) 02:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is almost certainly better covered as a section of War in the Hebrew Bible, but that's a content issue that doesn't really belong at AfD. None of the potential issues require deletion. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, making sure any usable content is covered at Amalek, The Bible and violence and War in the Hebrew Bible. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:41, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a content fork to War in the Hebrew Bible. My very best wishes (talk) 02:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Andre that this is WP:synth and WP:OR. It is a Bible study rather than an Encyclopedia article. It contains no agreed upon definition of genocide, so there is no way to tell if the topic is notable - or if it is even valid. "If the modern concept of genocide has been discussed" is not sufficient to warrant an article on it. This article is not neutral. It takes a position: Mainstream biblical scholarship does not regard this part of the Bible to be faithfully depicting historical events. However, it could still be concluded that God commanded genocide. Which, btw, is the opposite of what the cited source says about encouraging scholars to take seriously the widely held conclusion that ideology alone is an inadequate explanation for genocide. If this article isn't deleted, the content should be wiped, and someone without a bone to pick should redo the entire thing from scratch. Please don't merge it as is. It's too poorly done. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep per Vanamonde93 – Beyond the lack of a straightforward deletion reason, or evidence of an intractible issue as discussed on talk, the main suggestion here appears to be for a merger, but this would have been better handled with a merger discussion. On the matter of mergers, both War in the Hebrew Bible and The Bible and violence are already lengthy pages that are approaching the size where they would potentially be candidates for a split in any case, so the benefits of such a merger – let alone the question of whether the material presented here would be due on those pages – merits a proper, dedicated discussion. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I’ve come to realize that a merger proposal should have been the initial course of action, but I didn’t know such a procedure existed at the time. I figure that I’ll let this discussion run its course just in case there’s a sudden spike in discussion, and then create a merger proposal once this is actually closed. Sinclairian (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. If a an article with a blatant and strong POV fails to satisfy notability : it definitely is better off deleted for possible malicious intent. But that really isn't the case with Google Scholar returning 90k hits of the two terms being used together , whenever from the perspective of religious theology or its cultural and ethical influences. The article has some nice reputable sources to build on too.

The word 'Genocide' isn't even a century old , but that still doesn't mean that the various attempts to erase entire identities by eliminating its people through either assimilation or mass destruction didn't happen before 1944. Dismissing the article because calling man-made wipeouts before the Holocaust is "anachronistic" isn't really a sound reason as it seems, especially when Lemkin himself used the Albigensian Crusade as an example in his works when he conceived the concrete concept of genocide that we know today , and we already have many ancient precedents. All that means a very rudimentary , no-legalese concept of genocide can indeed go back far enough to Biblical times ; the Bronze and Iron Ages.

Just because an article's initial revisions may seem 'biased' to some editors , doesn't mean we can just do away with it entirely. We can instead simply rewrite it from scratch if need be. The article has potential for interesting content , and the case for deletion isn't really that solid. TheCuratingEditor (talk) 12:16, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The American Business Journal

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

Topic is not notable. No major news sources have ever referenced this website and all cited sources are press releases. Wiki article feels like self-promotion. Eric Schucht (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academic journals, Business, and United States of America. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent sourcing; appears to be WP:PROMO and fails WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. Dclemens1971 (talk) 18:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:04, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agree with Dclemens1971 Asteramellus (talk) 23:09, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article fails WP:NCORP. Cited references are promotional and self-published ([47]PR Newswire, ABJ website). While reading the article I noted its promotional tone which violates WP:NOTADVERTISING, and no evidence demonstrates notability through independent analyses. Nxcrypto Message 11:25, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The Wandering Inn

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

The only usable source is its inclusion in a listicle. While that's not nothing, none of the other sources here help notability (unreliable), and I couldn't find much else. I found a single sentence mention in Variety but that is not sigcov. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, for full disclosure, I am one of the main contributors to this article.

Although I agree that the many of the sources are unconventional (rather than unreliable!) for Wikipedia, I do believe that this is due to the specific nature of this series' publication (online web format proliferated primarily through web forums). The author is ranked fourth in the Writing category on Patreon, previously second, has received awards from communities hosting millions of members (e.g the "Stabby Awards" cited in the articles), and mentioned in one or two magazines. The series' first book is listed as 110th in Amazon's "Fantasy Adventure & Fiction" rankings.

I believe that this, coupled with its notable trait of its unique wordcount constitutes enough notability to meet the minimum requirements for a Wikipedia article. Of course, if the main issue of notability is confirming this wordcount, I again refer to the series' publication method, which is fully available online and can be confirmed by anyone, if citations which count it are considered unreputable.

I think that, rather than doubting whether this series meets the minimum standards for notability on Wikipedia, that the article should be further improved and additional citations added. Xland44 (talk) 12:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is not how notability is determined for wikipedia - it must pass the WP:GNG or WP:NBOOK. So say, it would need reviews from reliable sources, or discussion about it in reliable sources. Having a lot of words, not so much PARAKANYAA (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Xland44: and Wikipedia also has a very specific definition of a reliable source. It's not that we necessarily think the content you're citing is false, it's just that content on Wikipedia is meant to summarize reliable sources instead of presenting new information. If the outside media hasn't really taken note of it yet, it's a Wikipedia:Before they were notable situation. The passage of time helps with some of these subjects (we once deleted Minecraft for not being notable way back when it was new!). I'd suggest keeping a copy of this article saved offline and keeping an eye out for possible sources in the future. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I tried searching for sources myself. It's somewhat sad this doesn't seem to have much outside recognition because millions of words in a single series is a crazy impressive accomplishment. It's possible the Variety sentence might be used to maybe include a mention of this somewhere onwiki? But I can't think of any specific merge targets or what you could really merge when pretty much all the sources are unreliable. If there is a good target, a redirect might make more sense. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's coverage (not a review, but wtv) in Lili, Pâquet (2022). "Publishing processes for a digital age". In Meekings, Sam; Moore, Marshall (eds.). Creative Writing Scholars on the Publishing Trade. Routledge. ISBN 9780367485412.. If one additional piece of coverage is found, then that should be enough for NBOOK. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 17:46, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed the Fugue piece already in the article, though it is a student-run journal. So that might be two pieces of coverage? Additionally, according to ProQuest, there might be a mention or coverage in the PhD Thesis Speculative Escapism in Contemporary Fantasy: Labor, Utility, Affect. I don't have access to the full text, but hopefully I should get it soon via an ILL or RX. I've found no other coverage (excluding press releases) despite searching nearly all the major databases I have access to (ProQuest, Factiva, EBSCOhost, Uni library catalog). On a side note, I do like to read webfiction, so I might give this one a shot haha. I've considered writing an article for some before, but it's a bit annoying how little standard coverage even the most popular ones get. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 18:27, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. As many editors have expressed dismay at the enshitification of mainstream media, including me, so the issue that we only consider elite journalists as reliable is not tenable. Blogs can be reliable but the vast majority are not. The sheer volume of the subject's content does not make it notable per se, unless it has attracted media attention for its verbosity. Quantity is not a substitute for quality. I just have the feeling that this article is too soon. Convince me otherwise. Bearian (talk) 04:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draftify. I can understand the frustrations with sourcing. I really can. At the same time, this frustration doesn't mean that every source is reliable or that every mention is usable or that something should be considered usable just to counteract the aforementioned bias. The majority of sourcing on that page isn't usable.

Unfortunately the vast majority of sourcing (not including the primary sources, which cannot establish notability) are unusable. Most of them are what Wikipedia would see as self-published sources (WP:SPS). The issue with these is that anyone can create a site or upload a video. So what is needed here is to show where the site and video uploader would be seen as reliable sources by other reliable sources. I didn't see where the YouTuber or Readers Grotto would be seen as a notability-giving reliable source on Wikipedia.

The reddit awards are considered to be non-notable per Wikipedia's guidelines. Most awards are considered non-notable, even if the institution itself is large or popular. This means that most awards aren't going to be usable on Wikipedia or even be seen as noteworthy enough to mention in an article. Many editors think that unless the award is notable, it shouldn't be mentioned in an article at all because people can and have stuffed articles full of non-notable awards in an attempt to make something seem notable. That's not what anyone was trying to do here, but that's part of the reason why many argue against including non-notable awards in an article. The best way to show that something like this is worth mentioning is to show where the award is covered in other reliable sources. I didn't really find anything for the Stabby Awards, which is honestly a bit surprising considering that r/fantasy is a pretty popular subreddit, but that's kind of how it goes sometimes.

Fugue looks like it would probably be usable, although as someone mentioned, it's a student written magazine. Student written journals and magazines are often seen as non-usable on Wikipedia unless they are particularly well known for their quality, like receiving an award or honor for the publication. I'm not saying that this is unusable, just that unless this can be shown it's going to be seen as a weaker source.

The other source that looks to be potentially usable is Fantasy Book Review. I'm actually familiar with them - they have been around for a while and they've been used as a RS in academic/scholarly sources like this, this, and this. The issue that might get faced here is that it's not a particularly widely known source despite all of that. I see where it's been used sporadically on Wikipedia, but not heavily enough that I could say something like "2,000 articles use this as a source, clearly they must be doing something right."

This leaves us with really only two sources, neither of which are particularly strong. This just doesn't pass notability guidelines at this point in time. Honestly, it can be kind of frustrating with topics that have obvious popularity but have otherwise been pretty ignored by mainstream media. I've had to scrap countless articles because the coverage just wasn't there. For example, horror is a well-known and popular genre, however despite that it's still seen as "niche" enough that most mainstream outlets don't cover it unless it's October or there's something especially mainstream. The genre specific outlets that are RS are too few and far between to keep up with all of the stuff that comes out. It's really frustrating. At the same time, it's not really up to Wikipedia to make up for that difference. We can try to argue for the reliability of various sourcing (which I always highly recommend) but I'll warn you that getting something seen as reliable can be an extremely uphill battle. I once showed where something was used as a source in academic sourcing and was told that it wasn't usable because it wasn't enough academic sourcing. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that this is so long. Believe it or not, this is actually after I went back and edited. It's just difficult to explain why something isn't usable without going into it in a bit of depth. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 23:24, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Skinner (American football)

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

Does not pass WP:GNG. The sources listed in the article do not provide WP:SIGCOV. I did find another source from the Chillicothe Gazette not listed in the article. However, even with that inclusion, I do not believe it would pass. It possibly has WP:OR, as well. Grahaml35 (talk) 14:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, American football, Kentucky, Ohio, and West Virginia. Skynxnex (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are several WP:SIGCOV about him in the Chillicothe Gazette, [48][49][50][51](P1/P2). He would however need SIGCOV from at least one other publication to pass WP:GNG. He was the starting QB for Marshall so there might be some coverage in a publication that covers the school if someone knows where to look. Alvaldi (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the Herald-Dispatch, presumably, which will certainly have print coverage of Skinner from 2005 and 2006, but the earliest mentions online seem to be from 2008. I didn't remember Skinner, but since we know that his career was covered by the Herald-Dispatch (and likely other news sources no longer available over the internet), then he seems to pass the general notability guideline. I note that the question is whether the sources exist, not whether they are available over the internet, or cited in the article. And anyone who started as quarterback in any Marshall games will be discussed, not merely mentioned, in the Herald-Dispatch. So this would be a keep. P Aculeius (talk) 17:04, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As P Aculeius pointed out, the Herald-Dispatch isn't on newspapers.com. However, I was able to find the paper's archives and it looks like Skinner has plenty of coverage. So this passes GNG when combined with Alvaldi's sources above. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moliere Dimanche

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Moliere Dimanche

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

This is a copy of Draft:Moe Dimanche which the creator of both articles, User:NovembersHeartbeat, submitted to Articles for Creation back in September. This user has now made a new article, Moliere Dimanche, to bypass the AfC process, and redirected Moe Dimanche to lead back to this article. I have suspicions about WP:COI that I have expressed on NovembersHeartbeat's talk page (Dimanche is running to be Governor of Florida, which provides a clear motivation). NovembersHeartbeat also created Dimanche v. Brown for a legal case Dimanche was prominent within, and I am now also considering this for deletion. I would like some external advice on whether any of these articles pass WP:GNG as I am not well versed on American legal stuff like this. Spiralwidget (talk) 14:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for initiating this discussion. I would like to address some concerns raised in the nomination statement: My contributions to Wikipedia have been neutral, informative, and edited by Admins. I like editing on Wikipedia because I like spreading knowledge. My contributions include the Federal Magistrates Act, the JUDGES Act, and I'm currently putting together a page on the concept of Unsettled Law. These are topics that serve public interest and make people wiser, and why people rely on wikipedia more than any other source of enlightenment. This user SpiralWidget on the other hand has had his pages deleted because he abandoned them for 6 months. I take the spread of knowledge seriously, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so.

Redirects and Related Articles: The user SpiralWidget says he has conflict of interest concerns, which were addressed when he first started editing the page Moe Dimanche. I think his primary reason for nominating the article for deletion is because it is a duplicate page. However, the wikipedia deletion policy specifically says

"If two pages are duplicates or otherwise redundant, one should be merged and redirected to the other, using the most common, or more general page name. This does not require process or formal debate beforehand."

But SpiralWidget moved the redirect page anyway because he wanted a formal discussion. The redirect Moe Dimanche was created to aid navigation for users searching under this common nickname. As for Dimanche v. Brown, it is a separate topic with its own independent notability, as demonstrated by coverage in legal publications and its significance in state-level jurisprudence. These articles serve distinct purposes and are appropriately created. 2. Conflict of Interest: I have no personal or professional connection to Moliere Dimanche. The article was written to document a notable public figure in compliance with Wikipedia’s WP:COI and WP:NPOV guidelines. This was already explained to SpiralWidget, even though I do not owe him an explanation. I came across Mr. Dimanche's YouTube videos after a judge in my city reopened a death investigation into a death of an inmate at a local prison. The only videos I could find on that inmate were done by Mr. Dimanche's Youtube channel and I learned more about him and asked why there wasn't a wikipedia page about him. So I decided to do it, as I began to follow what was going on with him. I welcome further discussion on how to improve the article and ensure compliance with Wikipedia's policies. I hope my contributions to Wikipedia demonstrate how serious I am about expanding knowledge in the areas of law and civil rights. I hope to help those looking to navigating complex legal theories and civil rights. NovembersHeartbeat (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Authors, Crime, Law, Haiti, United States of America, and Florida. Skynxnex (talk) 16:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This wall of text isn't going to advance your case. Please don't accuse other editors of vandalism without evidence. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Marginally Keep While I share suspicions that this is self-promotion by the primary contributor or meatpuppetry by the subject, I find that this does meet the general criteria for inclusion. Though not all the detail is necessary, the case cited does lend credence to the idea that the case and the subject of the case is notable enough; the precedent set is not nontrivial. Given the numerous local sources (admittedly probably pushing their own agenda), I think it marginally meets the threshold for inclusion. I would strongly advise User:NovembersHeartbeat to back off for a few days and likewise recant/strike his remarks about "vandalism". This is not "your" article. It is open to anyone to edit and improve within our guidelines. Buffs (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep When I first came across this draft in AfC, I refrained from reviewing as the notability seemed marginal–it could've gone both ways. However, I do feel that there are some significant coverage of him as an artist, but this article needs to be ridden of fluff and promotion. [52] I also found this book by Nicole R. Fleetwood that discusses his art in detail. Ca ^{talk to me!} 02:00, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Nepal earthquakes

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

Fails WP:NEVENT. A google search also doesn't bring up any especially deep coverage. Creator submitted a draft to AFC which I declined on the same basis. Article already says no major damage or casualties were reported. A large portion of the article also fails to discuss the main subject rather, an overview of Himalaya tectonics. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 14:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article provides valuable information about the event, highlighting its importance of Himalayan tectonics and seismic activity. While there were no major casualties or damages, the event holds importance in understanding the region's geological behavior. The article goes beyond just reporting the event; it connects it to scientific studies and ongoing discussions about seismic risks in the Himalayas. Such information is crucial for researchers, students, and anyone interested in the region’s geology, making the article a useful and relevant resource for Wikipedia readers. NAUser0001 (talk) 14:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@NAUser0001 then why don't you work on Geology of the Himalayas. Because the earthquake doesn't seem to be the main subject. Wikipedia is not the place to have entries for such minor events Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a response that isn't obviously made by AI. Thanks. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:22, 2 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 2. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Nepal. Bobby Cohn (talk) 14:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:EVENT. Dawnseeker2000 19:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, The earthquake is only 5.3 plus no major damage and casualities Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 12:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SamBroGaming (talk) 06:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can we snowclose this already? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 06:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails LASTING/GNG. Overshadowed by 2015 and 2025. Minimal impact. Waiting for SNOW close.

Wildfireupdateman :) (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Pedro Neves (poker player)

AfDs for this article:

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

I agree with the previous AFD: Non-notable player, no WP:SIGCOV. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Games, and Portugal. UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No WP:SIGCOV, no coverage outside niche press. The article appears to be more about the tournament than the article subject. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 World Series of Poker. Notable only in connection with WP:ONEEVENT. ~ A412 ^talk! 16:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Slimmed the first result subsection to remove the superfluos winners-section and added a result-section for the second score. Article now clearly succeeds WP:ONEEVENT. PsychoticIncall (talk) 14:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Redirects are cheap. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has two notable cashes (1st; 2nd) for over a million each. PsychoticIncall (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sadiq Kirmani

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

Non-notable cricketer; Played only two LA matches across his whole career (no FC or international matches played), and none in this list of domestic tournaments maintained by WikiProject Cricket. AmateurHi$torian (talk) 13:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. Shellwood (talk) 14:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Karnataka-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable plus both references are to do with his father and notability is not inherited.
Shrug02 (talk) 01:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Syed Kirmani per WP:ATD-M. Yuvaank (talk) 15:07, 5 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 redirect‎ to Star Wars: Republic Commando#Sequels. Randykitty (talk) 14:19, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Republic Commando (series)

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

Fails WP:GNG. No significant coverage for this series or "multimedia project". Even if you see this as a list, it seems to fail WP:NLIST. Only thing I found were articles about a Battlefront 2 update adding a Republic Commando character to the multiplayer mode: [53], [54]. They don't imply that Battlefront 2 is part of the Republic Commando series. Suggesting merge/redirect to Star Wars: Republic Commando#Sequels. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Literature, and Video games. Mika1h (talk) 12:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Star Wars: Republic Commando#Sequels per nom. ~ A412 ^talk! 18:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. This fails WP:SIGCOV, and there is even a fair bit of WP:OR. Given that Battlefront 2 isn't a verifiable part of this series, it's better to explain what connection there is (if any), without creating a series article. Shooterwalker (talk) 16:19, 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.

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 12:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Erich Volschenk

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

Normally published, commercially employed (non-academia) zoologist with a number of described taxa. There is nothing here that says encyclopedic notability - no WP:GNG coverage, no honours or prestigious positions, no recognized exceptional contributions to the field. A productive arachnologist but not encyclopia material. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators and Biology. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BIO and WP:PROF based on his citation count. LibStar (talk) 23:01, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing proves notability. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 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.

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. Randykitty (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of portable media players

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

Previously PROD'd with this rationale: Out of date article, tagged as such for over 14 years, not revised substantially in years, and full of information with no verifiable importance or correctness. WP:NOTGUIDE suggests that Wikipedia is not a guide for consumer product information. Restored to draft on request, then moved to main article space with no changes. I concur with the PROD rationale that this article is not within the bounds of Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is almost two decades out of date; if no one is looking after the list despite the maintenance tags, delete this and be done with it. Oaktree b (talk) 01:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I’m a little dubious of the PROD rationale, because I’m not totally convinced that WP: NOTGUIDE applies here. The article doesn’t describe, for example, how to use a portable media player (which would violate WP: NOTGUIDE). That being said, this is a massive mess of information that seems to overwhelmingly come from primary sources. My concern is that this violates WP: INDISCRIMINATE and cleaning it up would amount to rewriting the article from scratch. At best, we should WP: STARTOVER; at worst, this violates WP: INDISCRIMINATE and should be deleted. HyperAccelerated (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. ~Darth Stabro^{Talk • Contribs} 19:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no plausible way this could be a useful article with the proliferation of portable music players. Brandon (talk)
Delete, as the person who proposed deletion a few weeks ago. This giant, table-filled article is badly out of date and light on citations. No amount of editing would make this into a suitable Wikipedia article. White 720 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Minimally this can be cut down to serve as a WP:SETINDEX. There is coverage elsewhere in the encyclopedia of all the players listed. Out of date or failure to improve are not valid reasons to delete. Although media players are largely obsolete now, there was significant coverage when they were relevant: WP:NOTTEMPORARY. ~Kvng (talk) 13:55, 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.

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

The result was keep‎. Inclusion in Encyclopedia Britannica is a very convincing argument. Randykitty (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vorontsov

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

Follow-up to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khilkov (recently unanimously deleted). Relies on WP:ONESOURCE, russianartdealer.com, which is a WP:SPS; WP:OR; fails WP:GNG. Rule of thumb: if a Russian noble family claims descent from Rurik (or in this case "a Varangian nobleman named Šimon") without a source, that's a red flag. (No objection to keeping Category:Vorontsov family for now; this "article" just adds nothing of value). NLeeuw (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists of people, Royalty and nobility, and Russia. NLeeuw (talk) 11:24, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are articles about the family in Britannica (1911), Brockhaus & Efron and Nordisk familjebok and that seems enough to pass GNG, although I am somewhat concerned about the fact that all the above articles have a very short introduction about the family in general, and then continue with individual biographies. In any case, they also contain some references, which could be used to expand the article. For example: The family has published very extensive archives: [55] and there seems to be a book about the family: Ogarkov (1892) Vorontsovy. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 13:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiably notable noble family in encyclopedias, eg "Воронцовы" . Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary (in Russian). 1906.. Wiipedians simply don't care. --Altenmann >talk 18:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article in Russian Wikipedia has a ton of references, if one is interested in improving. As anyone even slightly interested in Russian history knows, this family was the "crème de la crème" of the Russian aristocracy from the reign of Empress Elizabeth until the end of the empire. Ghirla^-трёп- 16:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, its origins are actually obscure (as was shown in a well-known Paris litigation between Prince P. V. Dolgorukov and Prince Vorontsov). It was the Velyaminov family that claimed (for many centuries) descent from Shimon the Varangian; whether the Vorontsov family is in fact a branch of the Velyaminov family (as they claimed) is a moot question. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. The family's claims to descend from a certain historical figure is irrelevant to their notability - it's a classic red herring since almost every living person today probably has at least one or two notable ancestors (those khans, philandering kings, and boyars got around). There are several attested notable members, and that's all that counts, pardon the pun. I also note that their palace in Odesa, according to Google Maps, has survived the recent Russian invasion and drone attacks. Bearian (talk) 04:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. ✗plicit 12:55, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese Newfoundland

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

Nonsense article building a mountain out of conjecture. There is no evidence f Portuguese Newfoundland actually being a thing, let alone one warranting an entire article. See the similarly WP:PROFRINGE Luso–Danish expedition to North America AFD for similar discussions, but the editor creating these articles needs to stop adding fringe theories to Wikipedia in a way that looks like historical fact. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article is based on well-regarded sources, including Bailey Diffie’s Foundations of the Portuguese Empire, 1415–1580 and the Dictionary of Canadian Biography entry on Gaspar Corte-Real. Both sources explicitly discuss Portuguese claims and potential activity in Newfoundland during the early 16th century. These are not fringe sources but are widely recognized by scholars in the field of Portuguese maritime history.

It is stated in the book that Portugal had claims over the region, and brought goods and slaves from it. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 11:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're conflating "Portuguese claims" and "potential Portuguese activity" both here and in the article, which is why there's a WP:PROFRINGE issue at play. I don't think anyone is denying Portuguese interest or claims. Just because there are potential actvities doesn't mean we can assume there are for the purposes of an article. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I didn’t make myself clear, in Bailey Diffie’s book it’s clearly mentioned that King Manuel granted formal licenses to explorers like João Fernandes Lavrador and Gaspar Corte-Real to discover and claim land with the promise of rewards. It’s also well mentioned that Portugal had colonial activity, which I’ve mentioned before. Jaozinhoanaozinho (talk) 12:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot extrapolate that into a whole article about Portuguese Newfoundland when the academic consensus isn't there. One source that runs counter to scholarship isn't enough to warrant an entire article about a topic. This is essentially a fork of other articles you've written citing pre-columbian contact fringe sources. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 12:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Portugal and Canada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's very little evidence this was ever actually a thing. Fails, WP:GNG Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of reliable sources. A settlement on Cape Breton, yes. Not Newfoundland.Doug Weller talk 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For lack of reliable sources and WP:PROFRINGE POV issues. Simonm223 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, at the best, a WP:CFORK of Gaspar Corte-Real. CMD (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:N, WP:PROFRINGE, and WP:OR. As noted above, the article topic is most likely not a thing. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even assuming that it's not a fringe theory nor original research (which I don't concede), four very brief mentions on six pages in all of Google Books doesn't constitute significant coverage. Everyone makes mistakes, but if all of your edits here are basically original research, then you are an independent researcher, not here to help build an encyclopedia. We are not a website for that purpose. Bearian (talk) 06:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Randykitty (talk) 12:24, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hemanta Debbarma

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

The article fails WP:GNG and does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NPOL. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 11:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tripura-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable sources, nor any other language articles from which to find additional sources. Bearian (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 12:27, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine jade culture

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

This article looks like a POV-pushing heap of WP:OR (see esp. the UNESCO section). I found zero reliable sources using the term "Philippine jade culture" on Google Scholar, a normal web search, or a Wikipedia Library EBSCO search [56]. Google Books turns up only self-published books by someone called "J.G. Cheock" [57]. Most sources cited in the article are news (Taiwan Times, Taiwan News) or primary (UNESCO), and given the apparent dispute between the two I don't think these can be considered INDEPENDENT. I will work to verify the other offline sources, but what I've got thus far is not promising. Toadspike [Talk] 10:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Archaeology, Philippines, and Taiwan. Toadspike [Talk] 10:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article was mostly written by User:Spitmyrno and User:Gibedapse. Based on their contribs, both are SPAs. Toadspike [Talk] 10:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i don't know much about this topic so i won't comment on deletion (although toadspike makes a good case in my opinion) but i've fixed the duplicate citations to help with verification ... sawyer * he/they * talk 20:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly and other sources in the article:

[58] (ref 1) Is entirely about the history of ironworking in Taiwan. The Philippines is mentioned only in the context of theories by another author that ironworking was imported to Taiwan from there; the author argues that such theories are too simple (and this 2000 paper too may be outdated in 2024). Jade is never mentioned.
[59] (ref 2), as an example of the news coverage, is an opinion piece in the Taiwan Times (unreliable), which ends on a political note. It mentions a Taiwanese "Changbin culture" and, separately, jade (nephrite) trade.
I can't access ref 4, Taiwan Jade in the Philippines: 3,000 Years of Trade and Long-distance Interaction, which should be available here (404) or here. Situation for ref 12, A Noninvasive Mineralogical Study of Nephrite Artifacts from the Philippines and Surroundings, is very similar.
[60] (ref 5) never mentions jade or nephrite. It is cited in a map caption, despite, afaict, not backing up anything the caption says.
[61] (ref 8) has a lot of info about jade, jade trading, Taiwan, and the Philippines, but doesn't mention any "Philippine jade culture"
[62] (ref 14) backs up the claims that Taiwanese jade ended up in the Philippines. No mention of a "Philippine jade culture" or "Maritime Jade Road".

That's the bulk of the reliable sources cited. Some of the others, like ref 10 ("Holocene population history in the Pacific region as a model for worldwide food producer dispersals") and ref 9 ("Philippine prehistory", 1975) look irrelevant enough from their titles that I won't bother following up.

As a side note, it looks like "Maritime Jade Road" is another term invented by Gibedapse and inserted into Maritime Silk Road#Precursor prehistoric maritime networks in this 2021 diff. A web search turns up no reliable sources. Google Scholar has several hits, but filtering for sources from before Gibedapse's insertion of this term into Wikipedia (see WP:CITOGENESIS, WP:CIRCULAR for what I'm worried about), there are no results. Filtering for 2022 [63], there are four results, all of which contain strong indications of citogenesis:

[64] is a review of a new book, "Jade: A Gemologist’s Guide". The reviewer tellingly notes that "The chapter contains a description by Jason K. Chao, in an insert, of the nephrite deposit in Taiwan. He mentions archaeological finds of Taiwanese nephrite in the Philippines and, looking further into this, I came across a mention of a Maritime Jade Road that dates back to 3000 bce. I would have liked to learn more about this ancient jade trading route, but it was not covered further in the following chapters." Unsurprising, given this term was likely invented on Wikipedia
[65] (accessible through the Wikipedia Library) mentions that "In the Asian realm, Persian populations operated a commercial trade across the Persian Gulf from the Sumerian period. Indian and Taiwanese sailors extended this trade in a network of navigation tracks known as the Maritime Jade Road." The entire chapter contains no inline references, and none of the twelve sources cited have anything to do with South East Asia or Austronesia. They all look like general reference works or works on other areas (England and New England), some of which are severely outdated.
[66] is simply the same chapter on a different website.
[67] is some sort of curriculum for a distance learning history course at Himachal Pradesh University. Not a reliable source, especially since the only use of "Maritime Jade Road" is in the context of a map cribbed from Wikipedia, alongside text suspiciously similar to Wikipedia's (page 70).

Folks, this "Maritime Jade Road" thing looks like an open-and-shut case of citogenesis to me. I'm going to go ahead and remove it from that article. Toadspike [Talk] 12:51, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Update: It looks like Gibedapse and the IP 103.152.9.5 added synthesized/OR mentions of this "maritime jade road" all over the encyclopedia in 2021, citing the exact same sources each time – I don't have the time to purge and rewrite this on several of our largest history pages right now. Hopefully I will get around to it soon, help would be appreciated. Toadspike [Talk] 13:04, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Toadspike's excellent analysis. I also want to point out that the entire idea that culture flowed from the Philippines to Taiwan is ahistorical nonsense. There are entire books (and articles here) about how the Austronesian languages and technology flowed from Taiwan, then to the Philippines, and ultimately Madagascar, Easter Island, and Hawaii (and possibly the Jōmon people, but that's not scholarly consensus). I've studied, visited, and edited about the Philippines here, and next month I'll go back there for another five weeks. Bearian (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom's findings --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Lingling-o or change the title. The current title can function well enough as a redirect. I have no idea why you're all seemingly pretending like Lingling-o isn't a thing. Or using this deletion of a poorly-titled article as a reason for removing all mentions of the ancient Austronesian jade trade in related topics, like in here. The issues you have with this article's title has nothing to do with the notability of the actual jade network, the details of which are discussed quite correctly in the article.

Aside from the politicized section discussing Chinese influence on UNESCO (which this deletion is probably also an example of), the only thing made up in the article is the title.

The Neolithic maritime trade of jade between Austronesian cultures in Southeast Asia is real, and is the subject of multiple scientific papers, as evident in the references used in this and related articles (Lingling-o, Kalanay Cave, Sa Huỳnh culture). It is distinct from and is much older than the "Maritime Silk Road", and it spanned Southeast Asia, from Taiwan to the Philippines to Borneo and Indochina, from around 2000 BC to 1000 AD. Jade artifacts are abundant in archaeological sites throughout SE Asia and Taiwan, with easily traceable provenance, as discussed in the sources used here.

Excerpt from Hung et al., 2007 (linked below):

The research has revealed the existence of one of the most extensive sea-based trade networks of a single geological material in the prehistoric world. Green nephrite from a source in eastern Taiwan was used to make two very specific forms of ear pendant that were distributed, between 500 B.C. and 500 A.D., through the Philippines, East Malaysia, southern Vietnam, and peninsular Thailand, forming a 3,000-km-diameter halo around the southern and eastern coastlines of the South China Sea. Other Taiwan nephrite artifacts, especially beads and bracelets, were distributed earlier during Neolithic times throughout Taiwan and from Taiwan into the Philippines.

The absence of the terms "Philippine jade culture" or "Maritime jade road" in the sources, doesn't in any way invalidate the notability of the topic. I have no idea why you're going over the sources one by one, but ignoring what they actually say. Instead dismissing them based on whether or not they contain the title verbatim. The title is not how notability is determined. It's the topic.

As I've already mentioned, we already have related articles on the same topic, what we don't have is a main article. Since lingling-o are only one of the types of jade artifacts being traded, it is not suitable as the main topic title (though it will do, temporarily). The editor who picked the title currently used, probably based it on the fact that this trade network did initially involve the Philippines and Taiwan as the manufacturing and sourcing sites, respectively. A sound enough reason.

If the term used as the title here can't be found in the sources, change the title. OR merge/redirect it to lingling-o. Completely deleting an existing notable topic based on a bad title is WP:BATHWATER. Removing all mentions of the topic in related articles is misrepresenting the scope of what this deletion nomination entails.

Here are just some examples of academic sources discussing the topic, refuting the WP:OR claim. The fact that jade was traded along maritime routes by Austronesians in the Neolithic is not a controversial, new, or a fringe topic. Its existence has been recognized since the 1940s by H. Otley Beyer, based on lingling-o (he coined the name for it). It is notable and should be discussed in an article here, so related topics can have something to link to.

Hung, Hsiao-Chun; Iizuka, Yoshiyuki; Bellwood, Peter; Nguyen, Kim Dung; Bellina, Bérénice; Silapanth, Praon; Dizon, Eusebio; Santiago, Rey; Datan, Ipoi; Manton, Jonathan H. (11 December 2007). "Ancient jades map 3,000 years of prehistoric exchange in Southeast Asia". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (50): 19745–19750. doi:10.1073/pnas.0707304104.
Nephrite and Mica Industries: A Link towards the Austronesian World (Hung & Iizuka, 2017)
Iizuka, Y., & Hung, H. (2005). "Archaeomineralogy of Taiwan Nephrite: Sourcing Study of Nephritic Artifacts from the Philippines." Journal of Austronesian Studies, 1(1), 35-81.
Taiwan jade in the context of Southeast Asian archaeology (Iizuka, 2006)
The Batanes Archaeological Project and the "Out of Taiwan" Hypothesis for Austronesian Dispersal (Bellwood & Dizon, 2005) --143.44.193.226 (talk) 06:10, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@143.44.193.226 Thank you for your comments. I agree that this broader topic probably has notable parts. My concern is that the article I have nominated for deletion contains many unreliable sources, significant POV-pushing, and some outright fabrications. Even if related topics are notable, at the very least this needs to be TNT deleted.

I have looked at (though not read through entirely) the sources you listed – they are similar to the ones in the article already, in that they discuss finds of Taiwanese jade in the Philippines, but never claim that there was a larger "Philippine jade culture" and never use the term "Maritime Jade Road"; this term appears several times in the article with false citations. This article is so bad, I am not sure there is a baby in the bathwater, especially not a baby that isn't already covered at Lingling-o.

Several sources discuss jade artifacts in Taiwan and in the Philippines. I suggest creating an article on Fengtian nephrite, a category of archaeological find which is notable, and perhaps also the Batanes site, which has a section at Lingling-o. Additionally, mentions can be added at Batanes#History and Prehistory of Taiwan. However, synthesizing a "Philippine jade culture" or "Maritime Jade Road" from the sources we have would, I believe, violate Wikipedia's policy against original research, even if it would give related topics can have something to link to.

I will do my best to create some of the content needed to fill these gaps, and also create an accurate description of the jade trade to replace the fabricated mentions of a "Maritime Jade Road" across a dozen or so articles. It may take some time, though. Toadspike [Talk] 08:53, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was surprised to see the AfD listing as ancient jade in the Philippines is a genuine archaeological topic. However, Toadspike's WP:TNT analysis is convincing. In addition, a plain reading of the article raises suspicions, and I don't think there's anything to save. The whole article has the feel of being infused with a strain of pseudohistory that is unfortunately common, which can be seen for example through the grandiose claims ("one of the most extensive sea-based trade networks of a single geological material in the prehistoric world", "1,500 years of near absolute peace"). The whole UNESCO section is very strange too, but it's easy to see how it fuses with the pseudohistory. CMD (talk) 10:01, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Randykitty (talk) 12:20, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Brookmount Gold

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

References are mostly primary or profiles. Not meeting WP:ORG or WP:GNG. - The9Man ^Talk 10:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Companies, Indonesia, Canada, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:NORG and poor sourcing. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:ORG, WP:ORGCRIT, and WP:RS.

Ariandi Lie ^{Let's talk} 21:42, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I had a look to see if there was anything missing in the way of reliable sources that might improve this and found nothing that wasn't very niche. Not sufficient for WP:ORG. Simonm223 (talk)
Delete Does not meet NORG; significant RS coverage not found. Rosentad (talk) 12:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Owen× ☎ 09:45, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clare Siobhan

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

Does not seem to meet WP:NBIO or WP:GNG, only mention in a to me seemingly reliable publication is a mention of three sentences. Red Bull source seems to be an interview, probably not intellectually independent. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Video games, Internet, and England. AlexandraAVX (talk) 09:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:SIGCOV: an interview, blogs, and her own YouTube video are not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dutch Figure Skating Championships. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1996 Dutch Figure Skating Championships

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

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Non-notable figure skating competition. Recommend deletion or redirect to Dutch Figure Skating Championships. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Skating, and Netherlands. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:28, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my problem with these stand-alone articles. All four disciplines are often not contested. There are often not enough competitors to award a bronze medal, and in some cases, even a silver medal. Many of these competitions featured no more than two or three participants. And most of the competitors who are listed are redlinked or unlinked (ie. themselves not notable). The competition results and scores are included (or should be included) on a skaters' individual article. The medal results are included on the parent article (in this case, Dutch Figure Skating Championships). But these nations with small national championships are just not worth trying to maintain individual articles for each competition. Bgsu98 (Talk) 14:29, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all. Such articles create huge fragmentation and repeat data that we need and already carry, with data that we do not need to carry as a general encyclopedia. The extra data is the domain of sport databases. Figure skating is not a big sport in the Netherlands. Speed skating is. Even there, where we could justify the annual spinoffs, we suffer from too much data and too little writeup. gidonb (talk) 04:12, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as it seems like most of these bundled nominations have been turned into Redirects.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Liz, you can redirect all of these articles. I included that as an option in the original nomination, and the end result is the same. Bgsu98 (Talk) 16:16, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:15, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Kambala Srinivas Rao

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

The article fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:BIO or even WP:NPOL due to a lack of reliable, independent sources providing significant coverage. The subject's activities, while notable within his community, lack documented national or regional impact, and the article has a promotional tone. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Politicians, and India. Comr Melody Idoghor (talk) 07:26, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability (of any flavour), just promotion. A7-speedied, and immediately recreated by likely COI editor. --DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources on the page with no notable coverage on the subject. Per nom fails WP:NPOL. The subject does not seem to warrant a biographical page because of no significant, interesting, or unusual enough coverage to deserve attention or to be recorded as Politician, and activist. RangersRus (talk) 09:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback. I would like to address the concerns:

1.Notability (WP:NPOL):

Kambala Srinivas Rao is the President of *Vishwa Hindu Dharma Parirakshana* and joined the BJP in December 2024, a move covered by reliable sources such as OneIndia, The Hans India*, and The New Indian Express. His contributions include cultural preservation and strengthening BJP's presence in East Godavari, which demonstrates political significance.

2. Reliable Sources:

["Vishwa Hindu Dharma Parirakshana president Kambala Srinivasa Rao joins BJP"](https://www.oneindia.com/india/vhdp-rama-sena-president-kambala-srinivasa-rao-joins-bjp-party-strengthens-itself-in-the-rajahmundr-4025853.html)

Rama Sena Leader Kambala Joins BJP"](https://www.thehansindia.com/andhra-pradesh/rama-sena-leader-kambala-joins-bjp-932535)

["Kambala Srinivas Rao’s initiatives highlighted in BJP strengthening"](https://www.newindianexpress.com/states/andhra-pradesh/2024/Dec/26/rahul-gandhi-used-to-undermine-india-on-foreign-soil-mp-daggubati-purandeswari)

3. Significance:

His community-focused efforts in temple infrastructure and cultural preservation add to his profile as a social activist.

Given the above, I believe the article meets Wikipedia’s notability criteria (WP:NPOL, WP:GNG). I am open to suggestions for improving the page help out to publish my article without any error Durgaprasadpetla (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please provide a response without AI? In addition, these sources that you've linked are equally poor. Thanks. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Andhra Pradesh-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Cutlass ^Ciera 18:27, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability, and when you call approving your own AFC submission "removing an unnecessary disambiguator", it doesn't indicate a healthy understanding of policy. Sumanuil. _{(talk to me)} 20:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a leader of a run of the mill advocacy organization. Lacking significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Derek_Brenzcewski

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Derek Brenzcewski

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

Reality TV star, one show only. Fails WP:BIO SallyRenee (talk) 06:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Food and drink, Television, and Illinois. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:44, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sign of WP:GNG besides two pieces from a local Patch newspaper. The show doesn’t even have a page here, and that too doesn’t seem notable enough. Delete. Jordano^5³ 13:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Every indication I'm seeing looking up the show is that this was a self-financed pilot the subject paid Spike to air hoping that they'd make more episodes, which they didn't. There also seem to be search results suggesting he was doing this all while working in a local school district and corresponded with the producers through his school account, but just looking at the show and subject, there's nothing here outside a vanity project somehow getting time on a major cable network for its failed pilot. Nate • (chatter) 17:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the only thing I find online about this person are Facebook and similar websites. He allegedly is a serial entrepreneur. Bearian (talk) 06:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I added two sources from Patch and one from Shaw Local, but I'm not sure if they will be helpful. Aona1212 (talk) 13:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep‎ per WP:SNOW. Nom did not provide a valid rationale. (non-admin closure) Waddles 🗩 🖉 17:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers of the Chera dynasty

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

Pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes {{Db-hoax}} JamesMdp (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JamesMdp (talk) 06:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep No elaboration on the nominator's rationale to justify deletion. Also, deletion is not clean up. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Royalty and nobility, Mythology, and Kerala. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 11:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: Rationale/reason by nominator doesn't make sense to delete it. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete‎. CSD G5. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Volleybrawl. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe|🤷) 19:36, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Social Democratic Municipalist Party

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

Only base on one source. The other sources I found here is this [[68]] mention trivially, same here [69] and the other sources I found on google book, google news yield nothing. Thus failing WP:GNG or any WP:SNG. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Politics and Brazil. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 05:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:09, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete only reference is the request for approval from the government being denied. Not notable enough. Marleeashton (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Fails GNG basic. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Janski_Beeeats

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Janski Beeeats

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

Does not meet notability requirements for WP:MUSICBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Further notes: 750 monthly listeners on spotify, 3014 followers on soundcloud, 6.8k followers on facebook, 1.8 subscribers on youtube, 1543 followers on instagram, 126 followers on X. Can't find record of artist in french music charts. One album on an indie label (Police Records) second album 'Holiday' appears to be self published via Distrokid. One song on a movie soundtrack (Missions, 2017). Award mentioned was won at a music fesitval - no mention of these awards on that festival's wikipedia page, so it doesn't seem to meet the 'major music award' requirement. Real name: Jean-Sébastien Vermalle (573 monthly listeners on spotify)- appears to have details on imbd but little other internet coverage. SallyRenee (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Artists, Bands and musicians, and France. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - one if tens of thousands of ordinary music producers and DJs. No significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 06:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:29, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Debayan Dasgupta

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

Scientist without a significant publication record or any awards. (There are others with the same name who are more notable.) The only possible claims would be based upon founding the company Theranautilus, but I am unclear whether that page itself passes notability. They have been around for too long for draftification, so AfD discussion is appropriate. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 08:44, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. I think its ok to delete it. Xortical (talk) 09:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and India. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. While the article creator is saying Deletion is okay, they actually didn't contribute to the current article so CSD G7 would not be valid.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: From my analysis, it fails WP:NACADEMIC due to insufficient SIGCOV. ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete‎. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion.

There are a variety of suggestions of things that COULD happen with this article content but no consensus for any of them. But, by closing this as a Soft Delete, should any editor want to revive this article content and repurpose the content, you can easily do so by making a request at WP:REFUND. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:58, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The North American Discworld Convention

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

WP:BEFORE only showed unreliable sources such as blogs and fan sites, or other passing mentions. This does not have reliable secondary sources to achieve WP:SIGCOV. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 00:05, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing in Gnews, nothing in RS that I can find. Sounds interesting, but no RS we can use. Oaktree b (talk) 01:19, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science fiction and fantasy, Events, and United States of America. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is there coverage of the Discworld fandom as a whole? If so, then we might be able to justify creating a section or subsection (like under reception?) in the main Discworld article that could briefly cover the fandom and the various conventions like this one. I admittedly am not seeing a huge ton of sources, but perhaps someone else could have better luck? (I'm also not delving super deep as far as searching goes). I did find this one about the UK convention and this one about general convention appearances though, though. And this one that's paywalled but mentions a Pratchett superfan. They're all by The Guardian so it's not a huge depth of coverage, but it's a start. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:23, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 03:34, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if User:ReaderofthePack had anything more to add to this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I wasn't really able to find a whole lot - there is some light mention of the conventions, so I think we could probably justify a few short lines. My recommendation is to retitle the critical reception section to just "reception" and include a sentence or two about the conventions. The conventions are a good example of fan reception, so inclusion there wouldn't be too out of the question. I just don't think that we need more than a sentence or so. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:41, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David S. Kidder

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

This article doesn't have enough coverage in multiple reliable sources. As a result, it fails to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and WP:AUTHOR TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reads as a resume and fails to establish notability and references are almost all self-published. Marleeashton (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Authors, Businesspeople, and New York. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: having written some books and started two non-notable companies is not a claim to notability. -- D'n'B-📞 -- 09:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: None of the sources provide significant coverage, failing GNG (NAUTHOR in case). ☮️Counter-Strike:Mention 269🕉️^{(🗨️ ● ✉️ ● 📔)} 12:46, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to List of Trotskyist internationals#Defunct. Choosing a Redirect as the article subject is mentioned at the target article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:40, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Revolution (group)

AfDs for this article:

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

Defunct minor Trotskyist group. No demonstration of meeting GNG within the article, with sourcing being from self-published sources (mostly their own) so violates WP:ABOUTSELF. Checks on scholar show no notable academic discussion of the group. No likelihood of improvement and no obvious redirect targets.

Delete. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Organizations, Politics, and United Kingdom. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to List of Trotskyist internationals#Defunct. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:12, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looked at this, problem with this redirect is that there's no reliable evidence they ever became an established "International", just that they had a handful of supporters outside of the UK. Rambling Rambler (talk) 15:47, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't you just described half of all Trotskyist internationals? :) FWIW, WP:NLIST does not require individual entries in a list to be notable, just the class itself. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Goldsztajn while that first comment is definitely something I agree with, with this one it's not the lack of notability but the complete lack of any evidence it was effectively organised beyond the UK. There doesn't appear to be any list of national sections elsewhere, so I don't think it meets the definition of even being an international. Rambling Rambler (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In French, I can find this, a translation from the Permanent Revolution group, on the site of their French sympathising group, indicating that 33 members from Great Britain, Ireland, Australia and Sweden were expelled from the LCI. At the end of the statement it indicates that the Australian section of the League (WPA) has joined them, along with members from Sweden and Ireland. Regards, Goldsztajn (talk) 01:51, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'd like to see if there is more support for a Merge or Redirection.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oleksandr Roshchynskyi

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

Several searches in both English and Ukrainian turned up nothing approaching WP:SIGCOV, including, of course, the sources included in the article itself. Anwegmann (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:FOOTYN). Most of the information available online are from sports statistics sites, like which has been referenced in the article from Soccerway ([70]). Plays for a club in the country's 3rd tier. Only 2 appearances and 95 minutes play time in the 2nd tier competition before the club was relegated. WP:RS and WP:IS not available for WP:V. QEnigma talk 08:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
NFOOTY doesn't exist anymore! ⋆｡˚꒰ঌ Clara A. Djalim ໒꒱˚｡⋆ 13:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Didn't find any coverage to be considered notable per WP:GNG. CNC (talk) 22:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - can't find anything other than squad listings and database sources. Sport Arena was the best that I could find. Ukrainian Wikipedia has no decent sources either. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:29, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:09, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites with country access banned

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

Unsourced unclear list. Was previously draftified, but its creator moved it back without any improvement. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Websites and Lists. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 04:02, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete there's a concept here of an interesting article but there are articles that have these broken down by website such as Censorship of Wikipedia or by country like Internet censorship in the United Kingdom. Marleeashton (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is not eligible for speedy, unless the creator was a sock. However, this article contains a notable topic. I'd rather see a usable redirect target or have it draftified before committing a !vote. Conyo14 (talk) 07:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have articles that contain very similar information (e.g. see Internet censorship, Internet censorship and surveillance by country, Internet censorship and surveillance in [insert various continent names]), and this list - assuming it were complete and sourced - seems like a particularly unhelpful way of actually organising and presenting that information. If it's notable, the way in which country X censors the internet is usually already well covered in the article "Internet censorship in X", and censorship of website Y is usually already well covered in the article "Censorship of Y". We also already have lists for specific countries/websites, like List of websites blocked in Singapore, and even those are a bit of a mess with missing and uncited entries. So having one big 'master list' for some arbitrary and theoretically infinite set of website/country combinations seems like it would both provide little additional value, and would be probably impossible to actually curate and maintain in practice. MCE89 (talk) 08:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unsourced, unclear inclusion criteria, unclear context and as mentioned by others above this has already covered already in different articles. Ajf773 (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the topic is already covered in other articles that are more likely to be the first port of call for readers. Furthermore, this article is completely unsourced and looks quite incomplete, and as MCE89 has sagely noted, would be a nightmare to keep even reasonably current. As an alternative to deletion, I'd support draftification if the creating editor wants to try and develop it in a novel direction that is not immediately apparent from this discussion, and which complements (rather than repeats) existing articles. Cheers, SunloungerFrog (talk) 14:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The information in this incomplete article is already covered on Wikipedia. Since draftify failed, I feel we have no choice but to delete it.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the content is already covered sufficiently elsewhere. Don't redirect, as the article title also seems unclear and seems like an unlikely search term. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A notable topic is better covered elsewhere and this one is wrongheaded and not notable as titled. I mean, there are a lot of American websites that ban access from Europe simply because they can't be bothered with addressing user information rights. An example: The Baltimore Sun [71] gives me "This content is not available in your region". So a country access ban list (as opposed to an out and out censorship list) would fail NLIST, require significant OR, and would be completely unmaintainable. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Clear consensus to keep the article at this time. There's a separate discussion on the talk page to change the name. Johndavies837 (talk) 09:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC) (non-admin closure)‎[reply]

Trump International Hotel Las Vegas Tesla Cybertruck explosion

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

Much WP:TOOSOON for an article, WP:LASTING coverage has not been demonstrated and all sources are run-of-the-mill. WP:NOTNEWS as well. E_F⁵ 03:23, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Unambiguously passes WP:GNG. While we can never know for sure if something will achieve WP:SUSTAINED coverage until it actually does, we can certainly try to make a judgment call about this. In this case, 92,000 google news results and the fact that it's being investigated as a terrorist act suggests to me that this is very likely to achieve WP:SUSTAINED coverage. –Novem Linguae (talk) 03:39, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Rename to "2025 Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion", the current title is far too clunky. AlienChex (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming the article is best discussed at Talk:Trump International Hotel Las Vegas Tesla Cybertruck explosion#Requested_move_2_January_2025 –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG. Seems likely to be a terrorist attack as well according to sources, which makes me lean towards keep even more. Procyon117 (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

" Seems likely to be" is never a valid reason. Kingturtle = (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since it is now being investigated as a terrorist attack, it seems like it is capable of sustained coverage. TheBritinator (talk) 03:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable current event, and would be even more notable if not for the New Orleans incident. Passes WP:GNG as others have said. 53 (talk) 03:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the main article for the Trump International Hotel in Las Vegas. CNC33 (. . .talk) 03:57, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Notable event that is very reliably sourced. Ahri Boy (talk) 04:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major story with global coverage. This is an ongoing investigation with possible terroristic intent. Deletion discussion is best closed and reopened if needed in two weeks to assess. Thriley (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, concur with Thriley, TheBritinator, et al. 42-BRT (talk) 04:55, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Procyon117, and AhriBoy. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we should not be writing articles on every single small event. There's no indication of sustained coverage (compared to the truck ramming in New Orleans, for example), and thus the GNG nor NEVENT is met. If you want to write about breaking news, please use Wikinews, and then if it becomes a story with enduring coverage, we can then create an article on WP for it. --Masem (t) 05:11, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per aboves DeadlyRampage26 (Chat) 05:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated above. ShovelandSpade (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated above. Autarch (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Merge back to the hotel / weak delete -- per WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS. Currently only appears to pass GNG because of the word Trump (but WP:NOTINHERITED). If it had been any other hotel in Vegas, this would have likely received local coverage only. If this turns out to be a random vehicle fire, then this is a giant nothingburger and would fail WP:LASTING. Only weak because there is a chance that it might be something larger but I don't think policies permit us to make that assumption, because it would open up a can of worms that WP:CRYSTAL was intended to avoid. Merging back into the hotel article is the best action for now. TiggerJay (talk) 05:35, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As previously mentioned! User 200628 (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Trump International Hotel Las Vegas Tesla Cybertruck explosion" is a mouthful. Las Vegas Cybertruck explosion is all we need. Kingturtle = (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the article is best discussed at Talk:Trump International Hotel Las Vegas Tesla Cybertruck explosion#Requested_move_2_January_2025 –Novem Linguae (talk) 08:41, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to global coverage per WP:GNG. Deletion is a clear case of WP:RAPID, not even a day has passed since the event, the initial news coverage is still ongoing and you're talking about lasting notability that can't really be proven until further details come out. Nightmares26 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even just now there is extensive coverage of event by most major news networks by current references. Expect more to come as further details come out - Imcdc Contact 06:22, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Transportation, and Nevada. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ItsNotRSnUN (talk) 06:52, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, due to WP:GNG, and like Kingturtle said, possibly rename it to something less of a mouthful such as "2024 Trump Tower Cybertruck explosion" EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 07:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant 2025 haha EatingCarBatteries _{(contributions, talk)} 07:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the deletion is WP:RAPID, wait until investigation concluded. Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 08:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event has received global media coverage. --TadejM ^{my talk} 08:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is extensive national and international coverage. Whether or whether not this article meet WP:GNG in the future, deleting now is WP:RAPID. In addition this event may or may not be linked to recent other developments. QEnigma talk 09:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Can we please stop these CONSTANT calls for deleting articles that should obviously be included, it's beyond tiresome. Wjfox2005 (talk) 09:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Dotzauer

AfDs for this article:

(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) 03:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:19, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't find SIGCOV for this one.Canary757 (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NSKATE) criteria. No medals won in senior events. No sources which meet WP:V guidelines. QEnigma talk 09:07, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Fails notability and significant coverage criterias. Also was deleted after an AFD previously then recreated shortly afterwards with seemingly no improvements. Is there a way to prevent this being repeated?
Shrug02 (talk) 10:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Subject doesn't appear to have the required WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 03:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:21, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Niko Ulanovsky

(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) 03:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Skating, and Germany. Bgsu98 (Talk) 03:14, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fail to meet WP:GNG (WP:NSKATE) criteria. No medals won in senior events. No sources which meet WP:V guidelines. QEnigma talk 09:00, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per QEnigma.Canary757 (talk) 12:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vladyslav Shkolnyi

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

Similar to several other players from this team, and created by the same user, nothing I can find, in English or Ukrainian, comes close to satisfying WP:SIGCOV standards. Anwegmann (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:17, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:13, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not a notable footballer per WP:GNG and no coverage found. CNC (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likewise I was unable to find any decent coverage in Ukrainian, including on Ukrainian Wikipedia Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:17, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:43, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artur Bybik

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

Similar to two other player articles recently nominated, nothing I can find on this player, in English or Ukrainian, comes close to WP:SIGCOV. In like manner, the references in article fall well short of that standard. Anwegmann (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:12, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Fails in WP:GNG. Svartner (talk) 21:42, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CNC (talk) 22:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another very poorly sourced BLP. My own searches yielded nothing better than Tribuna and football.ua, both of which are passing mentions of a second yellow card. Everything else just seems to be the usual social media and database coverage that every Joe Bloggs in football has. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:57, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vitaliy Mentey

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

Searching in Ukrainian is somewhat difficult, but after several searches in English and Ukrainian, I have found nothing on this player that approaches WP:SIGCOV. None of the references in the articles meet the standard, either. Curious to see what others find. As far as I can tell, this article reaches level of an AfD discussion. Anwegmann (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Anwegmann (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Ukraine. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:10, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. If sources are found which show significant coverage please ping me. Giant Snowman 19:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No evidence of notability per WP:GNG. CNC (talk) 22:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm surprised that this has lasted so long in mainspace, I suspect it's partly due to the WP:REFBOMB of database sources, which give an illusion of notability at first glance. I found Sport Arena, which is more than just a database entry, but it's not enough for GNG on its own. As I've said in previous Chernihiv AfDs, we're probably only just scratching the surface at the moment in terms of these non-notable Chernihiv BLPs. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:52, 4 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect‎ to Dakota State Trojans baseball. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:37, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flynn Field

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

Redirect to Dakota State Trojans. No evidence of notability for this NAIA-level baseball field. JTtheOG (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Baseball and South Dakota. JTtheOG (talk) 02:34, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dakota State Trojans as per above. No WP:SIGCOV to maintain as a separate article. QEnigma talk 08:50, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dakota State Trojans baseball per above. I feel the baseball article is a better target than the less specific Dakota State Trojans page that describes its entire athletic program, but either target is fine. Frank Anchor 17:15, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dakota State Trojans baseball: Subject appears to lack the needed WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. I think the baseball article is the best redirect target but either one is fine. Let'srun (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as we have recently been doing with many other small sports facilities and stadiums. Bearian (talk) 06:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dakota State Trojans baseball per above. That article is the best target but Dakota State Trojans also works. C. A. Struck (talk) 02:01, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge‎ to List of Dick Tracy characters#Enemies. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of Dick Tracy villains

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

This is a mostly unsourced spin off from List of Dick Tracy characters. Wikipedia implores us to not immediately split articles if the new article would meet neither the general notability criteria nor the specific notability criteria for their topic. Wikipedia also implores us not to create endless splits of similar articles without sources when those topics can be covered together in a single article. The target article is also missing sources but at least provides a valid redirect target. Jontesta (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 18:07, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:49, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city (talk) 01:29, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to List of Dick Tracy characters, but do not delete. The Dick Tracy franchise is known for the oddities of the villains created for it. See, e.g., CBR, "10 Ugliest Dick Tracy Villains". BD2412 T 01:56, 2 January 2025 (UTC) BD2412 T 01:54, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BD2412. Agree that there is mergeable content, and that this would be the most appropriate outcome, placing information in a better and more accessible context for the reader. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge selectively, per BD2412. There is a WP:SIGCOV problem that makes it hard to justify multiple character lists, but there is an existing character list where this can be cleaned up and re-organized. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Dick Tracy characters#Enemies - The target list already has an extremely (to the point of badly needing its own cleanup) comprehensive list of the villains in the franchise. I honestly don't see what could be merged over from here to improve the target, as it is already a massive list itself, with more details of the villains then this one. Rorshacma (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the enemies section of List of Dick Tracy characters in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE. --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:16, 8 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.